How could one prove this is aperiodic? I'm guessing maybe you can prove that some or most of the triangles have globally unique rotations regardless of N?
In college we discovered everyone's ID number was evenly divisible by 13. Presumably it's because that's the smallest number you'd need so that you could detect any one digit being incorrect, or two adjacent digits being swapped (I think?). Or that it's just very easy to implement the increment when assigning new numbers.
I've definitely done it in places (in the US) where locally it was not legal. But it's not like the cops ever checked and caused us trouble about it, so it's easy to get away with it if there aren't other legal issues going on.
What if you were disenfranchised? This happened to me before, due to residency and main-in ballot rules. This may be a significant number of non-voters.
If your land can be treated as an asset, then we don't really have LVT yet. The goal of LVT is to tax land to the point where it is no longer an appreciating asset (and, not too much that it becomes a liability)
I don't think people living in cities want this, and so it's probably not going to happen. At least not in my city, which only has about two freeways, and people keep talking about tearing more of them down. I live half a mile away from one, and the noise pollution and tire dust pollution are both noticeable.
Maybe it's great from a suburban point of view still.
That would be a lot more land devoted to freeways, and the associated maintenance cost. But beside that, the bottle necks are mostly not the number of highways, but rather the number of exits near the urban center. I'm skeptical that the roads in the urban center can scale much beyond what we already see in the most car oriented commuter cities in any roughly 2d configuration.
Roads don't scale well regardless of whether the cars are self-driving. Once you get enough cars on the same highway, there's an inflection point where speeds drop quickly. This only gets worse as you increase the radius of viable commuting distance, since that increases the total number of commuters.
Right now the derive macro requires `T` be `Clone`, but what we actually want to require is only that each field is clone, including those that are generic over `T`. eg `Arc<T>` is `Clone` even though `T` isn't, so the correct restriction would be to require `Arc<T>: Clone` instead of the status quo which requires `T: Clone`
Safe rust is a safe language. Yes, it is built upon unsafe rust. But I still consider Python to be a memory safe language despite it being built on C. I can still trust that my Python code doesn't contain such memory errors. Safe Rust is the same in terms of guarantees. That's all that anyone is claiming.
Surely the reduction in vehicle count is more than enough to cancel this out, but a moving vehicle does emit more exhaust and tire dust per unit of time than does a vehicle idling. For the environmental improvements it's more about the reduction in the number of cars than about the better traffic flow.
I wonder whether pedestrian collisions will be slightly more deadly, since one effect is that traffic flows faster than before. Great for drivers but probably more dangerous for the jaywalking new yorker.
I'm personally most worried about increases in general income levels being soaked up by real estate holders. It's what we've seen happen in the SF bay area rents in response to tech fortunes. I don't see UBI actually increasing welfare much without a tax on land value to make landholding less profitable and redirecting the value of land into the UBI fund.
The supply and demand curves are not straight lines. There is not one unit price that consumers value a good at, that's why the marginal price that a consumer will pay depends on the quantity produced. The first most eager buyers would pay a higher price than the rest of the buyers you can find at higher quantities produced (but a lower price).
Tariffs eat into consumer surplus and producer surplus not just by raising prices, but also thereby reducing quantity. I think the only times you'd see no effect on consumer surplus via a tax are when the consumers are always going to pay a fixed amount regardless of quantity they can get (perhaps in some budget-constrained scenario), or if the amount of the thing that can be produced is fixed regardless of price; neither of these scenarios describes consumer goods.
Land that is far away from developed land will tend to have lower land values, so farmland would not be so highly taxed under LVT. It's mostly land that benefits from being close to development that would be taxed higher.
My friends in the geological sciences have told me there will be a big earthquake, but it will be capped at around magnitude 8.0; the faults here are not capable of a 9.0. Buildings in SF have been constructed or retrofit for modern earthquake safety by law.
Well, I desired and moved to SF exactly because it's the closest thing to a dense urban jungle that I could find in California. I even dream of moving to a denser part of the city one day, once I can reasonably afford it, but those parts are so in demand to be pricier.
I'm of the opinion that it depends on density. You could build a subway line in some US cities of 1M and nobody would ride it; you could build a subway line in a city of 50k and everyone would ride it. It depends on whether there is density to support walking directly to many things (businesses, residences, and other transit lines) or not.
Is this maybe short-sighted? Wages for one particular role go down when the labor pool is larger, for sure. But how many new companies could exist given cheaper skilled labor, working on new products? I feel like growing the economy like this would, in the long run, be better for all workers' standard of living. This is an observation I've heard about free trade in general, not just for labor, that free trade benefits everyone but nobody in particular, and so is doomed to be unpopular.
If my company has decided to replace me with someone cheaper, and they can't get an H1B, then they'll go for someone overseas, right? At least for tech jobs, it seems likely. With the H1Bs, income taxes are paid in the US, and the consumer base grows too. I'd hate to lose my job but why shouldn't I still prefer removing the H1B cap?