At this point the claim seems to be but I think that some people think it is all about energy, as if your random interpretation of other peoples’ belief is relevant.
They do weapons. They said they do weapons. What’s the problem.
They don't say that in their press releases. None of the popular media coverage talks about the weapons aspect, much less that it's primary. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
The general public is not stupid (but they are lazy), when the dust settles and people see that nif never resulted in anything but very tangential results useful for power, they're going to complain about the lack of transparency. Just as they are doing with the whole COVID masking debate. Scientists really dig their own graves sometimes.
Mostly I think the idea of induced demand should encourage us to increase the availability of transportation in “novel” ways as opposed to just adding more road. You can add more road forever and just get more traffic. If instead you add rail, say, you satisfy demand and avoid a concrete highway hellscape.
I 100% agree. Too often though it's used as an excuse to not update roadways in places where there are zero efforts being made to introduce new public transportation.
It's also worth noting that induced demand exists even for public transportation systems. A single rail line can solve the bandwidth problem for a longer time than a new lane on a highway, but if growth continues you'll still end up needing to add new trains and rail lines or add additional modes of mass transportation.
Induced demand is never a reason to leave the problem of bad infrastructure unaddressed, it's just something we have to take into account as we try to improve things.
There were suggestions (pre-Covid) that the Elizabeth line, which increased east-west capacity in London by some ridiculous figure (over 50% if I recall correctly) could be saturated by induced demand (or if you prefer the realisation of suppressed demand) within six months of opening.
Those also have the same induced demand effect people are talking about. It's just that they can absorb a lot more usage than roads.
Adding a passenger rail is in principle not very different from adding a 10-lane corridor. Including the problems of what those people do to enter or leave it, and the fact that it too can become overloaded.
That said, yes, of course the rail is a much better option.
Trying to understand what you are going for here. In my experience in 2 separate cities, lack of ground floor retail leads to barren neighborhoods of luxury condos that aren’t in walking distance of anything meaningful. And frequently, the ground floor retail that is put in is priced unreasonably so as to stay vacant. But you think that we should encourage everyone to overprice so as to increase the put option value? And you like the idea of vacant space?
they're building these ground floor retail everywhere here.
the only useful one is a grocer that sources labor from volunteers for discounts on food.
the rest appear empty or have bars /(also empty) or some other useless high expense niche purpose.
it's definitely a situation that zoning alone won't fix. I'm definitely in a food desert and the closest grocer is a coop that probably doesn't support low cost food options.
there's no capitalism or market based fixes here. you need to actually get your hands dirty if you want to improve quality of life
zoning and business laws prevent market based solutions, so we don't know that there aren't market fixes. The retail space prices are so absurd because there was only a limited part of the city where you can do retail. Go to 'third world countries' and there are plenty of groceries in neighborhoods as well as street vendors that are illegal in the US.
The only people we should expect to benefit are existing employees for ~1 year. After that it will be priced in. What an administrative and legislative waste.
One challenge (among many) is simply that many areas limit the number of unrelated people that can live in a house. When I owned a house in a college town in the Midwest many moons ago that number was 3, for instance.
(I have heard that this is sometimes aimed at limiting brothels, though that sounds a bit like an urban legend?)
I think the idea is simply that you can prove authenticity if you have the metadata. You can’t prove authenticity without metadata, nor can you prove “inauthenticity” without metadata.
There’s a guy at my work that sprinkles .. in every reply. It makes him come off as an asshole. (I’m not the only person in my company that thinks so btw).
Recommend you stop, unless you like coming off as an asshole..
That's quite bad kind of reasoning. Using something from time to time in a context is different than using something all the time, so it should give different reactions.
They do weapons. They said they do weapons. What’s the problem.