Autoexec, don't you feel a little bit like Rhea Seehorn as "Carol" in her struggle with the hive-mind humanity of "Pluribus"? It looks as in this discussion there is a lot of anti-car hivemind at play...
Haven't seen it. The sad thing is that I share many of the concerns the anti-car crowd has, but their work is only going to be harder if they ignore the concerns that people have, can't reassure people that their proposed solutions won't hurt them, and/or don't ensure that their solutions are implemented equitably. They risk losing people who could be supporters.
I also wish they put less emphasis on punishing people for driving and put more effort into giving people alternatives that are genuinely better. When people are given an option to use something better than what they have, they tend to gravitate to it naturally and with gratitude. It's a lot easier than punishing people and trying to convince them that it's for their own good.
Autoexec, here, is simply right.
Congestion price could be redefined as the "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses and keep them f**ing out of the city center" price
Your concern is very clear and very appropriate. Hironically, I feel that those who seem to not understand what you're implying, even if they are open to prepping, in an Apocalypse wouldn't fare that well: as the basic requirement for survival, more than any prepping, is and will remain wisdom.
"But some people think they need their car because they think they need to move a lot of stuff regularly, for instance between their home and their parents, and their parents don't leave in a place easily reachable without a car. This stuff can include pets, like cats. I think some of these people could do things differently, but maybe some of these people might genuinely have these needs"
And, precisely, who the f..k are you to think you can JUDGE the needs of other people, and what other people "need" or what they just "think they need"?
That some people having a car could do without is a certitude but I can't know who.
You know, when writing this paragraph, I had a friend in mind for who I think it would be hard. Especially when this friend would prefer not to have one.
Also extremely rigid ideologies and a Pol-Pot-like approach to reality (as if in: "If someone does something that I don't like, he should not be allowed to do it") have huge externalities.
Look, isn't remotely assisted driving something unbelievably stupid?
Why should I rely, when I am on my "driverless" car, rely on someone else who is remote, need to be updated at all times about the situation (when things can go wrong in a matter of tenth of seconds, while driving), and needs to react, and it's not as much motivated as me (as I am risking my life, while he is sitting somewhere without having as much skin in the game as me)?
It makes a lot more sense, then, to have just an assisted driving car, or a semi-autonomous car where the "assistant" to the AI it's me and not someone else.
In my estimation, the 1/10th of a second thing isn't what the remote drivers are for. The car should just stop and avoid getting rear-ended, or dodge, or whatever. charitably, the remote drivers are aiding where a human would need assistance too, like "what hand signal is that cop making? do they mean go, or are they telling me to stop?" or "this light appears to be broken, is it safe to treat it as a 4 way stop?"
my subaru can avoid accidents, it can even avoid things that 100% would not be an accident, even on black ice; so i don't think this is what the remote drivers are doing.
It looks a little bit idiotic to me.
Imagine how much effort should your eyes take in order to keep focus on all these minute elements, windows, fonts, and so on, which happen to be also so near to your eyes.
I think that after 30 minutes looking at all this minute mess, your eyes will just shut down for overload and fatigue.
