prev <-> next
[2023-01-26 21:15:33] - paul: yes, you're looking at two metrics: cost and time. usually though, you like to look at all sides of an issue, and not treat things in such a black-and-white way. ~a
[2023-01-26 21:14:18] - paul: "I understand you CAN pay tolls, but do you have to?" ah yes the new 66 lanes? no i didn't mean those. i see toll-only lanes inside the beltway and throughout the dulles toll roads. ~a
[2023-01-26 21:14:14] - a: I'm not viewing this as some generational war between metro and driving which is going to alter the climate and let me dance around on rainbows in a wonderful utopian car-less environment. I'm asking if I wanted to go into a specific spot in DC tomorrow and spend a few hours there, which is the cheaper and faster option. It honestly seems like a coin toss to me for either. -Paul
[2023-01-26 21:12:49] - meh, you can ignore that one because your kids aren't old enough to need a car yet. ~a
[2023-01-26 21:12:45] - a: "yes? there are huge tolls for the tollroad and for 66" I understand you CAN pay tolls, but do you have to? I don't recall ever having to pay tolls just to drive into DC. I mean, I can also toss $100 to the beggars harassing me on the metro and count that towards metro costs.
-Paul[2023-01-26 21:11:38] - a: "loss for investment income"..... what? What investment income? -Paul
[2023-01-26 21:10:38] - paul: "Are there tolls just for driving into DC". yes? there are huge tolls for the tollroad and for 66. these numbers will all go up considerably as the number of people who want to get into dc increase, and as the city's appetite for congestion pricing goes up. ~a
[2023-01-26 21:08:51] - takes=taxes, sorry. ~a
[2023-01-26 21:08:37] - paul: did you account for maintenance, or depreciation, or parking, or tolls, or takes, or loss for investment income? i haven't seen your numbers for this. ~a
[2023-01-26 21:08:21] - a: I didn't account for tolls. Are there tolls just for driving into DC? -Paul
[2023-01-26 21:07:45] - paul: that's how i get to 50/day. the government uses $.63/mile for gas and maintenance and depreciation only: that comes to $35/day plus parking (~15/day) and plus tolls (20/day?) ~a
[2023-01-26 21:07:41] - a: kWh are cheap in VA. I believe it's 12 cents per kWh. -Paul
[2023-01-26 21:06:46] - It should be noted that if I was driving the mini-van, it would almost certainly be because I was taking multiple people, so it could be $26 for the family versus $6 x 4 people + $5 parking = $29 for metro. -Paul
[2023-01-26 21:05:47] - paul: gas (i can't believe you can get $3/day for this, are you accounting for both directions?), parking (~$15/day), maintenance (~$10/day), and depreciation (~$10/day?), tolls (~$20/day?), ~a
[2023-01-26 21:05:33] - a: Driving would cost somewhere around 20 kWh for the EV (< $3) or maybe 2 gallons for an ICE vehicle (maybe $8?). Parking looks to be $10 for 4 hours or $18 for the whole day. So the range is < $13 for an EV drive and staying for a few hours or $26 if I drove the mini-van (inexplicably, btw) and stayed for more than 4 hours. -Paul
[2023-01-26 21:05:14] - no, sorry i missed that one. ~a
[2023-01-26 21:05:07] - a: Why not make it $1,000 a day for driving? -Paul
[2023-01-26 21:04:57] - a: Did you not look at my breakdown? It's $6 each way and $5 for parking? Where did you get $50 a day for driving? Your numbers just keep getting ridiculously bigger and bigger.
-Paul[2023-01-26 21:04:25] - "I just laid out the price" you did? what number did you get to? i think you mentioned the electricity costs would be less than $12/day, i think that's the only number i heard from you. ~a
[2023-01-26 21:04:10] - a: Mental health? I would never describe riding the metro as mentally healthy. Would much prefer the privacy of my car. Physcial health? How is sitting on the metro more physically healthy? -Paul
[2023-01-26 21:03:32] - a: "but not price. or environmental impact. or efficiency of space. or efficiency of transportation. or mental health. or physical health" I just laid out the price. It's pretty close, depending on the scenario. Environmental impact? Sure? Maybe? I don't know how "green" the metro is. Efficiency of transportation? I would NEVER describe the metro as efficient transportation.
-Paul[2023-01-26 21:03:29] - paul: "Costs more money" what? are you accounting for transfers? your metro card gives you a discount on this and sometimes when you transfer the bus is free. when it's not, it's like $1/day, not exactly getting close to the $50/day or whatever for the car. ~a
[2023-01-26 21:02:29] - paul: "it seems pretty close to me" we're talking about $6/day vs ~$50/day right? is that close? i'll admit if you're carpolling two people, it's MUCH closer, but i didn't realize this at first. ~a
[2023-01-26 21:01:57] - a: "how is it worse exactly?" (2) "i sometimes take the bus to the metro!" Costs more money. Takes longer. Is more inconvenient. (3) "or cabi to the metro" See the previous points. (4) "or veo to the metro, or bird, or walk" Not sure what veo is, not sure if bird is a serious suggestion for a method of transportation. According to Google maps, walking to my metro station would take an hour and a half. -Paul
[2023-01-26 20:59:48] - a: "how is it worse exactly?" (1) "i get a ride to the metro" This seems pretty obvious by your own anti-driving metric, and I already pointed it out. This just doubles the trips taken to the metro station (somebody has to drive you there and then drive back). You even explicitly said you have to beg for a ride, which "sucks". -Paul
[2023-01-26 20:59:45] - paul: "Can we at least agree that it's not clearly faster?" in this case, yes, i agree it's comparable in time. but not price. or environmental impact. or efficiency of space. or efficiency of transportation. or mental health. or physical health. ~a
[2023-01-26 20:58:48] - paul: "the numbers are kind of hard to argue against" which numbers exactly? the numbers in your specific situation? not even then. unless you're ok ignoring parking costs, or maintenance, or depreciation, or tollls, or taxes, or lost investment income. ~a
[2023-01-26 20:57:53] - paul: "Not sure how that's better" oh this just avoids the parking costs. and it takes up less space in the parking lots, so other people can park there. it's better for the environment because it's using less land-use near transit. ~a
[2023-01-26 20:57:37] - a: Does driving involve more wear and tear on the cars? Sure, I guess. So maybe driving is slightly more expensive when accounting for everything, but it seems pretty close to me and whatever few dollars saved might be made up for by the convenience of having a car in case I need to go somewhere else (pick up the kids from swim or something). -Paul
[2023-01-26 20:57:00] - "when I said worse, I meant worse" how is it worse exactly? i usually drive long distances regularly, and it's super depressing, it affects my mood, it makes me hate the world: i see pictures like this and i think, in the future it'll be like that but with more cars and more lanes. ~a
[2023-01-26 20:54:55] - a: Driving would cost somewhere around 20 kWh for the EV (< $3) or maybe 2 gallons for an ICE vehicle (maybe $8?). Parking looks to be $10 for 4 hours or $18 for the whole day. So the range is < $13 for an EV drive and staying for a few hours or $26 if I drove the mini-van (inexplicably, btw) and stayed for more than 4 hours. -Paul
[2023-01-26 20:50:55] - a: But even it terms of cost it's hard to see how it would clearly be cheaper. Let's assume no carpooling and it's just me. Metro parking is $5. A trip there is $6. Trip back is $6. Let's assume no cost for the drive to the metro station or no added depreciation or whatever. Total metro cost is $17 for a day. -Paul
[2023-01-26 20:48:04] - a: "i don't agree with this at all" It's your prerogative, but the numbers are kind of hard to argue against. Can we at least agree that it's not clearly faster? The wmata estimate doesn't even include waiting for a train or anticipating any kind of breakdowns which are all too common. -Paul
[2023-01-26 20:46:42] - a: "you mean better?" No, when I said worse, I meant worse. "is the driving distance *doubled* to and from brookland?" We're talking about getting to and from the metro here. I can either drive there and park, or somebody can drive there, drop me off, and then drive back. Not sure how that's better. -Paul
[2023-01-26 20:11:35] - the other nice thing about carpooling is that only one person has to drive. which is one of the biggest benefits to metro: i can dick around my whole way in. ~a
[2023-01-26 20:08:23] - paul: "it's rarely clearly faster or cheaper" i don't agree with this at all, but it does depend highly if your destination is near a metro stop or if your origin is near a metro stop. ~a
[2023-01-26 20:07:27] - paul: "And they're all worse than driving?" you mean better? "Then the driving distance is doubled!" strongman this for me: is the driving distance *doubled* to and from brookland? ~a
[2023-01-26 20:06:05] - paul: "$6 a person, and there's two of us". ah if there are multiple people carpooling, in your specific situation, i agree that carpooling is probably the way to go. ~a
[2023-01-26 20:05:13] - a: "yeah, so you have maaany options, there!" And they're all worse than driving? Yeah, I could have somebody give me a ride. Then the driving distance is doubled! Anything else adds a ton of time at least and potentially expense as well. The metro is just not super cost effective. Sometimes it can be more convenient by a hair (if you want to drink or not worry about parking), but it's rarely clearly faster or cheaper. -Paul
[2023-01-26 20:02:49] - a: "i was using your number for this" Sorry for the confusion. The $12 a day came from the metro costs ($6 a person, and there's two of us). I was saying the gas or electricity costs would be less than that. -Paul
[2023-01-26 17:25:47] - "we would still need to be driving to and from the metro station" yeah, so you have maaany options, there! sometimes if the weather is really bad i get a ride to the metro. so no parking, and hardly any maintenance or depreciation, but . . . obviously you need to beg borrow and steal a ride to the metro, which sucks. but also, i sometimes take the bus to the metro! or cabi to the metro, or veo to the metro, or bird, or walk. ~a
[2023-01-26 17:20:24] - paul: "recently sold" i think you know it's a really good time to sell a used car. i don't think that will always be the case especially as it gets harder and harder to *use* a car as populations increase. ~a
[2023-01-26 17:19:34] - paul: "almost $4k a year" only if you're driving that kind of distance 400 days per year, which you won't be. you'll be driving that kind of distance close to 200 days per year. also, $2k/year is probably not that far off. ~a
[2023-01-26 17:18:35] - paul: "$12/day" i was using your number for this. it seemed high to me too, but you wrote it. "is something we would be doing regardless" this seems illogical. maintenance is almost always per mile. you can't remove this from your calculation unless the amount stays the same in both situations. even then, i think it (often) changes the number of cars your family needs. i.e. one day your kids will need a car: maybe two or three. ~a
[2023-01-26 16:21:21] - a: And, again, we would still need to be driving to and from the metro station, so there's parking and maintenance and depreciation there too. Technically only about 20% as much for the latter two, though. -Paul
[2023-01-26 16:19:35] - a: $10 a day for car maintenance seems high, but is something we would be doing regardless. $10 of depreciation a day seems way off considering that's almost $4k a year. We recently sold our 10 year old Camry for maybe $10-15k less than we bought it and we've had offers for our 3 year old mini-van for like $3-5k less than we bought it I think. -Paul
[2023-01-26 16:17:38] - a: Your numbers seem WAY off. It's a ~30 mile drive, which would probably be around 10kWh for my EV, which works out to a little over $1 for "gas". Even if we took an ICE car, 30 miles would be a gallon of gas. Not sure a gallon of gas costs $12 anywhere outside of California.
-Paul[2023-01-26 15:51:05] - paul: the gas you already mentioned ($12/day), parking (~$15/day), maintenance (~$10/day), and depreciation (~$10/day?), tolls (~$20/day?), you already have the car so the lost investment income and taxes probably can't be counted. and all round numbers obviously, but come on, money-wise it's not even close. ~a
[2023-01-26 15:47:21] - a: So..... it looks like a genuine toss-up. -Paul
[2023-01-26 15:47:00] - a: Google maps claims 40 minutes to 70 minutes to drive, and I'm guessing the electricity costs would be < $12. Now, that doesn't count parking there for driving, but it also doesn't count parking at the metro station and time spent driving there either. -Paul
[2023-01-26 15:45:35] - a: I know you probably intend that as a gotcha, but I'm honestly not sure. In my experience metro and driving into DC, even when the latter is an absolutely horrible experience like for baseball games, is a bit of a toss-up. According to the WMATA website, it would take 70 minutes by metro and would be $6 per person to go from here to there. -Paul
[2023-01-26 15:37:46] - ha . . . during rush-hour do you think a car can get you from herndon to brookland quicker or cheaper than the metro? ~a
[2023-01-26 15:30:03] - a: "i'd probably be thinking about moving my family to be nearby?" That's because we're not car-less hippies like you (cue Farnsworth "we're not penniless hippies like you" voice). Jokes work best when you have to explain them. -Paul
[2023-01-26 15:28:43] - a: It's not an ideal location for us (not super close, in DC), but it seems like a pretty good location in general. You're right about the owner wanting out being a bit of a red flag, but if he is to be believed, he has a legitimate reason for wanting out. The flip side of not being able to be choosy is that we COULD be choosier by building out our own location, but that's more expensive and riskier. -Paul
[2023-01-26 15:25:06] - i don't think i'm against the idea of buying an existing business in a far-off land, but i'd probably be thinking about moving my family to be nearby? i'd also probably want the location to be ideal? ~a
[2023-01-26 15:17:09] - paul: "it is an existing location for sale . . . so it's not like we can be choosy" you're buying a business where someone wants to get out and it's "not an ideal location in a number of ways". i feel like there are 3+ red-flags: 1. you can't be choosy. 2. it's in a non-ideal location. 3. it seems like the existing business-owner is trying to get out, and they have an unspoken reason. let me guess, there is a time limit / fomo? ~a
[2023-01-26 15:05:25] - a: Yeah, it's not an ideal location in a number of ways, but it is an existing location for sale, which isn't super common, so it's not like we can be choosy. -Paul
[2023-01-26 03:48:35] - the original plan (late 70s early 80s) was for 66 inside the beltway to be 8 lanes (4 on each side). there was to be zero spending to get the orange WMATA line to vienna. (concequently, the silver line may never have happened). and the custis trail to get people on bikes and foot from rosslyn to falls church wasn't part of the plan either. thank goodness for the arlington coalition on transportation, jfc. ~a
[2023-01-26 03:45:42] - i often think about how it's surprising to me that 66 is 2 lanes on each side inside the beltway, and that the custis trail (it follows 66 if you don't know) was obviously a big job, and how in the 80s, we did such a great job building it. like it surprises me how great it is, and i guess i never thought about how someone had to fight for it to happen. people had to go out of their way to literally create lawsuits and protest to get it. ~a
[2023-01-25 19:49:48] - aaalso it seems relevant that you seem to hate dc? this doesn't seem like you? ~a
[2023-01-25 19:49:09] - paul: why not arlington? or closer to you in dc, at least? ~a
[2023-01-25 19:46:50] - paul: "two different points?" yes, two different points. "worse than any other" mmmm. no it's not the worst. but any overhang like an overpass will be worse than normal. ~a
[2023-01-25 19:45:35] - paul: sorry, i don't have that kind of insight. i haven't spent nearly enough time on the streets there, but if you were thinking of opening a business i'd spend a LOT of time walking around. i'd be super worried you'd get in deep with a place before you realized what kind neighborhood it was? if i were to open a storefront, i'd definitely want it to be in a walkable neighborhood. but also i'd probably want it to be close to my home. ~a
[2023-01-25 16:08:23] - a: "i'm a huge fan of the mbt that has been seeing large amounts of development. there are a lot of homeless people living under the bridges near those tracks." I'm a little confused. Are those related? Or two different points? I know it's going to be hard avoiding homeless people in DC, but do you think that area is any worse than any other? -Paul
[2023-01-25 16:07:37] - a: Why? Because I'm wondering if that would be a good area to have a store in terms of population growth, affluence, low crime, and heavy traffic (I suppose ideally foot traffic, since it's a city). Specifically looking West of the metro and South of the university. Not sure I super care about the number of huge roads or bike lanes... sorry. -Paul
[2023-01-25 05:48:38] - paul: the armed forces retirement home there let us do a bike race! but if it wasn't for the bike race, i don't think they'd normally let me in. ~a
[2023-01-25 05:46:01] - (the crime maps also say to live east of the metro) ~a
[2023-01-25 05:44:47] - west of the metro, near the university, has too many huge roads, in my opinion. but, you know me. at least they added a bike-lane down irving street (i've been on that bikelane a bunch of times, and it's ok, i guess). that lake/reservoir could have been really pretty, but for some reason they put a huge fence around it. yeah, if i had to pick, i'd pick east of the metro. ~a
[2023-01-25 04:58:43] - paul: why? brookland (to the east of the metro stop) has very low crime. on the other hand it's literally where allie hart, age 5, was killed by a driver (one of 40 people killed that year). i'm a huge fan of the mbt that has been seeing large amounts of development. there are a lot of homeless people living under the bridges near those tracks. ~a
[2023-01-25 01:52:19] - Anybody familiar with the area around the Brookland-CUA metro stop in DC? Near Catholic University? Wondering if it's an area on the upswing or downswing.... -Paul
[2023-01-25 00:04:41] - I think those days have past, though. -Paul
[2023-01-25 00:04:34] - I think the thing was they used to give you free first bets (didn't have to lose first) and so you could basically use it to take opposite sides of a bet (ie, bet on Team A with MGM and Team B with Caesar's). -Paul
[2023-01-25 00:03:31] - aDaniel: I read an article a few months ago about how these online casinos were in super land grab mode and were offering ridiculous promos that, if you were smart, you could play against each other to virtually guarantee you made money. -Paul
[2023-01-24 21:28:15] - ok, now i think the fbi is just trolling us ~a
[2023-01-24 18:56:09] - paul: I haven't read the details of that promo in particular but when I tried online poker waay back it had stuff like that a lot but the catch was always that you couldn't cash out the free money until you had made x amount of bets or added y amount of your own money or something. I assume somewhere there is a catch like that here. -Daniel
[2023-01-24 15:35:04] - biggest downside is, obviously, somebody could skip out after winning. you'd have to dissuade people on doing that somehow. maybe only include people who would be unlikely to do that? ~a
[2023-01-24 15:27:38] - paul: i think the best way to take advantage of the promo is to create a federation. that way you can have just one person read the fine-print (the fine print will likely be your downfall). the other benefits of a federation is you're more likely to increase your odds of turning out ahead and decrease your odds of getting pulled into other bets. ~a
[2023-01-24 05:36:40] - in other news that will make paul want to go to dc somehow even less: dc is both getting rid of right-on-red (effective 2025?) but also making the stop-sign-acts-as-a-yield-sign for bikes, ebikes, and scooters. ~a
[2023-01-23 22:50:04] - daniel: yeah, i hear you. most people consider biking to be a kid-only activity: you are definitely in the majority. one day i decided that cars eat away at my soul. but i hear that this doesn't happen to everybody. i think kids like it because its basically the only way they can have any sense of autonomy. ~a
[2023-01-23 20:27:27] - https://promo.va.betmgm.com/en/promo/sports/football-rf1000 Feels like there has to be a smart way to take advantage of this, but I'm struggling to think of anything that works out to a net gain. -Paul
[2023-01-23 19:01:32] - a: Not sure I totally understand it but I think biking has more appeal to me as an activity to do with my kids than by myself? Maybe if I lived in VA still I'd bike with you (though I'd be baby rider compared to you). Maybe just better as a social thing for me? -Daniel
[2023-01-23 18:56:07] - that is a fun anecdote. lmk if you start showing up on strava. also if you're looking for a super cool website try out http://cyclemap.us/
~a[2023-01-23 18:55:33] - a: Oo I mapped it and was off. 2 miles each way! -Daniel
[2023-01-23 18:51:48] - a: I took Alex bike riding last week and we rode about 1.25 miles each way on a greenway to playground that she played at for awhile. Just thought that would be a fun anecdote for you
-Daniel[2023-01-23 18:50:35] - a: pref for sc2 night? -Daniel
[2023-01-23 16:51:27] - yep. a lot of european cities are much smaller than NYC (and smaller than DC). on the other hand, there's much more population density *between* the cities in europe. all in all, it's very comparable though: germany density = maryland density (~200/km2). austria density = pennsylvania density (~100/km2). obviously the atlantic ocean isn't dense! i talk about that a bit in the comments of the reddit link. ~a
[2023-01-23 14:46:42] - a: Nice! "similarly sized/populated areas" Does this mean similarly population density'd as well? -Paul
[2023-01-22 17:50:26] - i posted a thing to reddit ~a
[2023-01-22 17:50:06] - oof yikes. i wonder, will we *finally* see an indictment of a sitting president?
~a[2023-01-22 02:49:18] - https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/21/politics/white-house-documents/index.html Seems like Biden has been pretty cavalier with classified docs. -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:37:39] - yeah i'm waking up pretty early tomorrow. good talking with you! ~a
[2023-01-21 04:36:11] - Oof. It's late. I got to get some sleep. Sorry. Happy to do a rematch in chess if you want! -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:34:50] - a: Hmmm. Maybe? It would've been interesting. I guess you could've eventually moved your king into a position to take my pawns? -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:33:55] - a: I made almost as bad of a blunder in another game lately. That's my biggest chess weakness right now. I'm solid like 95% of the time but 5% of the time I make REALLY bad mistakes. -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:33:33] - i probably have won after that. big oof. ~a
[2023-01-21 04:32:51] - a: Oh, haha! I just looked and immediately saw it. Wow. -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:32:04] - a: Sure, these are not two questions I would pair up in a quiz like this.
I'm just trying to come up with a question I think you might struggle interpreting "should" in the same way I am with your questions. -Paul[2023-01-21 04:31:58] - paul: fuck. me. i missed a huge error in our chess game and my cousin who is a little bit to into chess is literally stalking all of my games just messaged me. it was literally the last move you made, we BOTH missed what a terrible move it was. ~a
[2023-01-21 04:30:16] - a: I was just saying that 5a is effectively saying that people "have to" breathe fumes coming from sources outdoors. So using that same logic in 5b, people "have to" breathe smoke from people smoking outdoors. -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:29:37] - paul: usually car emissions and cigarette fumes are bad for my health *and* distasteful (not just one of those). ~a
[2023-01-21 04:28:31] - paul: well . . . usually what goes into my ears won't affect my (physical) health. assuming the volume is low? ~a
[2023-01-21 04:28:15] - a: And I think it is often necessary and good, but it's almost always somewhat of a jerk move that in some ways "shouldn't" be done. -paul
[2023-01-21 04:27:49] - paul: yeah you're right. but i totally tricked you by giving you a fake answer.
~a[2023-01-21 04:27:48] - a: Neutral is fine, and in some ways I don't even care about your answer as much as seeing if you can see my point about how it's not an easy question to flatly answer. Protesting should be allowed... -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:26:53] - paul: yeah, i'm sorry. i posted that a message before. i didn't exactly follow your point with "..." in the middle. ~a
[2023-01-21 04:26:32] - a: You forced? I answered immediately! You just didn't like my answer. -paul
[2023-01-21 04:25:59] - paul: well how about we make it exactly same "people shouldn't protest in highly populated areas where people have to listen to their slogans". i'd have to think about it some more, but i'd probably answer neutral to that. ~a
[2023-01-21 04:25:55] - a: "i don't think i follow your last point" Which one was the last point?
About the logic of pairing those questions up? -Paul[2023-01-21 04:24:34] - "Should people smoke at all? No. I would say they shouldn't, regardless of if they are near others" ok, well most friends i have who are smokers know where to smoke where i don't have to smell it. so even most smokers disagree with you on this. i'm pretty sure your'e in the minority here, but i did force an answer out of you
~a[2023-01-21 04:24:31] - a: Okay, here's a question for you which I think is along the same lines that I'm curious your answer: "Should people protest in highly populated areas where other people have to listen to their slogans?" -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:22:27] - paul: i don't think i follow your last point, sorry. i see "shouldn't" and "have to" in both questions. ~a
[2023-01-21 04:22:13] - a: Okay, but not all questions like that are cut and dry. Should you eat red meat? Not a lot if you want to be healthy, but I think it's fine in moderation. Should people smoke at all? No. I would say they shouldn't, regardless of if they are near others. -paul
[2023-01-21 04:20:22] - makes people "have to" breathe the car fumes, then wouldn't the same logic apply to smoking outdoors in the same highly populated area? -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:19:54] - a: Well, I think they are not super comparable, but the question makers presumably paired them up for a reason, which brings me back to how to interpret the question. If driving in a highly populated area... -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:19:08] - paul: like a sense of community and preferences. you shouldn't cheat on your spouse? you shouldn't cheat at poker? or on card games? or in . . . solitaire? you shouldn't ignore your own health? you of all people should know the difference between what the law should restrict, and what you can prefer. ~a
[2023-01-21 04:17:22] - "Like, where cars drive?" yes. isn't that the point of the questions though? people don't seem to care about driving where people don't *have to* choke down their exhaust. ~a
[2023-01-21 04:16:40] - a: If it's not talking about disallowing, then what is it saying? -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:16:09] - a: "you can smoke where nobody has to smell your smoke" Where? Outdoors? Like, where cars drive? -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:15:40] - a: "those densely packed hellscapes are actually much better for the environment" Maybe. But in my supposedly horrible car driving and parking lot suburban life, I don't recall ever being forced to suck down exhaust in a semi-enclosed space.
-Paul[2023-01-21 04:15:10] - paul: there are tons of places in nyc you can smoke where nobody has to smell your smoke. and the question isn't mentioning disallowing anything. i could imagine glossing over one of those distinctions, but both? ~a
[2023-01-21 04:13:44] - a: NYC is highly populated. Yes? I don't see how smoking outdoors where the smoke can float over to other people who "have to" breathe it is any different from exhaust from cars outdoors... -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:13:27] - paul: "densely packed, pavement and building hellscapes that are cities" it's counter-intuitive, but those densely packed hellscapes are actually much better for the environment. ~a
[2023-01-21 04:12:16] - It will never cease to amaze me how the people who are all for nature and against pollution and everything always seem to want to pack themselves into those densely packed, pavement and building hellscapes that are cities.
-Paul[2023-01-21 04:11:56] - paul: "nobody being allowed to smoke anywhere in NYC at all" i can't imagine an interpretation of those 16 words to mean that nobody would be allowed to smoke anywhere in nyc at all. those two sentences are so different for two reasons: 1. "have to" in theirs and 2. "allowed" in yours. ~a
[2023-01-21 04:11:03] - a: Yeah, I've been to bars/clubs before the smoking bans. Not sure I can relate to the semi-enclosed outdoor place where fumes are inescapable. What kind of scenario is that? And yes, I don't spend a lot of time in DC. -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:09:50] - Or saying people aren't allowed to smoke on an 18 hour flight from San Fran to Tokyo. -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:09:10] - I think I stand by my "disagree", but I will grant it hugely depends on the scenarios people are envisioning. Like I said: these are vaguely phrased. It could range from nobody being allowed to smoke anywhere in NYC at all... -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:08:47] - or like behind a bus on a bike? or near a cigar-shop?
~a[2023-01-21 04:07:55] - paul: have you been in a huge crowd of people where the smoke is like literally everywhere? have you been near a huge truck in a semi-enclosed outdoor place where the fumes are inescapable? maybe you just don't spend enough time in dc. ~a
[2023-01-21 04:06:10] - a: It depends on what they mean! Do I "have to" breathe in smoke from the campfire the people next to me make while camping? I guess so, but I also don't have to be there. -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:05:09] - there's no implication of laws or enforcement. just like, a preference, man. ~a
[2023-01-21 04:04:17] - paul: they never said "allowed"! ~a
[2023-01-21 04:03:51] - paul, you saw there was a "neutral" answer, right?! ~a
[2023-01-21 04:03:50] - a: I'm not missing it, but it's an incredibly vague phrase. I mean, should swearing be allowed in areas where kids "have to" listen to it? What would that even mean? -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:03:06] - so you still "disagree" on both? or not so much? ~a
[2023-01-21 04:02:42] - paul: they said "shouldn't" and they said "have to" in both questions. ~a
[2023-01-21 04:02:39] - a: Yeah, but I don't think my preference = whether people should or should not do things. Like, I don't think people should live in cities either because they suck, but I understand some people like it. -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:02:12] - paul: i underline it because i think you're missing those words. ~a
[2023-01-21 04:01:39] - paul: regarding the traffic fumes, that's also not what the question says, so i think you have them both wrong? "where other people have to breathe the fumes", that's not the same as people merely driving near your house except how it impacts traffic. ~a
[2023-01-21 04:01:31] - a: So, now that you underline "have to", I have to (see what I did there?) ask what you mean by that. Like in a jail situation where people literally have no choice? Or banning smoking in cities? Or like banning smoking from bars? -Paul
[2023-01-21 04:00:02] - it didn't say anything about the law. it merely just said "shouldn't". and you said "disagree". now, you seem to be backing down with "i prefer people not smoke around me". that is not a disagree. ~a
[2023-01-21 03:59:40] - Except how it impacts traffic. -Paul
[2023-01-21 03:59:22] - The best differentiation I can give is what I prefer. I prefer people not drive slow in the fast lane. I prefer people not smoke around me. I don't have a strong preference for people driving near my house... -Paul
[2023-01-21 03:58:33] - paul: "people shouldn't smoke in highly populated areas where people have to breathe the cigarette fumes" you disagree?! ~a
[2023-01-21 03:58:02] - a: I mean, I guess it depends on what "shouldn't" implies. Like, should it be illegal? Should it be allowed by frowned upon? Should people be allowed to drive slow in the fast lane? Kind of? But also, kind of not. -Paul
[2023-01-21 03:56:33] - a: 5? Isn't that what I answered before? Car exhaust vs tobacco? I think I would go "disagree" on both. -Paul
[2023-01-21 03:46:14] - paul: what are your answers for 5? ~a
[2023-01-21 03:44:13] - paul: "Your strongness on A will go up or down?" i'm glad you asked! i was thinking that myself. either up or down, i'm not sure, but it'll depend on how cities change for sure. if we stop building highways in cities, and create non-driving and congestion-priced areas, then i think people's taste for emissions will go down (strongness will go up). if none of those things happen, then even i'll admit that i'll give in eventually. ~a
[2023-01-21 03:41:06] - paul: it's complicated, i agree. what's being stolen and people's damage/loss is highly dependent on what it is. ~a
[2023-01-21 03:41:00] - a: Your strongness on A will go up or down? Because I feel like there is no where to go further up... For the record, I would probably answer "Disagree" to both. I've always been a bit leery on smoking bans. -Paul
[2023-01-21 03:39:25] - a: But if the stuff gets stolen and nobody knows who did it.... that's when people start blaming the person who was stupid enough to leave their stuff out, right? -Paul
[2023-01-21 03:39:00] - paul: for the record, i'd probably answer 5a: strongly agree. 5b: strongly agree. though honestly i'm pretty sure my "strongness" on 5a will change over time. ~a
[2023-01-21 03:38:46] - a: "where does victim blaming start?" It's complicated, right? Because people are always looking for somebody to blame. If we catch the thief, then I think most people would blame the thief... -Paul
[2023-01-21 03:36:50] - paul: well even though we don't agree on #5 (totally fine, btw), i'm glad you didn't dismiss them as entirely unrelated. do you know how you'd even answer for #5 (a and b)? ~a
[2023-01-21 03:36:48] - a: You want to be more (or less) worried about car exhaust than coughing on an airplane or dining without a mask or whatever? That's fine with me, even if we've measured that the harmful impacts don't match your preferences. -Paul
[2023-01-21 03:34:40] - a: Like, maybe walking by somebody outdoors who is smoking is virtually harmless in terms of medical effects, but that person hates the smell of smoke, so they would rank it higher than car exhaust. -Paul
[2023-01-21 03:32:55] - a: We kind of measure some of them, and I wasn't trying to hand-wave them away at all. I'm just saying it's a really expansive gray area that can be hard to know where things stand and virtually impossible to draw a consistent line for. -Paul
[2023-01-20 22:55:19] - mig: yah. i think that's what i meant by "sorta agree". like, i say "sorta" because does it depend on what she's wearing? or what part of town she was in? like i get that my example is 100% ridiculous, but i also have trouble finding out what victim blaming is ok, and what victim blaming is not. there's a line, i'm sure, i just don't know where it is. ~a
[2023-01-20 22:53:23] - a: #1 might be more comparable if it was leaving your car out on the street with the keys in and the engine running. - mig
[2023-01-20 21:33:32] - paul: so for #1 (theft), we sorta agree that belongings on the street are just too easy to steal. #2 (chef) is dumb because the results are too close. for #3 (employees), the issue is you think the answerer might assume it's all about drivers only? for #5 (cigarettes) you just don't like that air quality of cigarettes and car fumes aren't comparable? (i give a big oof to that). these are fair assessments? what about #4 (alcohol)? ~a
[2023-01-20 21:04:14] - paul: "The thief is 100% to blame for stealing it, and you're 100% an idiot for making it SUPER easy to steal" of course i agree with this, but like, when does it start to become victim blaming to even mention that you're an idiot for being a victim. like, for instance we'd all agree that: the rapist is 100% to blame for being a rapist, and you're 100% not an idiot for being super easy to be raped. where does victim blaming start? ~a
[2023-01-20 21:02:06] - paul: we can and do measure these things, i'm not sure you can hand-wave them away. many of these things are comparable, and hardly any of them are things we ignore except the car one. like *nobody* fucking smokes in an elevator, right? and you agree people do care about people with covid coughing on an airplane, right? the air quality inside the beltway is *much* worse than outside the beltway, so you've got that going for you. ~a
[2023-01-20 19:02:37] - a: Like, sure, a car driving in my neighborhood might increase my chances of getting asthma or lung cancer or whatever by 0.001% or something, but probably so does having a gas stove or no radon remediation system or flying on a flight with somebody who has COVID... -Paul
[2023-01-20 19:01:25] - a: Those kind of indirect harms are tough, though, because how do you balance things? Second hand smoke in a confined indoors space? Maybe fairly harmful? What if it's for like the length of an elevator ride? What about coughing in that elevator? Without a mask? Not covering your mouth? They're all slightly different in lots of ways. -Paul
[2023-01-20 18:46:39] - paul: yeah, sorry, i forgot about that. clearly i was lulling you into a false sense of security.
~a[2023-01-20 18:45:24] - a: Both things can be true: The thief is 100% to blame for stealing it, and you're 100% an idiot for making it SUPER easy to steal. -Paul
[2023-01-20 18:44:48] - a: I agree victim blaming is lame, but I think we sometimes use that as a cover-up to ignore that sometimes victims do stuff which really amps up the danger they put themselves in. Like, sure, it's always the thief's fault for stealing something, but I think it's still acceptable to say that leaving your laptop on a park bench for the whole day is a little more irresponsible than keeping it locked in your house. -Paul
[2023-01-20 18:43:10] - a: "do you agree this applies to pedestrians?" Uhhh..... sure? Honestly, I don't know how much I personally believe that justification, it was more an attempt to explain why others might have different results. But yeah, it seems to more clearly have two distinct sides than driving itself does. You can easily kill yourself by driving badly. Harder to kill yourself by walking badly. It often requires something extra (like a driver). -Paul
[2023-01-20 18:40:47] - a: Oh, so what did you mean by: "all of these are very "apples and oranges", of course. like, duh, the rules on exhaust and cigarettes should be different. again duh"? I mean, yeah, there superficially have some things in common but also have some pretty major differences. -Paul
[2023-01-20 15:21:18] - mig: yes, i agree. ~a
[2023-01-20 15:20:43] - paul: "with driving, you are in many ways primarily responsible for if you live or die" do you agree this applies to pedestrians? with drivers and *employers* feel similar to me: it's the job of the driver or the employer to keep other people from dying. pedestrians and employees are similar: you gotta watch out for yourself! but in reality it's mostly the employer/drivers that are wielding the death-hammer. ~a
[2023-01-20 15:10:41] - paul: here's the link because it's about to go off the bottom
i'm not sure i agree the circumstances proposed in #5 are pretty different. they're both about doing something that you like / is convenient for you and that has a very negative effect on the people around you (in a city at least). ~a[2023-01-20 15:02:17] - daniel: the more i think about it the more i disagree. victim blaming is lame, and i'm not sure when it stops being "what's wrong with you" and starts become dumb victim blaming. "how much effort the baddie had to put in to do something" is a terrible metric if you were talking about rape or something. ~a
[2023-01-20 14:13:03] - #3 would also vary depending on what type of job you have. Construction can be pretty dangerous. Police officers and firefighters also are dangerous. - mig
[2023-01-20 14:07:12] - a: I wonder if it is because with driving, you are in many ways primarily responsible for if you live or die whereas with work, people might think their employer is responsible. -Paul
[2023-01-20 14:06:20] - a: Yeah, sorry, I was going to go through them all but got sidetracked with the discussion around #1. Agreed that results in #2 are pretty similar, and I agree that the circumstance proposed in #5 are pretty different. 3 is the interesting one, though, and I would be interested in digging in to these people polled as to why. -Paul
[2023-01-18 15:54:48] - yeah i agree. ~a
[2023-01-18 15:46:40] - -Daniel
[2023-01-18 15:46:38] - I think broadly people base feelings / interpret a situation based on how much effort the baddie had to put in to do something. In the case of laptop on sidewalk its super easy for a baddie to just grab it or for a regular person to be tempted so then it slides towards victim's fault (ie they should have done more to protect their stuff) vs a car where it takes skill / prep / effort to steal so then it slides towards being the perp's fault.
[2023-01-18 03:52:26] - paul: i think for #2 we can agree the results are pretty similar, so: meh. #3 though, jfc. everybody realizes that driving is one of the most dangerous things we do and we all collectively don't think there's any way out. or maybe that there doesn't need to be a way out. ~a
[2023-01-18 02:47:11] - a: Yup! Frustrating to always be right when everybody else is wrong.
-Paul[2023-01-18 02:36:46] - paul: do you know the feeling? ~a
[2023-01-18 02:36:25] - a: Sure, I know that, but... I think it's safe to say you're the minority in this area (and most areas?) -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:35:02] - paul: "once I try to moonwalk on 95 the police suddenly tell me I can't do that" yeah, i long for a part of the world where highways are less common. expensive, well maintained, and rare. ~a
[2023-01-18 02:34:05] - a: Or, why bikes can ride in bike lanes but once I try driving in one Adrian yells at me.
-Paul[2023-01-18 02:33:19] - paul: or alternatively we should consider cars left on the street to be litter. ~a
[2023-01-18 02:33:15] - a: I don't even understand how it's comparable. It's like asking why cars can drive on the highway but once I try to moonwalk on 95 the police suddenly tell me I can't do that. -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:32:44] - paul: yes, but it shouldn't be. or "it's both". ~a
[2023-01-18 02:32:02] - a: Because it's very out of the normal to just leave belongings in the street? It's probably even illegal? Like, why wouldn't it be considered litter? -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:30:37] - paul: then why are the answers so different? maybe if they had worded #1 slightly differently so it was less apples-and-oranges by suggesting it was something locked down? ~a
[2023-01-18 02:30:05] - paul: and vice versa they will support me. ~a
[2023-01-18 02:30:01] - a: I think we generally consider all theft bad? And cars are among the harder things to steal? -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:29:53] - paul: i'm also expected to support them. otoh, it's usually much more indirectly. ~a
[2023-01-18 02:29:23] - a: And later on not having to support them or maybe even have them support me. -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:29:01] - paul: i hear you. i agree it's legally parked cars that are generally hard to move vs belongs unsecured and easy to move. i can see the difference, but we definitely treat cars as some special case where stealing it is bad even though some it kinda is pretty easy to take. ~a
[2023-01-18 02:28:59] - a: You maybe eventually get some marginal benefit from my kids being educated if they create some innovative new business or grow the economy. I get a direct and massive benefit from not having to educate them myself or pay for private school. -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:27:14] - a: Pretty sure people answering that question were assuming cars parked legally in a street. Not just a car randomly parked in the middle of 495 or something. -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:26:47] - paul: "Uh.... no?" how so? ~a
[2023-01-18 02:26:30] - paul: "Why are car owners subsidizing public transit?" it makes their cars MUCH more useful when people take public transportation. "Non-sports lovers subsidizing sports stadiums" tell me about it. ~a
[2023-01-18 02:26:17] - a: "i'm just as benefited by having your kids educated as you are" Uh.... no? -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:25:50] - (for the record I'm against a lot of that) -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:25:33] - paul: "Why are people without kids paying for public education?" whoa, that is completely different. i'm just as benefited by having your kids educated as you are. ~a
[2023-01-18 02:25:13] - Why are car owners subsidizing public transit? Non-sports lovers subsidizing sports stadiums? -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:24:45] - paul: not every public space is for parking cars? it's less common in the suburbs, but in cities and populated areas there are huge sections of the city that aren't for parking cars. ~a
[2023-01-18 02:24:25] - We unfairly subsidize things all the time. Why are people without kids paying for public education? -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:23:28] - What public space are we talking about if not a parking spot for a car on the side of a street? -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:23:01] - a: An unlocked car still can't be stolen easily. An unlocked bike can. -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:23:00] - paul: what's more the idea of having public parking is already a bit of a bias / subsidy that really doesn't make sense the more you think about it. why are people not parking a car subsidizing this unreasonably large space? ~a
[2023-01-18 02:22:25] - a: I don't see how we treat cars as any more special thank bikes. Even if people are more likely to ask if the bike was locked, that because a car still needs the key to start it. -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:21:29] - paul: i specifically said "public property" not a parking spot. ~a
[2023-01-18 02:20:45] - a: "if i were to put a storage container on public property, people would immediately be angry about that." Yeah....? Because it's a parking spot for a car. Like, you lose your shit when cars park in bike lanes, right? -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:20:11] - paul: "would you also argue any bikes left on a sidewalk should be free to steal" i think if you had your bike stolen the first question people would ask is if it was locked. we treat cars as a special case and it's bullshit. ~a
[2023-01-18 02:19:36] - a: After all, if I left my laptop on a sidewalk I should expect it to be stolen, right? -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:19:09] - "presumably locked and needing a key to start" so is that the line? if it's locked? and needing a key to move it? because i can think of lots of other things i could lock up on the street and people would immediately lose their shit. try parking a motorcycle in a car parking spot as an example. or less on the nose: if i were to put a storage container on public property, people would immediately be angry about that. ~a
[2023-01-18 02:19:03] - a: I mean, would you also argue any bikes left on a sidewalk should be free to steal? -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:18:40] - paul: it's both. ~a
[2023-01-18 02:18:29] - a: Is the poll about how things are or how things should be? Either way... I think it's up to the local norms. In the suburbs where people largely have garages? Sure, outlaw street parking if that's what people want... -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:15:58] - a: I don't know of any areas where it is culturally acceptable or legal to leave your belongings in the street. Also, it's a lot easier to steal belongings versus a car (presumably locked and needing a key to start). -Paul
[2023-01-18 02:15:58] - paul: right "it is". but should "it be"? if i leave almost literally anything else on the street people would assume it was abandoned. why is a car special and should a car be special? ~a
[2023-01-18 02:14:30] - a: Okay, maybe I'll go through them one by one? The first one is very different, obviously, but leaving a car in the street doesn't seem comparable to leaving belongings in the street. It is both culturally acceptable and legal to park your car in the street in many areas. -Paul
[2023-01-18 00:55:09] - paul: "seems like most of them are fairly close" how so? on this part too. just one of them looks even remotely close. ~a
[2023-01-18 00:48:21] - paul: "the ones that differ tend to differ for understandable reasons" how so? ~a
[2023-01-18 00:17:50] - a: It instead makes me think about the great lengths anti-car folks tend to go to try to make a point which doesn't really work. What exactly is the point they're trying to make about locked cars? -Paul
[2023-01-18 00:14:18] - a: Maybe not surprisingly, your link doesn't really make me think about how stupid our priorities are (seems like most of them are fairly close, and the ones that differ tend to differ for understandable reasons). -Paul
[2023-01-18 00:13:37] - Daniel: Totally agree that it's easier said than done, but it did make me realize that the answer isn't always "different unit comp". As usual, I was probably too quick to engage and probably should've tried backing up and re-positioning my units some. -Paul
[2023-01-18 00:12:29] - a: Aspiring to a more color-blind future where we don't obsess over people's race and make assumptions based on it? Being inspired by an immigrant who created a multi-billion dollar EV company?
-Paul[2023-01-18 00:11:18] - a: But where does a belief in free speech land? 10 years ago, that would undoubtedly be a Democratic value. Now? How about anti-interventionist? Pro-immigration? -Paul
[2023-01-18 00:09:23] - a: A main issue would be education reform in a way that most Democrats would shy away from (although in a way I think might appeal to moderate Democrats or certain demographic groups)... -Paul
[2023-01-18 00:08:23] - a: "that depends 1000% on the platform they (you?) intended to put forward" Yeah, but it's getting harder and harder to figure out what platform planks would be Democrat vs Republican anymore. -Paul
[2023-01-17 22:38:50] - https://i.redd.it/zkjiez33cmca1.jpg all of these are very "apples and oranges", of course. like, duh, the rules on exhaust and cigarettes should be different. again duh. but still, a few of these make me think about how stupid our priorities really are. ~a
[2023-01-17 22:23:19] - exactly! "enjoy your free win" (eye roll). ~a
[2023-01-17 20:13:32] - paul: Its so simple - just get a surround and presto! Easy peasy. -Daniel
[2023-01-17 19:37:40] - paul: i don't know anything about local politics outside of arlington but regardless that depends 1000% on the platform they (you?) intended to put forward. if the challenger was, say, me, i wouldn't consider getting the support of (local or non-local) republicans because our platforms are incompatible. ~a
[2023-01-17 19:33:27] - Or would a challenger have a better chance running as an independent, eschewing the baggage of having the R label but instead dealing with all the trouble of running outside the two party system. -Paul
[2023-01-17 19:32:52] - Do you think a challenger would have a better chance running as a Republican, getting the support of the party and registered Republicans but dealing with the baggage that entails in Northern Virginia... -Paul
[2023-01-17 19:32:04] - Question for people familiar with the political leanings of Northern Virginia: Say there is an incumbent Democratic state Senator (so, a race that might have lower turnout than a National election)... -Paul
[2023-01-17 14:38:59] - Daniel: https://www.reddit.com/r/allthingszerg/comments/d109jn/what_is_the_compositional_counter_to/ Re: hellion / cyclone. The first response sounds like the best option (two groups, cut off retreat and surround), but the infestor / fungal growth path also sounds like a solid option. -Paul
[2023-01-14 23:14:31] - And even if it was accidental, the keeping it a secret from right before midterms to recently was definitely deliberate. -Paul
[2023-01-14 20:44:00] - yeah we are sliding further from “accidental misplacement” and closer to “deliberate misuse.” - mig
[2023-01-14 14:13:31] - well . . . so apparently it just got worse. ~a
[2023-01-14 03:32:48] - a: I don't know. I guess I can imagine scenarios where honest mistakes were made by people (and maybe not even Biden himself), but like you said, I guess it's not that good of an excuse. -Paul
[2023-01-14 03:31:55] - a: It reminds me a bit of Hilary's private email server. Bad, and against the rules, but.... actually, I'm not sure there is a good "but". Considering how seriously the government cracks down on others regarding classified docs maybe this SHOULD be a big deal. -Paul
[2023-01-13 18:02:09] - the really bad optics part of this was this whole thing started on nov 2 but the public is finding out about this now. its hard to not think it wasn’t made public to keep it out of the election news cycle. - mig
[2023-01-13 17:36:23] - paul: i agree. it's really bad PR regardless especially on the tail of the (completely different but . . . similar enough?) trump classified document fiasco. ~a
[2023-01-13 17:17:43] - a: Sure, not relevant in terms of legality, but relevant for how bad of a look it is. There already has been at least one article talking about how chaotic the final days of his vice presidency were and how nobody knows which aide might have accidentally done it. -Paul
prev <-> next