Aren't the diagonals also being built? Primarily, if I recall correctly, by reusing existing passenger rails corridors and connecting their services instead of terminating them at the main stations.
Fair point, though those are not the ones that people were talking about since the 90s—but then nobody could imagine you could wrangle the railway (a national service with a peculiar culture) into cooperating with the metro (a municipal one), that’s unironically an achievement of the current city administration.
That these are being “built” is once again a bit too strong a statement—the rail lines were already there and in use for cargo and the occasional suburban train. (The veeery slooow speeds at which the latter went between the big stations had relegated them to the sole use of urban arcanists and the occasional exhausted hiker disembarking from his long-distance train.) There’s some renewal of the aging rails, to be fair, and the stations are new.
Two problems with these:
First, the stations are too few and once again too far away from anything else. (Nobody’s fault—the rails are sometimes a century older than the metro and the outward creep of the city limits.)
Second, unlike on the ring, the trains on the chordal lines (I refuse to call them “diameters”) are operated according to the railway rules, meaning there are too few of them to be able to disregard the schedule, the schedule itself is at best a suggestion (and woe is you if you don’t keep track of train cancellations), and the stupid multi-hour midday “maintenance breaks” are still in place.
I’ve used these lines for weekly commutes, and if they fit your problem well, they can be very useful. But overall I’d say they are even more situational than the ring, and it’s frustrating compared to my utopian headcanon of how well they could work. Or hell, to the RER lines in Paris, even if those connections are no joke either—nevermind the Barcelona Rodalies, which are (or were, two decades ago) the platonic ideal of suburban/urban rail transport interconnection.
That's very interesting. I currently live in Barcelona, and most people would be very surprised to see Rodalies held up as any sort of platonic ideal of anything. Though it is true that it could be a great transit network, given the necessary investment in its maintenance and improvement. Perhaps in two or three more decades.
I think you are too harsh on the Russian railway - it did carry a lot of people on their daily commute from their satellite towns to Moscow. The schedule is also quite reliable. It wasn't used much for intra-Moscow travel due to the issues mentioned, that is correct.
> We have a forest in our backyard with a 2 story fully enclosed treehouse (including electricity), sports fields within a 5 minute walk, tons of hiking trails, etc.
Humans are social beings. We are motivated to do things through our peers doing things. What you describe is probably really nice for people who enjoy exercise and spending time in nature. But for social beings, what you are describing is absolute isolation from society.
I would posit that a big part of what glues the kids to the screen is that the screen is a window to the real world. When they look into the screen, they have an endless stream of other people, expressing opinions, doing things, existing in society. When they look outside, there's no society, there's no people. It's just trees.
The internet has become sort of a "third place", but since it has no precedent, none of us knew how to leverage it as such, so we have people glued to screens.
I have hope for the generation after gen Z though - my toddler knows exactly when I'm looking at my phone instead of giving her attention and in such instances proposes that I put it away.
It's very much like my generation annoyed at their parents who watch TV all day instead of interacting.
Agreed. I'd say the source of the problem is the lack of real third places. I like to call this "the abolition of society", but I'm a bit dramatic.
While the internet is certainly addictive, I'd assume that most people who, like me, waste their lives online, do so primarily because no real alternative is available.
My impression is that Node.js has to be dragged kicking and screaming into any modern JavaScript development practices, and each time, they try to support as little of it as possible as they can get away with.
They have only last year actually rolled out a release that uses ESM modules by default, when the bulk of the community has adopted TypeScript and moved on to using ESM imports (even if they are importing CJS modules under the hood)
They were really late to async/await, and even more so to promises. The chaotic situation where each dependency bundled its own promise library remained in Node.js years after browsers shipped built-in promises. And it still hasn't trickled down to their standard library, most of which is still callback-based and needs to be "promisified" manually. Even their support for fetch, which is eight years old at this point, is still marked as experimental.
Not all tourists are Americans. I would expect the average person scammed by these ATMs is an European citizen from a different country.
I agree the map kinda sucks, because most of the island of Mallorca is a tourist trap at this point. But you can see how the interior's population centers, like Inca, Sa Pobla and Manacor, have none.
For a better example, as one of the replies to the tweet suggests, check using Google Maps around Barcelona. You can see sixteen of them crowded around Sagrada Familia, for example, and barely any in the mostly-residential neighbourhoods further north.
Most Europeans citizens use euros so they won't get 'scammed' by euronet ARMs, as the only 'scam' there is currency conversion (and fees if you use an 'out of network bank', so I think if you are at Boa it should be fine)
Yah, well. That's also true for the ATMs in Germany, operated by the 'Sparkasse' (usually big red S) or 'Volksbank/Raiffeisenbank' (usually orange/blue signage) when you want to withdraw cash as customer of the 'Cashgroup' (Deutsche-/Post-/Commerz-/Hypo-Vereinsbank). Hm, k, just 4EUR and 80cents. But still...
There are still quite a few countries in Europe that don't use the euro, so conversion is an issue there. And most Euronet ATMs have a high surcharge even when drawing euros from a euro account (this may differ per country and location).
I agree, but that's a very generous description of what Mozilla is doing. I'd say they're less "developing a competitive browser" and more "keeping an uncompetitive browser on life support to continue to profit off it".
Some minor product manager in Cupertino, two quarters from now: "As we can see in this graph, thanks to the improvements to Feedback Assistant over the past couple years, we've reduced our products' bug rate to nearly zero percent!"
I see this sentiment expressed often, but I don't quite get it.
Is the implication that if you personally enjoy a high standard of living through capitalism, it is therefore hypocritical to advocate for everyone to enjoy a high standard of living through socialism? How come?
(I am asking this question in good faith. Note that at no point I am stating that socialism would or could actually achieve a high standard of living for everyone. I am neither interested in having that discussion or claiming that position. Please don't reply with a Wikipedia copy-paste about the great famine)
I appreciate and will honestly try express my point of view on this issue in good faith and without being too snarky.
> I am neither interested in having that discussion or claiming that position. Please don't reply with a Wikipedia copy-paste about the great famine
Actually I come from a Ukrainian family that was affected by Holodomor, so I don't need Wikipedia to reason about the subject but okay, let's drop it.
> Is the implication that if you personally enjoy a high standard of living through capitalism, it is therefore hypocritical to advocate for everyone to enjoy a high standard of living through socialism? How come?
I think champagne socialist brigade on HN is a wealthy people who already got theirs (house in SV that they bought long time ago and which appreciated to several million dollars price today, maxed Roth IRA for decade+ that they weren't even supposed to be eligible to but still got via shenanigans of their corporate employers, etc.), now they just pulling up the ladder and basically suggesting newcomers to consider paying their healthcare cost during their retirement or something (don't know why but those people always enamored with European-style single payer healthcare for no good reason). Now, try to suggest to those people to fund their leftist inclinations by heavily taxing actual wealth and inheritance and they quickly come up with all kinds of convoluted answers why that is a bad approach that would never work...
I appreciate your answer. It's hard to have these conversations online without it quickly devolving into a shouting match, hence my disclaimer.
Not that I have any intent to defend this abstract group of people, but I don't generally get the impression that wealthy people who advocate for a greater social security net do so without understanding that it would necessarily be funded by their taxes. If they do, though, it's certainly a nonsensical and unrealisable position.
That said, I don't get how this eleven-dimensional chess play to have the peasants pay for their healthcare costs during their retirement would be worth the effort. If that's their end goal, wouldn't it be much easier to advocate for less public services and less taxation on the rich, pocket the difference into their investment plans, and use _that_ to fund their private healthcare plans?
> Not that I have any intent to defend this abstract group of people, but I don't generally get the impression that wealthy people who advocate for a greater social security net do so without understanding that it would necessarily be funded by their taxes. If they do, though, it's certainly a nonsensical and unrealisable position.
Why would it be nonsensical? There is no wealth tax in US, their property taxes are capped by prop 13, their Roth withdrawal and re-balancing are tax free. Worst case scenario they will pay some long term capital gains tax, which is still somehow much lower than income tax. So what is left? VAT? Try suggesting increasing VAT and those people will lecture you for an hour how it would be "sO ReGreSsiVe!!1".
> That said, I don't get how this eleven-dimensional chess play to have the peasants pay for their healthcare costs during their retirement would be worth the effort.
I don't see how this is some eleven-dimensional plot. They leeched every single dollar they could while everything around them was slowly crumbling and turning into basically a big homeless camp, now they would like someone else to pay from the _income_ for tidying the place up while their _wealth_ is safely tucked away.
> If that's their end goal, wouldn't it be much easier to advocate for less public services and less taxation on the rich, pocket the difference into their investment plans, and use _that_ to fund their private healthcare plans?
Now that would indeed be a "nonsensical and unrealisable position" in California.
To be clear, I meant "nonsensical and unrealisable" in that there's no realistic, long-term sustainable way to greater public services without greater taxation. Nonsensical as public policy for them to advocate for. I didn't mean that it wouldn't make sense for their pockets to want that, all else equal.
Again, thank you for explaining your thoughts on it.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/percepto-to-create-fleet-of-ro... https://bostondynamics.com/products/spot/