ICE vehicle fires take about 1000 gallons, and the average fire hydrant puts out about 500-1000 gallons per minute. Structural fire engines carry about 1000 gallons and the heavy duty nozzles and ground monitors/deck guns put out 500-1000gpm. This is a LOT of water for a vehicle.

More like 300-400 gallons for your average urban engine. That's enough (with not much to spare) to knock down your average ICE car fire, but it's really there to allow the crew to get to work while they ship a hydrant.

The heat from vehicles isn't distributed spatially across rooftops/walls/trees where the heat might be dispersed; instead the heat from vehicles is concentrated and radiated adjacent to sidewalks (impacting pedestrians) and asphalt (which is effective at storing and re-radiating heat). Nor is it dispersed evenly throughout the day; congestion during rush hour will cause a spike of heat during the hottest part of the day with greater numbers of pedestrians experiencing that heat. Idling vehicles are also running air conditioning, and all of those idling/air conditioned vehicles will be creating an ambient atmosphere where their AC systems will have to run harder to create the same level of cooling.

As you note solar heating likely dominates the overall heating of the city but I would fully expect that idling vehicles contributes meaningfully to the pedestrian and driver perceptions of heat.

Cars are used only 5% of the time, the rest of the day most of them sit around. They sit around in the sun, heat up and only disperse this heat during the night. Without those massive metal blocks in our streets, instead of large trees, the air could stay cooler during the day and night.

Indeed. And those pesky metal and concrete office buildings sit there empty half the time soaking up heat as well. Not to mention the apartment buildings.

In fact, let's just get rid of the whole city all together. That'll solve the problem.

In a lot of US cities, freeways/state highways are where a lot of commercial, retail, and entertainment destinations exist. The first homes usually aren't that far away either, and a lot of apartment complexes are built directly on state highways.

There's a difference between selling a multi-ton vehicle that has crumple zones and curved lines and selling a multi-ton vehicle that is designed to tenderize pedestrian rib cages. This comment also applies to today's pickups and SUVs; but while those vehicles are pretty nightmarish for the safety pedestrians and other drivers the CT is a further escalation of matters through both design and build quality.

Correct, the camera is built for an all sky survey. With the wide field of view it should be able to image the full night sky once every two or three days.

Yes, and to amplify, part of the utility is in its ability to observe transient phenomena. As we have been able to do more large-scale surveys, and scan the resulting images with transient detection software, we have observed a lot of surprises. LSST is designed to step that up by a lot.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-domain_astronomy

There's still a cap on growth. Apple is running into market saturation for phones and eventually will land in a situation where the only way it can sell more phones is by selling the same consumers newer/more expensive phones. To achieve this they either need to reduce quality so devices wear out or artificially prevent prolonged use; either scenario results increased production of e-waste.

Ecosystems have limits; you can't grow past the absolute maximums of supply and demand.

We only have so many minerals and so many humans which means that growth has hard caps. Even if we manage to colonize the solar system the same cap will still exist on humans and minerals. Eternal growth is demonstrably false and if we ignore these bounds then we encourage companies to grow through increased generation of negative externalities.

Then people will just stop buying iPhones, except for when their existing one breaks or wears out.

It's a problem the market is perfectly capable of sorting out, with some government intervention for cases like monopolistic practices.

> Ecosystems have limits; you can't grow past the absolute maximums of supply and demand.

This is a straw man. No one is suggesting that Apple should sell an iPhone to every person alive, and then a second for good measure.

You are essentially both holding up a straw man and arguing to absurdity.

My argument is that some growth is required and a precondition for existing in the future, not that infinite growth is required or possible.

I don't understand at all how some growth is a required precondition for continued existence. There is no rule saying that companies must grow or else they automatically vanish from existence.

I think it's pretty well explained above, costs grow, unexpected things can happen, things you use wear out, and the market you're in will change over time. If you don't grow at least a little inflation will drown you in rising costs. If you don't grow a little you'll be less resilient to costly shocks. If you don't grow and preferences change, you'll be stuck producing something no one wants anymore. Any of these things can kill a firm. Growth allows you to reinvest and adapt.

When it comes to the personal and intangibles, then grow all you want; read the books, develop the skills, and so on. But when it comes to consumption of resources and economic growth then cancer is the right word as unbounded growth fundamentally results in unbounded growth of waste products and overconsumption of inputs.

There is no system or ecology that can support infinite growth; as long as we're stuck in the "coasting is dying" mentality we'll see productive entities develop dysfunctions as they outgrow their ecosystems or kill themselves trying to expand. If coasting leads to gradual decline then over expansion leads to catastrophic failure.

That's not true. You can indeed create value out of thin air.

Emissions decreasing while economies grow: https://time.com/6632271/climate-emisisons-and-economic-grow...

IP is a type of property that can infinitely increase in value without consuming more resources.

Not to mention all this assumes that we are stuck on Earth, which isn't true.

That may require a tree-sitter implementation for erb templated html; it may exist but if so it's less of a mainstream thing.

Some quick googling turns up https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-embedded-template which may or may not meet your needs.

That's an easy statement to make but in practice it's no longer acceptable; the Internet has become far too hostile and code that's "never going to be connected to the Internet" constantly does.

not all devices are connected to the internet

and writing software in c++ does not imply the software is unsafe

Theft is the unauthorized taking of another's property; eminent domain is the power of a state to take private property for public use which means it's expressly authorized. Eminent domain is included as state power in the US Constitution, so considering eminent domain as theft means partially rejecting the authority of the Constitution.

I think that's well within the scope of this conversation, but if we're going to be worried about the conversion of a private golf course into housing then we should really talk about what happened with Native American land treaties.

tl;dr: if we're redefining theft then that opens a huge can of worms.