andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2018-01-03 01:00 pm

Interesting Links for 03-01-2018

movingfinger: (Default)

[personal profile] movingfinger 2018-01-03 04:11 pm (UTC)(link)
Everything really is better with blockchain!

Can't wait till we start seeing the boxes of artisanal blockchain chocolates, blockchain shower heads, and of course the blockchain self-driving car.
calimac: (Default)

[personal profile] calimac 2018-01-03 06:35 pm (UTC)(link)
The summary of the 1910 House of Lords controversy looks historically correct to me (except for the date typo).

One might add that creating extra peers to pass a bill was actually done in the time of Queen Anne. (In those days you didn't need a lot of them.)
momentsmusicaux: (Default)

[personal profile] momentsmusicaux 2018-01-04 11:00 am (UTC)(link)
> I'd rather that that money went to improving the city and making it cheaper and easier for more people to live there in the first place and not commute at all.

I'm not sure that's a viable way of pushing things.

People will switch to cars, and suffer the car commute even if it gets horribly congested.
coth: (Default)

[personal profile] coth 2018-01-04 11:11 am (UTC)(link)
Commuting costs are only one of the reasons why people move out of cities. Access to space, family management, and access to non-city occupations and pastimes when not at work are also major drivers. From the point of view of the individual household, probably policy should concentrate on equalising transport costs (time and money) between modes to let peoples' other choices reflect their wishes without having to bear disproportionate costs for their choice.

But organisations make choices too. And one of the major arguments for transport subsidy is to link organisations to wider pools of population. And if you want that, then doing it via public rather than private transport is sensible.
autopope: Me, myself, and I (Default)

[personal profile] autopope 2018-01-04 12:19 pm (UTC)(link)
The 1890's Norwegian student with the hidden camera? Recontextualize that today and you've got a nasty, voyeuristic creeper.

Yes, the surviving photos in this feature article are historic documents and nothing presented seems particularly dubious, other than the lack of consent implied in using a concealed camera. It still doesn't change the ethical murkiness of his actions, though.