3,116 karma · joined January 25, 2022
Say you live in Long Beach and you're going to some venue on the other side of town. Are you going to take a bus the whole way? No, you'll drive close by, find parking... then do the last few miles somehow.
None of this is enforced.
For some reason I figured there were both. Makes sense I guess.
There is a rolling shutter penalty so you wouldn't want to use it in the "real world" for moving subjects but if you synchronise it properly (e.g. move one physical frame, take photo, move one physical frame) and ensure that there is no movement during the exposure then this shouldn't make a difference.
Even the worst culprits like a 61MP mirrorless (huge overkill for this task) with ~100ms readout could trivially keep up with 22 shots per minute.
It's more of a prioritisation thing e.g. some people will live in New York even though they hate it because they get paid well there.
Or they'll live in Arizona because family is there.
Take the metro as an example. Each additional user is another person in my personal space, they could be smelly, they might mean that I have to stand or scrunch me up in a narrow seat. They make it slower for me to exit the station when there are queues. They could give me airborne diseases like COVID or whatever.
Those are the negatives.
But without that scale the metro isn't viable, you can't have a train system that only one person uses, so the additional people are useful. They fund it, they campaign to have it put in, etc etc.
The same is true of the road network. Yes, cars being parked on my road affect my quality of life, but the fact that other people drive increases my quality of life because we collectively pay for the road network, petrol stations, R&D into new car designs, we agree that street parking is collectively useful even if that blue car across the road is in the way for me personally, etc.
There is a critical point for both systems at which there are just too many people. I would argue that most humans don't actually enjoy huge population density and are just forced into it by economic factors (e.g. all of the best jobs in the UK are in London).
I simply gave my 2c on your question.
> Would you be willing to keep your car if it meant having to pay for all its externalities and extra infrastructure costs?
Yes. I would. And honestly there really isn't much in it. In the US, basically everyone drives. In the UK, pretty much everyone who pays taxes drives.
At least in my situation, I think that if the costs were moved from general taxation to directly falling on car owners, I'd end up net positive!
Cars are everywhere. American choices to have huge multi lane streets everywhere and parking lots the size of cities are optional.
It's a false dichotomy. Across Europe we have cars, even in London, a public transport mecca with tiny roads, >50% of households have cars.
They are great. Properly super useful. I think that people who deny that utility are ideological zealots to be honest.
Outskirts of a smaller city, you are 0.5-1 mile from everything. A corner shop, a takeaway, anything.
Some Americans think that everywhere is like central London or Berlin or whatever. Most of it is like an American suburb but with poorer condition smaller houses.
About the only difference is that if you are poor and in a suburb you can probably take a slow bus that is infrequent. But no-one actually wants to do that if they can afford otherwise.
This is such a weird line of inquiry.
Yes! It is the largest single QoL improvement I have after my house.
Almost everyone who can afford it buys a car as soon as they can. Yes, even in the UK, even in Europe. It is such a huge boon.
If cars were made more expensive I would sooner work harder to keep the car than give it up.
I don't know what sort of answer you're expecting? Why would I possibly not want a car? The only reason I can think of is if it became so expensive that just paying a personal driver was cheaper.
I live in London, UK. I can use my car to get to places, it just costs more, through congestion charges, parking, and time.
The car hugely, hugely increases my exploration radius vs. walking and public transport.
There is also a value in things being bigger. I remember going to a random grungy arcade bar in LA that had fifty pinball machines. We don't have the space for that, at least, not unless it's an Experience(tm) with a corporate backer .
When you spend your childhood being told by people to do things that will lead to, well, almost certainly being poor and having a shit life, you learn to just ignore advice and do the opposite.
It is really hard to unlearn this in adulthood. I tend to get by by judging the person giving the advice e.g. if they seem successful then they are more likely to be correct than if they are not.
If paper were 100x more expensive today, e.g. it would cost £1 per A4 sheet rather than £0.01, but it was the only way to take notes, then I would still buy it and just moderate my use.
It's not like you need thousands and thousands of sheets of paper.
It just depends where you live and where the job is. The city is not homogeneous, nowhere over maybe a few km in radius is.
I live in London and I probably do split my time very roughly 1/3 ish across the three modes as stated.
But that's because I'm doing different things.
The tube is used to go into town, meet up with urban living friends, go to museums, visit specialist high end shops.
The car is used to go to larger stores like the supermarket, big shopping centres, DIY stores, to go out of town, go to the golf range, visit friends and family.
Walking gets me to the corner shop, to local friends, to the park, the last mile on public transport.
It's very walkable/cyclable, I just don't spend my life in a 1-5 mile radius.
I don't care if maintaining large roads and power and water is expensive. I'm happy to pay for the increased quality of life.
I don't see how this is unsustainable at all. It might need higher taxes or some other way of ensuring that ongoing maintenance actually gets paid for. So what?
> they're dead weight in companies and vampires on romantic partners
This is trivially avoidable in both cases. The Offspring have a song that comes to mind.
People like to have more stuff, bigger houses, better cars, air conditioning, whatever.
They use that free money to get you to do things for them.
It's hidden behind bureaucracy but it's the same thing. Worse, even, because you don't have a choice.
It's like the nonsense solutions the left propose for tackling crime. "If we give people X, they won't have to steal X". I mean, sure, because they have already gotten it from me for free...
If you don't get in the tractor and plough the field you don't get the wheat.
Economic value is no less real. If anything, it's much more real at the low end in fast food, the supermarket, labouring jobs etc than it is in Uber for dogs.
You know, those guys who always dodge their round at the pub, they never pay you back that fiver, they always need somewhere to crash?
Hell, have you ever dated someone like that, or known a friend that has? One person goes to work, cooks, maintains the home, the other just spends their time on highfalutin' ideas like their photography project?
UBI to me sounds like a way of hiding that behind bureaucracy. I don't want to support people who don't do anything useful and purely consume resources.
In both the US and UK over 30% of households are owned outright with no mortgage.
The economy is made up of us, it's not (predominantly) a downtrodden serving a tiny elite.
Most people work and do useful stuff for each other. Yes, there are bullshit jobs, but it's a huge exaggeration to pretend they all are.
In both the US and UK over 30% of households are owned outright with no mortgage.
The economy is made up of us, it's not (predominantly) a downtrodden serving a tiny elite.
There are real things that need to be done. As I mentioned - sweeping the street, pruning the shrubs, painting the fence. Care work. Childcare. Helping people navigate the metro. In my country there are huge shortages of police, military, and so on and so forth.
There are many many more examples.
The idea of giving someone money to do nothing is absurd in this context. Far better to just fund more paid work.
It'll always be a hard sell as a result. People want their neighbours to pull their weight. Even if it's just sweeping the street, painting their fence, whatever. Paying people to sit about watching TV is never going to work.
You can tell that it is a screen because of the HUD etc but it doesn't "feel" like one in practice.
I hear that the newer ones are better still.
If you go to a camera shop they should let you try it, that's how I went for mine.
The menu hierarchy isn't flat.
Physical knobs for everything, even customizable. Touch to focus (though I prefer using the ring tbh).
BT/WiFi transfer. A bit slow (2-3 sec for a 50mb raw photo) but fine for what I need. I use a USB-c SD reader for my phone and sync the entire card to an SD card in my smartphone.
Full size HDMI built in.
I don't think I would say that cameras are dead, it's just that it's a hobbyist thing now. Most of my friends would never buy a camera except a cheapy one like an Instax for fun, they're not dropping a grand on an f1.4 35mm.