cmcmck: (Default)

[personal profile] cmcmck 2024-01-21 12:29 pm (UTC)(link)
Sigh :o(

They can build one in the US but fail abysmally to build one here.

Levelling up, anyone?.........
rhythmaning: (Armed Forces)

[personal profile] rhythmaning 2024-01-21 01:21 pm (UTC)(link)
The post on the Hugo voting was really interesting (surprising since I read little science fiction, and no non-mainstream SFF). As is often the case, the lack of explanation and the apparent attempts to obscure make things worse rather than better!
greenwoodside: (Default)

[personal profile] greenwoodside 2024-01-21 04:11 pm (UTC)(link)
Re: Hugos. One of the blogs referred to in the linked article suggested that the very obvious data butchery could be a quiet protest from the compilers. I think that could be true, and hope they don't have to suffer for it.
movingfinger: (Default)

[personal profile] movingfinger 2024-01-21 05:57 pm (UTC)(link)
4. Oh, this isn't going to go well. Never contract transit construction to a firm from a primarily English-speaking country (paraphrase) is a byword for a reason. The US doesn't want this project to succeed.
drplokta: (Default)

[personal profile] drplokta 2024-01-22 10:22 am (UTC)(link)
The numbers in the article on high-speed rail don’t add up.

“Brightline West, which the government claims will serve more than 11 million passengers annually, will comprise a 218-mile line connecting Las Vegas and the outskirts of Los Angeles, where passengers can transfer onto suburban services.

“Travelling at 186 mph, the route has an estimated journey time of two hours and 10 minutes – less than half the time of the five hours it takes to travel between the two metropolises by car.”

218 miles at 186mph takes one hour and 10 minutes, not two hours and 10 minutes (ignoring acceleration/deceleration times and any intermediate stops, of which there will apparently be two, but any rational design will have bypass tracks so that they can run fast services non-stop between the endpoints as well as slower stopping services).
bens_dad: (Default)

[personal profile] bens_dad 2024-01-22 10:33 am (UTC)(link)
3 Housing. The article doesn't match your headline.

Whilst the article talks about homelessness I see no suggestion that we need to *build* more.
The issue seems to be affordability. Yes, increasing the supply of *suitable* homes should reduce the price, so that could help.

The new houses that I see being built are, often large, ticky-tacky boxes crammed together or an occasional one squeezed into a corner somewhere. Usually you need a car to get to/from them. They are not potential homes for a separated man working in a chip shop, nor is it likely that a chip shop would open nearby.

I think that my new criteria for judging a housing development will be how likely that a chip shop will open up within it.