They should be getting far more than 4.5 years for doing borderline slavery and illegally detaining/kidnapping.

The same problem could be fixed with electrified transit and walkability. Transit would also be even more environmentally friendly.

Plus we could still develop self driving cars but do a lot more testing before we set the public as the guinea pigs to see if they are safe.

Id also argue that we cannot claim this is the worst self driving will get since self driving cars are only used in a few areas right now.

There are greener, more energy effecient and more socially fair ways to get the same results than selling everybody a high tech steel box.

Driving while inebriated is illegal, self driving is not.

Traffics jams and erreactic behaviour could be fixed if everyone is in a self driving car, but at that point it woild be far more energy effecient, environmentally friendly and cheaper for society to build electrified transit instead.

If you prioritize the street so that only self driving cars are on it and they need wireless communications to function, how do other road users like cyclists and pedeatrians safely use the street?

Self driving cars are not here to make your life better, they are here to make a handful of people rich.

I don’t think public deaths is a valid cost for creating self driving cars. We could be builidng safer and more effecient transportation systems. Some billionaire is going to make even more money because they were allowed to use the general public and city streets as a testing ground for their product. This is not fair to the family or the people who are injured or killed by self driving cars.

How do you stop consumers from wasting food from the production side?

We gotta start somewhere. Remember that food security is a big part of the issue as well. We can’t just stop spraying the toxic stuff without an alternative because global food systems could collapse. I don’t like that we were using the toxic stuff in the first place but it has become a cornerstone of our food production.

I think much of north america is dug so deep into car centric planning that making drivers pay the full cost would be too expensive for a significant portion of the population and workforce. I think the alternatives need to exist before the taxation because many people are constrained to their car being their only reliable way to get to work.

Making that cost more could put huge financial stress on a family whereas building the rail before the taxation could provide a cheaper alternative before the taxation even begins.

Yes and i agree with that sentiment. 20 years down the line we will realize our cities are just as unwalkable and unable to be served by transit if we build them to exclussively serve the car. We should build cities so walking, cycling, transit and driving are all realistic options. For most north American cities we only prioiritize the car.

The only reason people in urban centers do not have transit is because governments neglected to build it. If they can build a 6 lane highway through your city, they could build transit.

We shouldnt use rural and spread out areas as an excuse to not build our cities and denser areas better and service them with transit.

The vast majority of people who are anti car are anti car centric urban environments. Noboby is expecting a small town of 300 people to build a tram, we are expecting places with congested highways to build transit instead of “adding one more lane to solve traffic forever”

We should defintely still make EVs, overall they are going to be better than ICE. We just shouldn’t force/subsidize everyone to have to buy and drive an EV like we did with ICE cars.

Here is my reasonable argument against EVs. EVs only really solve the emissions part of the equation. They dont solve the massive amounts of paved surface, private ownership of thousands of pounds of steel and plastic, they still use massive amounts of energy to move that steel and plastic and building cities for cars is largely ineffecient and expensive to maintain.

We could do a lot more for the environment than EVs. Id rather see their subsidies go to things like electrified transit, cycling infrastructure or walkability improvements.

Electric cars aren’t going to fix climate change

So does shortened attention spans not count as any type of brain development change or is that not actually happening/outside of this study?

The time has come for macrotransactions instead

I had a harder time getting good at and staying interested in ITB. I still really enjoy a playthrough every now and then.

With FTL I guess it just feels more replayable and “on edge” to me. There is just something special about ftl runs, be it overpowered, under powered. There are so many ships, weapons, systems, and crew combinations that no run really feels the same.

The same could be said about ITB and their different mech teams but I guess it just doesn’t have the same feel. ITB feels like I’m selling my services to big corporations with saving people as an after note. FTL feels like a suicide mission for the fate of the galaxy and I think that feeling is what really makes me come back to FTL.

FTL and to a lesser extent their second game Into The Breach.

RNG heavy strategy games with lots of micromanaging.

“They’ve only been tracking for decades, don’t believe their lies. They just want to tax and control you. Volcanoes exist so it is impossible for carbon to even be bad. Its just a warm year, jeez people really forget the weather can have ups and downs. I wouldn’t mind every winter being warm anyway”

-your local climate change denier

Part of the problem is that our atmosphere and oceans are shared across the planet. Stop fishing one spot? Another country will poach the fish. Stop buying oil/coal from one country and they just sell it to another.

I’m not trying to justify not doing anything. When it comes to our oceans and atmosphere we will need a global effort but localized efforts can still help and will teach us what is effective.