Urist

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

The most optimistic explanation I have been able to arrive at is that they are less intimidating for fragile male egos. However, I concur wholeheartedly: Extremely creepy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Also, Americans are usually more prude, especially when it comes to the female body, than what is healthy (I understand that you would not want to make an attempt at social change starting in the workplace though).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Lots of nazis in the south for real.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Koselig, the Norwegian word for cozy that is also a reflexive verb.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Conversely, if you want less cheap comments like this one you should not.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

Should we make a club?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Well, no one is saying cars are worse for all purposes. If you want to take your family and dogs to a cabin in the mountains while also shopping for food along the way, it is probably going to be your best bet. Still, that is not what is pictured in the post. These are commuters that are probably moving from work to home (or vice versa), where cars really are the worst of most options. If the bus takes longer, it is probably an issue of allocation of funds for a shorter route and exclusive lanes for it.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago

Sure! Both speed and distance matters a lot for throughput. The advantage of pedestrian traffic is that designing for it reduces the distance people have to travel and that it combines very well in conjunction with public transport, unlike cars. Also, the speed of mixed traffic is inverse correlated to the number of vehicles, hence is a special case in this regard where throughput may decrease as the volume per lane increases. The overall point however is that a single train can substitute a staggering amount of private vehicles (and who doesn't love leaning back, listening to music and reading the news while commuting?).

[–] [email protected] 65 points 6 months ago (23 children)

Just going to leave this one here:

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

The question was specific with regards to a "private city", thus you can infer from context that the totality of "total" is limited to cities. This is also the reason I abstracted and specified it to mean population centres, because bringing guns to festivals is just as stupid and illegal most places.

I get the urge to be pedantic, but why be so after someone else has already pointed it out and I have answered them?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Sure, not total in the sense that gun ownership is illegal, but you if you take a fucking gun to a city you will have your license revoked and probably go to prison. That is unless the gun was kept locked down, dismantled and securely separate from the ammunition in your trunk.

The point is to remove guns from people and places where they can do the most harm, like in a population centre. They have no reason to be there, and most of the world recognizes this.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Love Washington crying over the beautiful sight!

view more: ‹ prev next ›