I would think having gaps in the barrier, say every five or ten meters would be sufficient?
I like your humble opinion :) that seems like quite a fair solution all around.
29 karma · joined March 24, 2016
I would think having gaps in the barrier, say every five or ten meters would be sufficient?
I like your humble opinion :) that seems like quite a fair solution all around.
It may be better to open things up elsewhere, as long as the reason that it is elsewhere is not because elsewhere had a weaker residents association.
I've seen the paradox you mentioned a few times, but I think it is like a lot of paradoxes, interesting but rare and not very relevant most of the time.
It may be a net negative for the people on that street, but overall, I'm not so sure.
What I don't know is if the cost of a small road per tonne-mile service life is any different from the cost of a large road per tonne-mile service life. If the cost difference is negligible then I don't see the problem.
Maybe it is that different parts of the government fund the small roads than the large roads, and the parts of the government that funds the small roads doesn't have the budget to do much road work?
Do heavy vehicles generally use these small streets, it seems like it wouldn't be worth it in a heavy vehicle with most small streets.
I don't know if it's cheaper per vehicle mile to drive on a large road or a small road, but I couldn't see it being very significant, but maybe it is?
Maybe it is also in your best interests if the street is modified to accommodate modern use cases.
Why is it okay to push even more of these costs on people around the main route, don't you think that people in all areas should take on their share of these costs.
Also struggling to see how a guardrail could be burdensome.
It could be that installing barriers at some of the more dangerous points is the most optimal solution?
Maybe a better solution would be to put in barriers.
Just because at some time in the past there was less traffic in your street doesn't mean it won't (or shouldn't) increase in the future.
It seems to me that these residents associations are trying to push the problem of higher overall road use on to others that don't have such strong residents associations.
I find this part disturbing if he sees the different programs as competing viewpoints and wishes to enforce a "deep integration" by limiting the possible viewpoints to a single one. I see a mind that is in constant contradiction and disagreement as the only way to prevent a person from becoming a zealot of any particular viewpoint.
I disagree that the caricature protagonist is necessary. I think a more nuanced hacktivist character could have made the show much more ambiguous, and in my opinion, interesting, maybe approaching some of the complexities inherent in the material.
I would not want to stop people being elitist, only for those who are to understand that their behaviour has a cost on at least some of those around them.
As for the expression of unpopular opinion, I feel that a society that is able to handle it's members freely expressing the most offensive viewpoints is infinitely more robust than one where these things are left to simmer just below the surface.
I would see UBI as beneficial if, in practice, it at least pushes the balance in this direction a little, even if it doesn't reduce income disparity.
Take your pick, or interpolate between them.
Personally, I think treating this issue in a black and white manner is a mistake. I think that each individual's judgement should be better respected, acknowledging the limits of central control.