Access to this page has been denied
www.sfchronicle.com
px-captcha

Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse::px-captcha

  • CethinEnglish
    2•1 year ago

    It doesn’t matter if it comes from petroleum, natural gas, sunlight, wind, whatever

    Yes it does. Of course it fucking does. If it didn’t you wouldn’t have asked how I charge my car and we’d all be using steam still.

    It’s so easy to make things sound dumb when you remove context. Energy is energy. If you spend more to do the same amount of work, that means it’s less efficient. If the measure of productivity is people moved, trains are more efficient. It doesn’t matter what form the energy is generated from, it can all be measured as energy.

    I’m done. You’re purposefully engaging in bad faith argument tactics.

    • @sugartitsEnglish
      1•1 year ago

      I’m done. You’re purposefully engaging in bad faith argument tactics.

      I’m doing nothing of the sort.

      You’re the one that tried to reframe the argument around energy usage when it was originally “public transport would be universally better if we just invested more”. An argument which is fundamentally flawed, which I have proved is fundamentally flawed and you have no response to.

      You simply cannot acknowledge that there are tangible benefits and advantages to private transport. You have not conceded or even acknowledged a single point which I made where cars clearly have an advantage.

      All of you’ve done is repeatedly ignore all the points I’ve made, shifted your argument from investment to energy use for some reason, pulled out one paragraph to which I was calling out your irrelevant argument shift, and then somehow cried about it and said you don’t want to play anymore because you simply have no response to facts presented.

      THAT is bad faith argument. I hope the irony of this isn’t lost on you.

      • CethinEnglish
        1•1 year ago

        You’re the one that tried to reframe the argument around energy usage when it was originally “public transport would be universally better if we just invested more”. An argument which is fundamentally flawed, which I have proved is fundamentally flawed and you have no response to.

        Reframe it? Efficiency was one of the first things I mentioned. Most modern trains are electric, just like your car. Their usually still diesel in the US because we haven’t invested anything in the infrastructure in decades.

        You simply cannot acknowledge that there are tangible benefits and advantages to private transport. You have not conceded or even acknowledged a single point which I made where cars clearly have an advantage.

        The benefit is point-to-point travel, but good public transport can do that too, especially with things like bike rental and stuff. Cars make it worse, if not impossible though because we have to spend at least as much space for every business on parking. Most places literally have minimum parking laws, where some estimate of maximum occupancy is used for requiring parking spaces. Get rid of cars and we can have places a lot closer so public transport stops will be closer to where you want to go.

        I guess there’s also the benefit of never interacting with anyone, though I’d personally say that’s a negative. I think a lack of interaction with people who live in the same area as you with similar problems to you has been a major detriment to the US. It’s part of why things are so polarized. People sit alone at home, alone traveling to work, mostly alone at work, and then back. Additionally, denser spaces and public transport allow for third places to succeed. They can’t exist in a suburb hell scape.