rainynight65

joined 4 months ago
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago

Good on this kid for going to such lengths to verify his hypothesis and show a serious weakness in railway infrastructure. I hope he goes on to become a serious railway enthusiast and advocate for safe, efficient rail.

However, there are way too many factors in the number of derailments and safety incidents in US rail operations to pin them down to this one issue. Once the major operators embarked on a journey to squeeze more and more money out of the business, a lot of things happened. Trains became longer - excessively so. Used to be that a train 1.4 miles long was considered massive. These days they are the norm. Can you imagine a train so long that, in hilly terrain, sections of it are being dragged uphill while other sections are pushing downhill?

Reductions in staff, motive power fleets and maintenance have led to trains being badly composed, with loads being distributed in a less than optimal way. An old railway man once told me that the only time he broke a train was when he, in a rush and under pressure, agreed to attach a rake of fully loaded freight cars to the end of a train of empties. Unequal load distribution played a role in a number major derailment incidents, among them a derailment in Hyndman, PA, which required the town to be evacuated for several days.

ProPublica have a series of articles regarding rail safety, and specifically one about the dangers of long trains. So while the worn out springs certainly don't help, they are only one of many things that are impacting rail safety, and probably not even the lowest hanging fruit.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Lucky Number Slevin

Man On Fire

Syriana

Equilibrium

And for some solid Australian cinema: Mystery Road

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

A decade ago 1TB SSDs were rare and, like all new things in tech, expensive.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I don't necessarily have a problem with it being an interest-free loan, if it serves to keep a business over water and saves jobs. To me that's an appropriate use of taxpayer funds. I'm all for taxpayer subsidies if they are balance-positive to the taxpayer, i.e. jobs are preserved and the subsidies result in meaningful economic activity.

What's bad is when otherwise profitable businesses use threats of job cuts and closures to obtain taxpayer bailouts so they can keep paying big bonuses and shareholder dividends. A lot of that happened through COVID, and the taxpayer threw billions at big business for very little in return. So maybe restrictions on layoffs and such would need to be written into a system like that. The punitive aspects need to incentivise the intended behaviour and strongly disincentivise the wrong behaviour.

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

Isn't that pretty much the short version of what I said?

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Big corporations begging taxpayer bailouts and then using them on bonuses and dividends. It's a humongous waste of money that does nothing but enrich the wealthy. Most of the time it doesn't even save jobs.

If, as a large corporate, you want a bailout from the taxpayer, then the government/state will take a portion of your shares in escrow, equivalent in value to the amount of money you're asking for or getting. Those shares (in case of publicly traded companies) are withdrawn from the stock market, become non-voting shares and are frozen at their price at that time. Within a to-be-determined time period (five years maybe) the corporation, if it gets profitable again, can buy back all or part of the shares from the government at that price per share - thus returning money to the taxpayer. Anything that's left after five years, the government can do with as it sees fit - sell them at market price (thus recovering the spent money), or keep them use them to vote/control the company.

There probably is a lot wrong with this proposal. But something needs to be done to discourage big business from hoovering up taxpayer money like it's going out of fashion. Most of the time the taxpayer is getting absolutely no value from that spend.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

SSDs were relatively new in 2010, and priced accordingly. Now it's just about increasing sizes and (hopefully) reliability. I just don't think that all of a sudden we'll have huge cheap SSDs - people are used to a certain price point and manufacturers will take advantage of that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I watched the first one and know a lot of people who did. I even know people who went to see the second one.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

No conspiracy detected here.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

It would be more compelling if some US states weren't also openly and unabashedly engaged in active voter suppression.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Both can be true. He can be an idiot who got paid to destroy Twitter.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 month ago (23 children)

The prices will stay the same. Manufacturers will just make more profit.

view more: next ›