This fun city nerd video is somewhat relevant: www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsbkvsyN-O8 Cities where the lowest percent of median income goes to median (housing + transportation). The winners were Seattle and San Francisco. This suggests that salaries may be able to compensate for increased housing costs. Of course, a longitudinal study would be necessary to answer this question.

I prefer Micromamba since it’s faster at solving environments.

Places without off-street parking mandates still usually have on-street and even off-street parking

The problem comes when people who insist on living away from civilization demand the perks of civilization by being able to drive to a city and park their cars for free.

This becomes very expensive, and degrades the quality of life of those who live in the City.

That puts you at an extreme, where there are not many like you. So I don’t care if you have a gas car. But you should not stand in the way for most people to live more ethicaly, without a car. Support dense cities so there are plenty of pristine caves for hermits to live in.

In America, it’s 5:1 urban to rural. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.html

And the threshold for rural is 500 people per square mile. So the 5 minutes to neighbor is at a rare extreme. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/acs/acsgeo-1.pdf

You can have nice land to work on in rural village. Being miles from your neighbor is not a sustainable way to live. And probably not healthy for a social animal like humans.

Transit between rural villages and the nearest city is possible and has been implemented in other countries

Very few people ought to be living that way. I think it’s fine for those people to use ICE cars. I also don’t care very much if the tractors use fossil fuels.

George W Bush won the popular vote in 2004

Electric cars are bad for the environment since they require mineral mining and polute the city with micoplastics from tire dust. They are almost as bad as ICE cars.

Ebikes are the way to go.

I’m generally against the idea of planting as many trees as possible.

Trees are not very good carbon sinks because they decompose and burn. Also, there are also some ecological communities where adding trees makes the land a worse carbon sink.

Avoiding cutting down forests to build suburbs is something I can certainly get behind though.

Do you think anyone ought to go to prison?

If a person has harmed others, and is likely to do more harm in the future, it’s appropriate to remove them from society. This is why prisons exist.

Drivers licence suspension typically is the consequence of crimes that are too minor to warrant prison. In this case, the perpetrator has the chance to make changes to their life to avoid prison. For example, they can accept slow public transit, bike to work, get a closer job, move to a place where it’s easier to live without a car.

Obviously, It will be challenging for the perpetrator to reorganize their life in a way that does not require them to risk harming others, and many will fail.

But your argument that society is required to accept being victimized by dangerous drivers because it would be inhumane to force them to use alternative forms of transportation (used by millions of people too poor to afford a car, even in the most car dependent cities) is absurd.

In Amsterdam the mode share for all trips is like 30% for biking and for walking and like 20% for driving and for transit

ls is actively maintained. The headline is referencing exa, which is unmaintained. eza is a fork of exa.

Polls have a margin of error and election results have generally been within the 80% confidence interval 80% of the time.

It is true that when there are less polls (like in special elections) it’s harder to get an understanding of the state of the race.

Polls have been remarkably accurate in the last few election cycles.

The “polls are wrong” talking point is a convenient way for politicians to ignore the will of the people. Trump has done this for a long time, and recently Biden has taken up this practice to pretend that the “Real Americans” think he is fit to be president for another 4 years.

So please don’t repeat this talking point, or at least read a bit into historical accuracy of polls before you declare them bullshit.

Biden is absolutely not leading. State polling has him behind in every swing state. Nate Silver’s model gives Biden a 30% chance of winning, slightly down from the debate.

They did this in California and Oregon, then the schools went to shit.

Also, property taxes are a good way to encourage density, which is necessary to fight climate change

hitting refresh in firefox reader mode works for me.