Youtube comments of Ralphie Raccoon (@Croz89).

  1. 8200
  2. 7900
  3. 3900
  4. 2200
  5. 2200
  6. 2200
  7. 2000
  8. 1000
  9. 835
  10. 803
  11. 616
  12. 615
  13. 605
  14. 578
  15. 575
  16. 490
  17. 443
  18. 433
  19. 396
  20. 366
  21. 349
  22. 346
  23. 313
  24. 298
  25. 289
  26. 271
  27. Part of the problem is a lot of the UK housing stock is really old even by European standards. Cities are still full of endless rows of tiny terraced homes many of which are now over 100 years old, and some significantly older than that. It's a legacy of its industrial past when many people worked at a local factory and lived very close by. Practically all of the urban industry is gone now, but many of the houses remain. The first attempt to renew housing stock after WWII was partly successful but also resulted in a lot of ugly concrete tower blocks built on a very tight budget, looking quite similar to the soviet "commie blocks" being built on the other side of the iron curtain. Most of these were not built to last and are gone now. That reputation pretty much killed off the desire for high density living among the working and middle classes, as something only for the very rich or very poor. You don't see a lot of modern European style apartment blocks in the UK because of that experience. So people look to the suburbs, but unlike in some parts of the US there isn't endless land to build on so suburban homes have been shrinking and shrinking until they're nearly as small as those urban terraces that remain. There's no easy answers, whatever you do is going to piss someone off. People living in those tiny terraces still generally need a lot of persuading to move out so density can be increased, and you'll get cries of gentrification as the new apartments inevitably end up being sold to rich yuppies while most of the locals are banished to the outskirts. Conversely, people living in the suburbs and countryside don't want to see it concreted over with more Barratt boxes, and don't want their narrow roads snarled up with traffic and local services overwhelmed with new arrivals.
    246
  28. I think the extensiveness of the HSR network in China is due to a lot of speculation about the future. Richer citizens who travel more often and whose time is more valuable are not going to be content with slow trains or buses (high quality sleeper services tend to cost more per passenger than the equivalent HSR journey + hotel, so the advantage is mostly lost there). So what would happen without HSR would be a massive increase in domestic air travel. China would be a lot like the US in this regard, the default option for most journeys over 4-6 hours would be a plane, with multi-day road or rail journeys mostly only for the poor (who likely won't travel as much anyway). But you can imagine with all the extra people, the sky would be filled with aircraft. This isn't without costs, the US government subsidizes many small regional airports and even the flights that go to them, in order to prevent whole swaths of the US becoming economically isolated. But, it is certainly a lot cheaper than building 1000's of km of HSR to all medium and large cities and then having to subsidise most of the network... for now. If environmental taxes or supply chain issues make aviation fuel much more expensive, then the nation who built all the HSR is going to be in much better shape than the one who is now facing a larger and larger proportion of their population who now cannot afford regular fast, convenient long distance travel. So it's a bet on if air travel will become more cost prohibitive in future. It might not, electric short haul and more fuel efficiency combined with bio or synthetic fuels might keep domestic air travel accessible to the masses. But if that doesn't happen, countries like China will have a major advantage.
    234
  29. 233
  30. 227
  31. I think for those who still want an urban setting, "second tier" cities are definitely worth a look. In many parts of the world you're still going to get the majority of the things you want, parks, nice restaurants, etc. but the homes are usually a fraction of the cost of "first tier" cities. The UK, for example, is so economically unbalanced it only really has one first tier city, the big smoke itself. Second tier includes Edinburgh, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and so on (you might consider Birmingham and Manchester in an upper sub tier due to having metro areas of over 2 million people, which doesn't come close to London's 11 million). $1 million in any of these could probably net you a penthouse in one of the most prestigious residential skyscrapers, rather than a pokey flat above a shop. There are some compromises, you won't have the famous attractions on your doorstep and particularly in the UK public transport is considerably worse than in the first tier city, not as bad as the US perhaps, where you might be lucky to find a regular bus service, but if you compare Paris to Lyon, both have underground systems with multiple lines, whereas the only true underground metro outside of London is in Glasgow, and it consists of only a rather small loop line around the city center. Though it's worth pointing out that that $1 million will get you a nice residence smack dab in the city center or pretty close to it, so you can probably walk or cycle to most places you want to go anyway, or take a short taxi or bus/tram ride, whereas in London you'd probably need to take the tube.
    221
  32. 203
  33. 200
  34. 188
  35. 181
  36. 170
  37. 164
  38. 161
  39. 152
  40. 146
  41. 140
  42. 138
  43. 134
  44. 128
  45. 126
  46. 122
  47. 119
  48. 118
  49. 113
  50. 112
  51. 111
  52. 106
  53. 105
  54. 97
  55. 97
  56. 96
  57. 92
  58. 88
  59. 88
  60. 87
  61. 87
  62. 84
  63. 80
  64. 79
  65. 77
  66. 76
  67. 75
  68. 75
  69. 75
  70. 72
  71. 72
  72. 71
  73. 70
  74. 69
  75. 69
  76. 67
  77. 66
  78. 66
  79. 66
  80. 66
  81. 65
  82. 65
  83. 65
  84. 64
  85. 64
  86. 63
  87. 62
  88. 60
  89. 58
  90. 55
  91. 54
  92. 54
  93. 53
  94. 52
  95. 52
  96. 52
  97. 52
  98. 51
  99. 49
  100. 49
  101. 48
  102. 48
  103. 46
  104. 45
  105. 44
  106. 44
  107. 44
  108. 43
  109. 43
  110. 43
  111. 41
  112. 41
  113. 41
  114. 40
  115. 40
  116. 40
  117. 40
  118. 39
  119. 39
  120. 39
  121. 38
  122. 36
  123. 35
  124. 35
  125. 35
  126. 35
  127. 35
  128. 35
  129. 34
  130. 34
  131. 34
  132. 33
  133. 33
  134. 33
  135. 33
  136. 32
  137. 32
  138. 32
  139. 32
  140. 32
  141. 32
  142. 31
  143. 31
  144. 31
  145. 31
  146. 30
  147. 30
  148. 30
  149. 30
  150. 30
  151. 29
  152. 29
  153. 29
  154. 29
  155. 29
  156. 28
  157. 28
  158. 28
  159. 28
  160. 28
  161. 27
  162. 27
  163. 27
  164. 27
  165. 27
  166. 27
  167. 26
  168. 26
  169. 26
  170. 25
  171. 25
  172. 25
  173. 25
  174. 25
  175. 25
  176. 25
  177. 24
  178. 24
  179. 24
  180. 24
  181. 23
  182. 23
  183. 23
  184. 23
  185. 23
  186. 23
  187. 23
  188. 22
  189. Certainly there's a significant economic and cultural argument in favour of beef production in some parts of the world, northern Britain and Ireland being a good example. Here there's huge amounts of otherwise unproductive grassland, and the agricultural economy is almost exclusively livestock, cattle in the valleys and sheep on the hills. Abandoning that land would be very costly, you'd either have the government buy all the land at market price at a cost of at least 80-100 billion pounds and be saddled with millions of hectares of money draining grassland, or they can permanently subsidise farmers to basically do nothing with their land, which would be even more expensive in the long run and even more unpopular. Telling the farmers to lump it isn't politically viable, they're a very vociferous minority with the power to cause a lot of disruption. It would also have an enormous cultural impact. Some villages and small settlements owe their entire existence to livestock farming, without it there would be little reason for anyone to live there, other than perhaps a few retirees and hotel owners. They're often a long way away from towns, so have already experienced a population drain as agriculture has become less labour intensive. This would probably be enough to be a final nail in the coffin for some of the most isolated places. I don't have a good answer to this really, in an ideal world we could just leave the land to nature and every government would have enough income to sustain over a fifth of their land being a money sink. But farmers need to be placated and a historical agricultural culture needs to be preserved, or at least able to adapt without losing its essence.
    22
  190. 22
  191. 22
  192. 21
  193. 21
  194. 21
  195. 21
  196. 21
  197. 21
  198. 21
  199. 20
  200. 20
  201. 20
  202. 20
  203. 20
  204. 20
  205. 20
  206. 20
  207. 20
  208. 19
  209. 19
  210. 19
  211. 19
  212. 19
  213. 18
  214. 18
  215. 18
  216. 18
  217. 18
  218. 18
  219. 18
  220. 18
  221. 18
  222. 18
  223. 18
  224. 18
  225. 18
  226. 18
  227. 18
  228. 18
  229. 18
  230. 17
  231. 17
  232. 17
  233. 17
  234. 17
  235. 17
  236. 17
  237. 17
  238. 17
  239. 17
  240. 17
  241. 17
  242. 17
  243. 16
  244. 16
  245. 16
  246. 16
  247. 16
  248. 16
  249. 16
  250. 16
  251. 16
  252. 16
  253. 16
  254. 15
  255. 15
  256. 15
  257. 15
  258. 15
  259. 15
  260. 15
  261. 15
  262. 15
  263. 15
  264. 15
  265. 15
  266. 15
  267. 15
  268. 14
  269. 14
  270. 14
  271. 14
  272. 14
  273. 14
  274. 14
  275. 14
  276. 14
  277. 14
  278. 14
  279. 14
  280. 14
  281. 14
  282. 14
  283. 14
  284. 13
  285. 13
  286. 13
  287. 13
  288. 13
  289. 13
  290. 13
  291. 13
  292. 13
  293. 13
  294. 13
  295. 13
  296. 13
  297. 13
  298. 13
  299. 12
  300. 12
  301. 12
  302. 12
  303. 12
  304. 12
  305. 12
  306. 12
  307. 12
  308. 12
  309. 12
  310. 12
  311. 12
  312. Interestingly, one bad decision that seemed like a good idea at the time was the British recycling nuclear fuel that led to a huge stockpile of reactor grade plutonium at significant cost. The UK in the early days took the conservative assumption that uranium ore was not plentiful, and there would eventually be a supply crunch and prices would skyrocket. Therefore, they began to reprocess the spent fuel to extract plutonium, which they intended to use in as yet to be fully developed fast reactors. Of course, it turned out that uranium ore was pretty plentiful, and the supply crunch never came. Many countries use a once through fuel cycle and just consider spent fuel as 100% waste. Recycling, as it turns out, just isn't economic at current uranium prices. The fast reactors that the British were expecting never really got past the prototype phase, since PWR's and BWR's did the job fine and the conservative and heavily regulated nuclear industry doesn't like to fix what isn't broken, it's not like a silicon valley tech company. In the end, the UK has been trying to chip away at the stockpile with MOX fuel which can go in existing reactors, but it'll take decades to get rid of it at current rates of consumption, and it's very expensive stuff to keep around. Some think it'll be cheaper to just dispose of it rather than wait for it to be used up. Anyway, I think the UK nuclear industry might not be completely dead yet. Rolls Royce is one of the frontrunners in the SMR field, and they've taken the rather sensible approach at seeing how big you can make an SMR while still being able to qualify as an SMR (can be assembled in a factory and shipped to the site in mostly one piece). This could be a good balance between the costs saved by factory assembly and the fixed overheads every nuclear power plant has. If the whole SMR thing takes off, Britain could be in a good position to capitalise on it.
    12
  313. 12
  314. 12
  315. 12
  316. 12
  317. 12
  318. 12
  319. 11
  320. 11
  321. 11
  322. 11
  323. 11
  324. 11
  325. 11
  326. 11
  327. 11
  328. 11
  329. 11
  330. 11
  331. 11
  332. 11
  333. 11
  334. 11
  335. 11
  336. 11
  337. 11
  338. 11
  339. 11
  340. 11
  341. 11
  342. 11
  343. 11
  344. 11
  345. 11
  346. 11
  347. 11
  348. 11
  349. 11
  350. 10
  351. 10
  352. 10
  353. 10
  354. 10
  355. 10
  356. 10
  357. 10
  358. 10
  359. 10
  360. 10
  361. 10
  362. 10
  363. 10
  364. 10
  365. 10
  366. 10
  367. 10
  368. 10
  369. 10
  370. 10
  371. 10
  372. 10
  373. 10
  374. 10
  375. 10
  376. 10
  377. 9
  378. 9
  379. 9
  380. 9
  381. 9
  382. 9
  383. 9
  384. 9
  385. 9
  386. 9
  387. 9
  388. 9
  389. 9
  390. 9
  391. 9
  392. 9
  393. 9
  394. 9
  395. There is the kind of bad gatekeeping where people decide you must have certain political and ideological beliefs in order to identify with, belong to, or engage in an entire fandom or activity where politics and ideology are not mutually exclusive. For example, obviously you must support gun ownership to be a gun hobbyist, but you could still advocate for stricter gun laws and restrictions and be gun hobbyist. For unrelated issues like abortion and civil rights where there's zero connection to guns, just because you might not have the same position as the majority of gun hobbyists, doesn't mean you can't be a gun hobbyist. Of course individual clubs and groups of people are entitled to set their own political and ideological requirements within reason, you are free to associate with someone else, but what is wrong is anyone who says "you don't belong to X because you believe in Y" when Y doesn't affect your ability to engage in X. Perhaps an example that might be more relevant here would be if a convention you attended started banning people for social media posts espousing certain political and ideological viewpoints that are nothing to do with what the convention is about. And then other conventions began to follow with those same viewpoints. While small group and clubs are one thing, when multiple conventions do it they are effectively excluding people from the fandom, saying they don't belong. Sure, these people can start their own conventions, but the barriers to implementation and loss of social contact means these people are increasingly shut off and isolated, they have been effectively exiled from the rest of the fandom, in the hope that they leave because the message is that you can't be in this fandom and have those views. With all that said, it is a gray area, since no fandom or convention wants political and ideological extremists that will likely cause trouble and endanger other fans. But it can be a slippery slope if you start gatekeeping on how people think rather than how they behave. It may seem okay to ban people with views more extreme than yours until they have pushed that barrier so far towards the middle that now your views are in the crosshairs.
    9
  396. 9
  397. 9
  398. 9
  399. 9
  400. 9
  401. 9
  402. 9
  403. 9
  404. 9
  405. 9
  406. 9
  407. 9
  408. 9
  409. 9
  410. 8
  411. 8
  412. 8
  413. 8
  414. 8
  415. 8
  416. 8
  417. 8
  418.  @ayemorelocks  I think it's very rare nowadays to find a credible historian who sees European imperialism from an explicitly positive perspective. There are a few who "fence sit" and don't try to make too many moral judgements, and of course there are plenty of modern historians who see it as an overwhelmingly negative thing for the world as a whole. That may not have been true in the past, but it's definitely the situation today. What I think we often lack in discussions about the atrocities of imperial europe is any non european examples. We talk about slavery in the West in an almost exclusively imperial european context, the Arab slave trade is barely mentioned, and when it's brought up it's seen as a weapon for apologists. Same with colonialism. We shouldn't use non european examples to downplay europe's atrocities, but to some people it is beginning to feel like europe is being singled out. As for scale, I think it's not particularly important from a moral perspective. Europe colonized half the world because it could, other empires never had the technology or financial ability, or simply were better off not expanding too much. It's important to talk about from a historical perspective, but when it comes to empires, I don't think bigger = worse, even if all else is equal. I also think imperial european racial ideology is not as unique as it seems. Scientific racism is really just an attempt to rationalise what many other cultures would ascribe to religious or social customs, the idea that "barbarians" are somehow not deserving of the same rights as citizens, and therefore to justify otherwise immoral behaviour. It's not really any different, it's just because we ascribe such importance to modern science we reel in horror at the idea of it being corrupted with such blatant cultural bias.
    8
  419. 8
  420. 8
  421. 8
  422. 8
  423. 8
  424. 8
  425. 8
  426. 8
  427. 8
  428. 8
  429. 8
  430. 8
  431. 8
  432. 8
  433. 8
  434. 8
  435. 8
  436. 8
  437. 8
  438. 8
  439. 8
  440. 8
  441. 8
  442. 8
  443. 8
  444. 8
  445. 7
  446. 7
  447. 7
  448. 7
  449. 7
  450. 7
  451. 7
  452. 7
  453. 7
  454. 7
  455. 7
  456. 7
  457. 7
  458. 7
  459. 7
  460. 7
  461. 7
  462. 7
  463. 7
  464. 7
  465. 7
  466. 7
  467. 7
  468. 7
  469. 7
  470. 7
  471. 7
  472. 7
  473. 7
  474. 7
  475. 7
  476. 7
  477. 7
  478. 7
  479. 7
  480. 7
  481. 7
  482. 7
  483. 7
  484. 7
  485. 7
  486. 7
  487. 7
  488. 7
  489. 7
  490. 7
  491. 7
  492. 7
  493. 7
  494. 7
  495. 7
  496. 7
  497. 7
  498. 7
  499. 7
  500. 7
  501. 7
  502. 7
  503. 7
  504. 7
  505. 7
  506. 7
  507. 7
  508. 7
  509. 7
  510. 7
  511. 7
  512. 7
  513. 6
  514. 6
  515. 6
  516. 6
  517. 6
  518. 6
  519. 6
  520. 6
  521. 6
  522. 6
  523. 6
  524. 6
  525. 6
  526. 6
  527. 6
  528. 6
  529. 6
  530. 6
  531. 6
  532. 6
  533. 6
  534. 6
  535. 6
  536. 6
  537. 6
  538. 6
  539. 6
  540. 6
  541. 6
  542. 6
  543. 6
  544. 6
  545. 6
  546. 6
  547. 6
  548. 6
  549. 6
  550. 6
  551. 6
  552. 6
  553. 6
  554. 6
  555. 6
  556. 6
  557. 6
  558. 6
  559. 6
  560. 6
  561. 6
  562. 6
  563. 6
  564. 6
  565. 6
  566. 6
  567. 6
  568. 6
  569. 6
  570. 6
  571. 6
  572. 6
  573. 6
  574. 6
  575. 6
  576. 6
  577. 6
  578. 6
  579. 6
  580. 6
  581. 6
  582. 6
  583. 6
  584. 6
  585. 6
  586. 6
  587. 6
  588. 6
  589. 6
  590. 6
  591. 6
  592. 6
  593. 6
  594. 6
  595. 6
  596. 6
  597. 6
  598. 6
  599. 6
  600. 6
  601. 6
  602. 6
  603. 6
  604. 6
  605. 6
  606. 6
  607. 6
  608. 6
  609. 6
  610. 6
  611. 6
  612. 6
  613. 6
  614. 6
  615. 6
  616. 6
  617. 5
  618. 5
  619. 5
  620. 5
  621. 5
  622. 5
  623. 5
  624. 5
  625. 5
  626. 5
  627. 5
  628. 5
  629. 5
  630. 5
  631. 5
  632. 5
  633. 5
  634. 5
  635. 5
  636. 5
  637. 5
  638. 5
  639. 5
  640. 5
  641. 5
  642. 5
  643. 5
  644. 5
  645. 5
  646. 5
  647. 5
  648. 5
  649. 5
  650. 5
  651. 5
  652. 5
  653. 5
  654. 5
  655. 5
  656. 5
  657. 5
  658. 5
  659. 5
  660. 5
  661. 5
  662. 5
  663. 5
  664. 5
  665. 5
  666. 5
  667. 5
  668. 5
  669. 5
  670. 5
  671. 5
  672. 5
  673. 5
  674. 5
  675. 5
  676. 5
  677. 5
  678. 5
  679. 5
  680. 5
  681. 5
  682. 5
  683. 5
  684. 5
  685. 5
  686. 5
  687. 5
  688. 5
  689. 5
  690. 5
  691. 5
  692. 5
  693. 5
  694. 5
  695. 5
  696. 5
  697. 5
  698. 5
  699. 5
  700. 5
  701. 5
  702. 5
  703. 5
  704. 5
  705. 5
  706. 5
  707. 5
  708. 5
  709. 5
  710. 5
  711. 5
  712. 5
  713. 5
  714. 5
  715. 5
  716. 5
  717. 5
  718. 5
  719. 5
  720. 5
  721. 5
  722. 5
  723. 5
  724. 5
  725. 5
  726. 5
  727. 5
  728. 4
  729. 4
  730. 4
  731. 4
  732. 4
  733. 4
  734. 4
  735. 4
  736. 4
  737. 4
  738. 4
  739. 4
  740. 4
  741. 4
  742. 4
  743. 4
  744. 4
  745. 4
  746. 4
  747. 4
  748. 4
  749. 4
  750. 4
  751. 4
  752. 4
  753. 4
  754. 4
  755. 4
  756. 4
  757. 4
  758. 4
  759. 4
  760. 4
  761. 4
  762. 4
  763. 4
  764. 4
  765. 4
  766. 4
  767. 4
  768. 4
  769. 4
  770. 4
  771. 4
  772. 4
  773. 4
  774. 4
  775. 4
  776. 4
  777. 4
  778. 4
  779. 4
  780. 4
  781. 4
  782. 4
  783. 4
  784. 4
  785. 4
  786. 4
  787. 4
  788. 4
  789. 4
  790. 4
  791. 4
  792. 4
  793. 4
  794. 4
  795. 4
  796. 4
  797. 4
  798. 4
  799. 4
  800. 4
  801. 4
  802. 4
  803. 4
  804. 4
  805. 4
  806. 4
  807. 4
  808. 4
  809. 4
  810. 4
  811. 4
  812. 4
  813. 4
  814. 4
  815. 4
  816. 4
  817. 4
  818. 4
  819. 4
  820. 4
  821. 4
  822. 4
  823. 4
  824. 4
  825. 4
  826. 4
  827. 4
  828. 4
  829. 4
  830. 4
  831. 4
  832. 4
  833. 4
  834. 4
  835. 4
  836. 4
  837. 4
  838. 4
  839. 4
  840. 4
  841. 4
  842. 4
  843. 4
  844. 4
  845. 4
  846. 4
  847. 4
  848. 4
  849. 4
  850. 4
  851. 4
  852. 4
  853. 4
  854. 4
  855. 4
  856. 4
  857. 4
  858. 4
  859. 4
  860. 4
  861. 4
  862. 4
  863. 4
  864. 4
  865. 4
  866. 4
  867. 4
  868. 4
  869. 4
  870. 4
  871. 4
  872. 4
  873. 4
  874. 4
  875. 4
  876. 4
  877. 4
  878. 4
  879. 4
  880. 4
  881. 4
  882. 4
  883. 4
  884. 4
  885. 4
  886. 4
  887. 4
  888. 4
  889. 4
  890. 4
  891. 4
  892. 4
  893. 4
  894. 4
  895. 4
  896. 4
  897. 4
  898. 4
  899. 3
  900. 3
  901. 3
  902. 3
  903. 3
  904. 3
  905. 3
  906. 3
  907. 3
  908. 3
  909. 3
  910. 3
  911. 3
  912. 3
  913. 3
  914. 3
  915. 3
  916. 3
  917. 3
  918. 3
  919. 3
  920. 3
  921. 3
  922. 3
  923. 3
  924. 3
  925. 3
  926. 3
  927. 3
  928. 3
  929. 3
  930. 3
  931. 3
  932. 3
  933. 3
  934. 3
  935. 3
  936. 3
  937. 3
  938. 3
  939. 3
  940. 3
  941. 3
  942. 3
  943. 3
  944. 3
  945. 3
  946. 3
  947. 3
  948. 3
  949. 3
  950. 3
  951. 3
  952. 3
  953. 3
  954. 3
  955. 3
  956. 3
  957. 3
  958. 3
  959. 3
  960. 3
  961. 3
  962. 3
  963. 3
  964. 3
  965. 3
  966. 3
  967. 3
  968. 3
  969. 3
  970. 3
  971. 3
  972. 3
  973. 3
  974. 3
  975. 3
  976. 3
  977. 3
  978. 3
  979. 3
  980. 3
  981. 3
  982. 3
  983. 3
  984. 3
  985. 3
  986. 3
  987. 3
  988. 3
  989. 3
  990. 3
  991. 3
  992. 3
  993. 3
  994. 3
  995. 3
  996. 3
  997. 3
  998. 3
  999. 3
  1000. 3
  1001. 3
  1002. 3
  1003. 3
  1004. 3
  1005. 3
  1006. 3
  1007. 3
  1008. 3
  1009. 3
  1010. 3
  1011. 3
  1012. 3
  1013. 3
  1014. 3
  1015. 3
  1016. 3
  1017. 3
  1018. 3
  1019. 3
  1020. 3
  1021. 3
  1022. 3
  1023. 3
  1024. 3
  1025. 3
  1026. 3
  1027. 3
  1028. 3
  1029. 3
  1030. 3
  1031. 3
  1032. 3
  1033.  @richardwills-woodward  You'd find something like the Manchester Metrolink in Saarbrucken or Magdeburg. Bigger cities have "pre-metro" systems where the city center sections are build to rapid transit standards either elevated or in tunnels. This would be cities like Hannover or Cologne. These are cities with metro areas often with a smaller population than Birmingham or Manchester, sometimes around Liverpool or Newcastle but are probably fairly comparable. Cities like Berlin, Hamburg and Frankfurt are bigger and I think would be considered first tier. You talk a lot about urban rail, and I generally agree it is good in many large UK cities, though there is a lack of integration sometimes. But I don't think that replaces the advantages metro systems have, particularly getting around the more urbanised areas. They're good for those in the outlying towns and villages, as they are elsewhere, but there's still a gap for those living closer in. I agree tunnels aren't completely necessary, but generally unless you have a lot of wide viaducts crossing the city center you will need them for a viable through service. And in the UK many big cities have termini stations rather than a central rail spine leading to a main station. I don't agree systems like Merseyrail and Newcastle Metro are not like S-bahn systems. They have a similar frequency and stop spacing, and cross city centres in tunnels like many S-bahn systems do. Both systems act exactly as you described, branded urban rail, Newcastle Metro just uses slightly smaller and lighter vehicles. And what I think is the most important point, it isn't just Germany we can make the comparison with, Spain and France, and even Italy sometimes also have better public transport in their second tier cities. The UK is probably not behind the world as a whole (definitely not the US or Australia) but it is behind its nearest european peers.
    3
  1034. 3
  1035. 3
  1036. 3
  1037. 3
  1038. 3
  1039. 3
  1040. 3
  1041. 3
  1042. 3
  1043. 3
  1044. 3
  1045. 3
  1046. 3
  1047. 3
  1048. 3
  1049. 3
  1050. 3
  1051. 3
  1052. 3
  1053. 3
  1054. 3
  1055. 3
  1056. 3
  1057. 3
  1058. 3
  1059. 3
  1060. 3
  1061. 3
  1062. 3
  1063. 3
  1064. 3
  1065. 3
  1066. 3
  1067. 3
  1068. 3
  1069. 3
  1070. 3
  1071. 3
  1072. 3
  1073. 3
  1074. 3
  1075. 3
  1076. 3
  1077. 3
  1078. 3
  1079. 3
  1080. 3
  1081. 3
  1082. 3
  1083. 3
  1084. I think we're coming off a peak of Social Justice zealotry from 2020-2021. Covid resulted in a lot of bored young people with time on their hands and combined with a general increase in unrest and the US president becoming increasingly unstable and unpredictable, tensions were running high. George Floyd was the spark that lit the fire. What a year or so ago would have certainly resulted in protests and perhaps minor riots, but perhaps only for a day or two, ignited a firestorm that swept beyond the US borders, and had corporations falling over themselves to put out "anti-racist" messaging (even getting as far a children's cartoons). But after a change in president to Bland Biden and the light at the end of the tunnel for covid now shining much more brightly, it seems to me things are beginning to calm down. What the permanent effects to our culture will be, I'm not so sure. The social justice side managed to gain quite a few symbolic victories, statues have been removed, some in retrospect quite egregious, but several more requiring a very unflattering interpretation. Some effects seem less likely to last. Police reform will probably happen, but not to the radical extent that many desire. Cities that have experimented with "alternative" public safety models don't seem to be seeing positive results, or even end up making things worse. I can also tell you from experience in my country that reductions in police numbers can come back to bite a country decades down the line. Corporations certainly make a bigger deal of social justice than they used to, a supermarket near me had posters up for UK black history month, which used to be a pretty obscure event, understandable since black people are only 3% of the population. But once the fervor wanes, it's possible they will no longer see financial merit in doing so. I could go on about other impacts, but there's a lot and it's quite complicated and hard to predict what will stick. Going into the future, I'm not really sure what it holds for the Social Justice movement. It could destroy itself or fracture into too many pieces, but I think more likely it will begin to decay into obscurity, slinking back into the academic fringe it used to inhabit. Or it could remain strong, remaining the "permanent radicals" that shift their views to remain in the same political position. Even if gender and racial equality was achieved tomorrow, they would find some new set of beliefs to oppose those to the right of them. One of the clearest historical maxims we find is that political extremism tends to arise when times are bad, not when times are good. So going forward, if economic conditions improve and recovery from covid is swift, then both the far left and far right's power will probably wane. If not, then they will likely continue to be prominent in politics and society. While I think a US civil war based on these groups is pretty far fetched to near on impossible (it won't be like the first one, more like the Balkans on steroids), I could see, as a worst case, a situation similar to Italy's "years of lead", where hatred and animosity between the two groups is so strong that it breaks into organised lethal violence. If one side (let's be honest, probably the right, but I wouldn't discount the left) assassinates an opponent's figurehead or bombs one of their protests, the other side is likely to feel the only way to respond is with equal violence, so they start assassinating or bombing too.
    3
  1085. 3
  1086. 3
  1087. 3
  1088. 3
  1089. 3
  1090. 3
  1091. 3
  1092. 3
  1093. 3
  1094. 3
  1095. 3
  1096. 3
  1097. 3
  1098. 3
  1099. 3
  1100. 3
  1101. 3
  1102. 3
  1103. 3
  1104. 3
  1105. 3
  1106. 3
  1107. 3
  1108. 3
  1109. 3
  1110. 3
  1111. 3
  1112. 3
  1113. 3
  1114. 3
  1115. 3
  1116. 3
  1117. 3
  1118. 3
  1119. 3
  1120. 3
  1121. ​ @baronvonlimbourgh1716  A few residential batteries aren't going to solve the storage issue, they'll only put a dent in it. Industry and infrastructure have enormous energy demands, and are even less tolerant of reliability issues. Plus with the electrification of heating and transport, demand could double in many developed countries meaning any storage you install is quickly eclipsed by the increase in demand. These are serious issues that have been reported on. The only thing I can conclude is you haven't seen much research outside of your renewable bubble because I have seen plenty of criticism. Few people are saying renewable energy has no place at all, but there are many questioning the economics and practicality of a fully renewable + storage grid, at least in the near future though also in the long term. Research is by its very nature unpredictable. We don't precisely know how easy or hard it would be to double the efficiency of solar panels, or cut the price of nuclear energy in half. We can only speculate, fund the research, and hope for the best. Even if there's a lot of lithium reserves out there, mining it isn't always easy, or economic. Lithium salts have to be fracked out of deep rocks in many cases, and like with natural gas this can have environmental issues. And alternatives like nuclear aren't standing still. There's lots of research going into making nuclear energy much cheaper and easier to build. If that happens that could change the economics, renewables + storage definitely would be the more expensive option in many locations. As for being pretty opinionated, well that's the pot calling the kettle black.
    3
  1122. 3
  1123. 3
  1124. 3
  1125. 3
  1126. 3
  1127. 3
  1128. 3
  1129. 3
  1130. 3
  1131. 3
  1132. 3
  1133. 3
  1134. 3
  1135. 3
  1136. 3
  1137. 3
  1138. 3
  1139. 3
  1140. 3
  1141. 3
  1142. 3
  1143. 3
  1144. 3
  1145. 3
  1146. 3
  1147. 3
  1148. 3
  1149. 3
  1150. 3
  1151. 3
  1152. 3
  1153. 3
  1154. 3
  1155. 3
  1156. 3
  1157. 3
  1158. 3
  1159. 3
  1160. 3
  1161. 3
  1162. 3
  1163. 3
  1164. 3
  1165. 3
  1166. 3
  1167. 3
  1168. 3
  1169. 3
  1170. 3
  1171. 2
  1172. 2
  1173. 2
  1174. 2
  1175. 2
  1176. 2
  1177. 2
  1178. 2
  1179. 2
  1180. 2
  1181. 2
  1182. 2
  1183. 2
  1184. 2
  1185. 2
  1186. 2
  1187. 2
  1188. 2
  1189. 2
  1190. 2
  1191. 2
  1192. 2
  1193. 2
  1194. 2
  1195. 2
  1196. 2
  1197. 2
  1198. 2
  1199. 2
  1200. 2
  1201. 2
  1202. 2
  1203. 2
  1204. 2
  1205. 2
  1206. 2
  1207. 2
  1208. 2
  1209. 2
  1210. 2
  1211. 2
  1212. 2
  1213. 2
  1214. 2
  1215. 2
  1216. 2
  1217. 2
  1218. 2
  1219. 2
  1220. 2
  1221. 2
  1222. 2
  1223. 2
  1224. 2
  1225. 2
  1226. 2
  1227. 2
  1228. 2
  1229. 2
  1230. 2
  1231. 2
  1232. 2
  1233. 2
  1234. 2
  1235. 2
  1236. 2
  1237. 2
  1238. 2
  1239. 2
  1240. 2
  1241. 2
  1242. 2
  1243. 2
  1244. 2
  1245. 2
  1246. 2
  1247. 2
  1248. 2
  1249. 2
  1250. 2
  1251. 2
  1252. 2
  1253. 2
  1254. 2
  1255. 2
  1256. 2
  1257. 2
  1258. 2
  1259. 2
  1260. 2
  1261. 2
  1262. 2
  1263. 2
  1264. 2
  1265. 2
  1266. 2
  1267. 2
  1268. 2
  1269. 2
  1270. 2
  1271. 2
  1272. 2
  1273. 2
  1274. 2
  1275. 2
  1276. 2
  1277. 2
  1278. 2
  1279. 2
  1280. 2
  1281. 2
  1282. 2
  1283. 2
  1284. 2
  1285. 2
  1286. 2
  1287. 2
  1288. 2
  1289. 2
  1290. 2
  1291. 2
  1292. 2
  1293. 2
  1294. 2
  1295. 2
  1296. 2
  1297. 2
  1298. 2
  1299. 2
  1300. 2
  1301. 2
  1302. 2
  1303. 2
  1304. 2
  1305. 2
  1306. 2
  1307. 2
  1308. 2
  1309. 2
  1310. 2
  1311. 2
  1312. 2
  1313. 2
  1314. 2
  1315. 2
  1316. 2
  1317. 2
  1318. 2
  1319. 2
  1320. 2
  1321. 2
  1322. 2
  1323. 2
  1324. 2
  1325. 2
  1326. 2
  1327. 2
  1328. 2
  1329. 2
  1330. 2
  1331. 2
  1332. 2
  1333. 2
  1334. 2
  1335. 2
  1336. 2
  1337. 2
  1338. 2
  1339. 2
  1340. 2
  1341. 2
  1342. 2
  1343. 2
  1344. 2
  1345. 2
  1346. 2
  1347. 2
  1348. 2
  1349. 2
  1350. 2
  1351. 2
  1352. 2
  1353. 2
  1354. 2
  1355. 2
  1356. 2
  1357. 2
  1358. 2
  1359. 2
  1360. 2
  1361. 2
  1362. 2
  1363. 2
  1364. 2
  1365. 2
  1366. 2
  1367. 2
  1368. 2
  1369. 2
  1370. 2
  1371. 2
  1372. 2
  1373. 2
  1374. 2
  1375. 2
  1376. 2
  1377. 2
  1378. 2
  1379. 2
  1380. 2
  1381. 2
  1382. 2
  1383. 2
  1384. 2
  1385. 2
  1386. 2
  1387. 2
  1388. 2
  1389. 2
  1390. 2
  1391. 2
  1392. 2
  1393. 2
  1394. 2
  1395. 2
  1396. 2
  1397. 2
  1398. 2
  1399. 2
  1400. 2
  1401. 2
  1402. 2
  1403. 2
  1404. 2
  1405. 2
  1406. 2
  1407. 2
  1408. 2
  1409. 2
  1410. 2
  1411. 2
  1412. 2
  1413. 2
  1414. 2
  1415. 2
  1416. 2
  1417. 2
  1418. 2
  1419. 2
  1420. 2
  1421. 2
  1422. 2
  1423. 2
  1424. 2
  1425. 2
  1426. 2
  1427. 2
  1428. 2
  1429. 2
  1430. 2
  1431. 2
  1432. 2
  1433. 2
  1434. 2
  1435. 2
  1436. 2
  1437. 2
  1438. 2
  1439. 2
  1440. 2
  1441. 2
  1442. 2
  1443. 2
  1444. 2
  1445. 2
  1446. 2
  1447. 2
  1448. 2
  1449. 2
  1450. 2
  1451. 2
  1452. 2
  1453. 2
  1454. 2
  1455. 2
  1456. 2
  1457. 2
  1458. 2
  1459. 2
  1460. 2
  1461. 2
  1462. 2
  1463. 2
  1464. 2
  1465. 2
  1466. 2
  1467. 2
  1468. 2
  1469. 2
  1470. 2
  1471. 2
  1472. 2
  1473. 2
  1474. 2
  1475. 2
  1476. 2
  1477. 2
  1478. 2
  1479. 2
  1480. 2
  1481. 2
  1482. 2
  1483. 2
  1484. 2
  1485. 2
  1486. 2
  1487. 2
  1488. 2
  1489. 2
  1490. 2
  1491. 2
  1492. 2
  1493. 2
  1494. 2
  1495. 2
  1496. 2
  1497. 2
  1498. 2
  1499. 2
  1500. 2
  1501. 2
  1502. 2
  1503. 2
  1504. 2
  1505. 2
  1506. 2
  1507. 2
  1508. 2
  1509. 2
  1510. 2
  1511. 2
  1512. 2
  1513. 2
  1514. 2
  1515. 2
  1516. 2
  1517. 2
  1518. 2
  1519. 2
  1520. 2
  1521. 2
  1522. 2
  1523. 2
  1524. 2
  1525. 2
  1526. 2
  1527. 2
  1528. 2
  1529. 2
  1530. 2
  1531. 2
  1532. 2
  1533. 2
  1534. 2
  1535. 2
  1536. 2
  1537. 2
  1538. 2
  1539. 2
  1540. 2
  1541. 2
  1542. 2
  1543. 2
  1544. 2
  1545. 2
  1546. 2
  1547. 2
  1548. 2
  1549. 2
  1550. 2
  1551. Tesla is losing the battery storage market to east asian competitors, both old (Samsung, Panasonic) and new (CATL). Tesla has even started buying CATL batteries for its cars, because vertical integration can't beat economies of scale in this case. The humanoid robot is still firmly in gimmick territory, and they're still way behind Boston Dynamics and Unitree in practical mobile robotics. Personally I don't think Tesla has much of a hope of being any more than a bit player in the energy storage market, the giant battery manufacturers just have too many advantages. As for the cars, it's hard to say. On the EV front legacy automakers are catching up along with some startups like Polestar and Rivian, and while they often can't match the feature set of Tesla, they can make up for it with superior build quality and some offer a wider range of vehicles. Charging networks do seem to be somewhere Tesla is well ahead in some markets, mainly because the competition seems to want to copy it with walled garden membership systems (seriously, just put a f'kin card reader on the thing and be done with it! Thankfully this seems to be changing) without the scale to pull it off. Self driving is the big unknown, Tesla is doing well at the moment but it's insistence on a purely visual system without use of new technologies like low cost solid state radar and lidar might mean it falls behind in future if it doesn't change its mind (which it probably will but still). EV's are still in a position where they are upmarket vehicles that are not being sold to the masses (though at the moment that seems to be all new cars!) so there's a big prize to the company that can break in to the midrange and budget market with a practical (i.e. not a tiny battery) but affordable EV. That could be Tesla, but I think it's likely that to could be someone else, maybe a legacy automaker but perhaps even one of those new Chinese companies able to reduce costs through massive economies of scale. With a new vehicle ICE ban looming in many nations and EV prices still out of reach for many, customers will need to buy something, and if the only affordable options with more than a 50 mile range are some no name Chinese marques, then that's what they'll have to get.
    2
  1552. The problem is that once you get to very high net worth individuals, wealth becomes a rather complicated thing to measure, and the effect of a wealth cap would have a very different impact on different individuals even in they are similarly wealthy on paper. Let's for a start ignore trusts and all the other machinations these people could use to skirt a wealth cap, and assume the system is pretty watertight. Let's consider two billionaires of similar wealth, billionaire A and billionaire B. A founded a company that made it big, really big, a company that's worth tens or even hundreds of billions and they have a large percentage or even complete ownership of said company. B started out similar to A, but is significantly older than A, and has sold most of their stake in the company they founded. Instead they have a family office or similar investment vehicle that splits their wealth into a diverse array of investments. So a wealth cap comes along, and both A and B are over the limit. What can they do? B can sell or give away some of their shares, spread around all of their investments. There is a hit to stock prices, but it's fairly evenly spread out so the damage isn't too great. A doesn't have those shares to sell or give away, they can only raise funds by selling shares or an ownership stake in their company. This will likely lower the value of their company as selling a lot of shares often does, and could cause a vicious feedback loop that wipes billions off the stock price. It might even mean the government has to seize a majority ownership stake as that's the only way A can get under the cap, so we end up with nationalisation by stealth. Perhaps A decides it's best to avoid the hassle by constraining their company's growth, perhaps they won't invest in that new factory or hire 1000 more employees. Which is obviously not an outcome many people actually want.
    2
  1553. 2
  1554. 2
  1555. 2
  1556. 2
  1557. 2
  1558. 2
  1559. 2
  1560. 2
  1561. 2
  1562. 2
  1563. 2
  1564. 2
  1565. 2
  1566. 2
  1567. 2
  1568. 2
  1569. 2
  1570. 2
  1571. 2
  1572. 2
  1573. 2
  1574. 2
  1575. 2
  1576. 2
  1577. 2
  1578. 2
  1579. 2
  1580. 2
  1581. 2
  1582. 2
  1583. 2
  1584. 2
  1585. 2
  1586. 2
  1587. 2
  1588. 2
  1589. 2
  1590. 2
  1591. 2
  1592. 2
  1593. 2
  1594. 2
  1595. 2
  1596. 2
  1597. 2
  1598. 2
  1599. 2
  1600. 2
  1601. 2
  1602. 2
  1603. 2
  1604. 2
  1605. 2
  1606. 2
  1607. 2
  1608. 2
  1609. 2
  1610. 2
  1611. 2
  1612. 2
  1613. 2
  1614. 2
  1615. 2
  1616. 2
  1617. 2
  1618. 2
  1619. 2
  1620. 2
  1621. 2
  1622. 2
  1623. 2
  1624. 2
  1625. 2
  1626. 2
  1627. 2
  1628. 2
  1629. 2
  1630. 2
  1631. 2
  1632. 2
  1633. ​ @pedrolopes3542  Norway is nearly 100% Hydro, Iceland is 70% with 30% Geothermal thanks to its very thin crust, Finland is 20% but 30% Nuclear and a lot comes from burning sawmill waste which is practically free. Spain is the only one you mentioned with significant non-hydro renewables with 20% Wind and 10% Solar, but still has 20% Hydro and 20% Nuclear, and I suspect the difference between it and France disappears when you consider labour costs and other factors. Your correlation is not between renewables and energy price, it's between hydroelectric power and energy price. In fact, if you look at the EU countries with the highest capacity of non-hydro renewable energy capacity like Denmark or Germany (yes Germany still burns a lot of coal but a lot less than it used to), lo and behold you have the highest energy prices. Hydroelectric is not as simple as damming a river either, you need a suitably high flow rate and hydraulic head for dam construction to be financially viable. It's also not without environmental cost, you flood many square kilometres of land above the dam and reduce the river volume below the dam, not to mention issues with fish migration. I'm not opposing renewables, just being realistic about their capabilities. If Europe want to rely more on non-hydro renewables like wind and solar, electricity prices will rise and will stay high because they are not as cheap as they first seem. The base cost per KWh seems very attractive until you factor in spinning reserve or storage, transmission, advanced grid management and so on. Non-hydro renewables externalise a lot of their financial costs to the grid as a whole.
    2
  1634. 2
  1635. 2
  1636. 2
  1637. 2
  1638. 2
  1639. 2
  1640. 2
  1641. 2
  1642. 2
  1643. 2
  1644. 2
  1645. 2
  1646. 2
  1647. 2
  1648. 2
  1649. 2
  1650. 2
  1651. 2
  1652. 2
  1653. 2
  1654. 2
  1655. 2
  1656. 2
  1657. 2
  1658. 2
  1659. 2
  1660. 2
  1661. 2
  1662. 2
  1663. 2
  1664. 2
  1665. 2
  1666. 2
  1667. 2
  1668. 2
  1669. 2
  1670. 2
  1671. 2
  1672. 2
  1673. 2
  1674. 2
  1675. 2
  1676. 2
  1677. 2
  1678. 2
  1679. 2
  1680. 2
  1681. 2
  1682.  @goste4  I'll admit I was curious, I have my strong suspicions and wanted to confirm them. Honestly if you'd said you were a hardcore socialist and fuck the rich, I would have used it as an excuse to end this debate based on irreconcilable political differences. I wouldn't want to mock you for your views as much as I would disagree with them (I personally identify as an economic center to center left), but I would be arguing with a brick wall otherwise. I don't think your argument makes that much sense. It's not like rich people can set it up so they never have any money at all, they must have some personal wealth to pay for life expenses like the rest of us, indeed if they have a trust set up they legally must receive a regular income from it, which could be garnished just like a wage. Besides, wage garnishment isn't used that much for civil compensation except for specific beneficiaries such as child support. Generally if you don't have the money you're "judgement proof" beyond your ability to pay. So for the same case, you generally can get significantly more money from a rich person than a poor person, all other things being equal. And again, abolishing such structures will benefit many people other than other rich people. There aren't that many poor or middle people who could sue rich people and win. Why abolish something to make some rich people's lives more miserable, with little to no benefit to anyone who isn't rich? Both rich and poor people can declare bankruptcy as well, and the consequences make it a significant deterrent for both.
    2
  1683. 2
  1684. 2
  1685. 2
  1686. 2
  1687. 2
  1688. 2
  1689. 2
  1690. 2
  1691. 2
  1692. 2
  1693. 2
  1694. 2
  1695. 2
  1696. 2
  1697. 2
  1698. 2
  1699. 2
  1700. 2
  1701. 2
  1702. 2
  1703. 2
  1704. 2
  1705. 2
  1706. 2
  1707. 2
  1708. 2
  1709. 2
  1710. 2
  1711. 2
  1712. 2
  1713. 2
  1714. 2
  1715. 2
  1716. 2
  1717. 2
  1718. 2
  1719. 2
  1720. 2
  1721. 2
  1722. 2
  1723. 2
  1724. 2
  1725. 2
  1726. 2
  1727. The question I kept asking myself throughout the video was simple: "What's the alternative?". And in most cases, I couldn't think of anything realistic that's better than the status quo. Reservations, as was pointed out, are, in isolation, giant money sinks. People living in the reservation need compensation in order to survive, either through employment or benefits, so they don't have to farm the land. Rangers need to be paid to keep out poachers, loggers, ranchers and others. Even asking a wealthy nation to spend tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year keeping a huge chunk of their land pristine and undeveloped for the sake of wildlife with no income from that land is a tall order. So asking a nation like Tanzania to do that is nigh on impossible. Unless you have some multi trillion dollar UN global fund that literally just pays countries to leave that land alone, they're going to need to find a source of income. And even then, it's going to seem cruel to keep impoverished countries poor by only giving them enough to maintain their reservations. It's unreasonable to expect their tourism and trophy hunting income to be cost neutral, they've got ambitions to develop and improve their people's standard of living, of course they want to make a profit out of it. The only thing that really surprised me is the prices for trophy hunting. I assumed the fees would be significantly higher, and do wonder if the price could be raised so fewer animals are killed while the income remains the same or is greater. Someone ought to do a study on that.
    2
  1728. 2
  1729. 2
  1730. 2
  1731. 2
  1732. 2
  1733. 2
  1734. 2
  1735. 2
  1736. 2
  1737. 2
  1738. 2
  1739. 2
  1740. 2
  1741. 2
  1742. 2
  1743. 2
  1744. 2
  1745. 2
  1746. 2
  1747. 2
  1748. 2
  1749. 2
  1750. 2
  1751. 2
  1752. 2
  1753. 2
  1754. 2
  1755. 2
  1756. Where you live also makes a difference. In places like the UK and Ireland, we have huge amounts of otherwise useless grassland, all it's good for agriculturally is growing grass or grazing livestock. We do produce a lot of beef, but it's different to something from a corn-fed feedlot in the Midwest US, and arguably more sustainable as it's mostly fed on a resource we can't use (water is also less of an issue as these grasslands tend to be in areas of high rainfall, though droughts do still occur from time to time, this year has been a problem). There's also the issue a lot of the staple foods that are farmed like corn and wheat can vary enormously in quality. A farmer in the US told me how they grade corn. Grades 1 and 2 go for human consumption, but grade 3 and below is fed to animals or turned into biofuel. All farmers would like as much grade 1 and 2 as possible, it sells for a better price. But a bad season can produce a lot of inferior grades, which would otherwise be wasted. At least corn has the alternative of being used as a biofuel (though I think it sells for more as animal feed), a lot of crops don't have this option. In fact, there is a huge issue of wastage in arable farming, from poor quality to overproduction due to poor demand forecasting. One way to make animal agriculture more sustainable is processing more of this waste into animal feed (sugar beet pulp after the sugar has been extracted is already a popular cattle feed). Or find a way to turn more low grade plant based food into something platable (and probably highly processed). It's a complicated issue, and I doubt those concessions alone are good enough to justify current levels of production, but it's not as cut and dry as just replacing fields of livestock with fields of lettuce or wheat.
    2
  1757. 2
  1758. 2
  1759. 2
  1760.  @ChineseKiwi  There's a difference between new construction and life extension. Plants undergoing life extension have already paid off their original construction costs, there's not nearly as much paperwork or bureaucracy to wade through, and locals are used to a power station in their backyard, so what if it runs an extra 10 years, it's still not going anywhere! With all that said, your comparison needs some adjustment to be fair. Let's take it out of a fairly ideal country for solar and stick it somewhere less ideal, like Northern Europe. So we'll give solar a capacity factor of 0.15 and nuclear 0.9, fairly reasonable for modern systems. So average generation of the solar array would be about 300 MW over the year, nuclear 4840 MW. So that means solar is really just under half the cost of nuclear rather than over 10 times less. Still a good saving. But then consider the space required, 2GW of solar panels takes up a lot of land if it's all in one place. Distributing it more, like with household solar, will require more inverters and grid infrastructure which would add to the cost. Finally, more polar latitudes will have more seasonal variation in output, and less sunny climates will also have to deal with the weather which will also vary output. So a storage setup that's based on a simple day/night cycle will not work, you would need a grid capable of dealing with these long term annual cycles of day and night length, as well as fairly random fluctuations due to weather. So you're going to end up with something more complex than just storing energy long enough to make it through the night. That's going to add even more cost, and as these all add up solar just becomes less and less of an obvious leader when it comes to choosing generation.
    2
  1761. 2
  1762. 2
  1763. 2
  1764. 2
  1765. 2
  1766. 2
  1767. 2
  1768. 2
  1769. 2
  1770. 2
  1771. 2
  1772. 2
  1773. 2
  1774. 2
  1775. 2
  1776. 2
  1777. 2
  1778. 2
  1779. 2
  1780. 2
  1781. 2
  1782. 2
  1783. 2
  1784. 2
  1785. 2
  1786. 2
  1787. 2
  1788. 2
  1789. 2
  1790. 2
  1791. 2
  1792. 2
  1793. 2
  1794. 2
  1795. 2
  1796. 2
  1797. 2
  1798. 2
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. @SGast  Automation can be difficult and expensive, but that's my point, fast food restaurants don't always adopt it because it doesn't always save money. But if your employees get more expensive, then the threshold where it does make money is approached more readily. Most fast casual restaurant work is fairly repetitive, making a pizza or burrito is the same number of steps every time pretty much. These often can be at least semi automated for a price, and that still cuts down the number of workers you need. And when it comes to restaurants, it might be harsh to say but I think the only skilled work outside of the very high end of Sommeliers and other professional FOH roles are chefs and managers. Honestly for fast food and a lot of fast casual I would say even they aren't particularly skilled, if it doesn't require a long apprenticeship or culinary school it's not a skilled role, sorry. I never said they were easy or not exhausting, but just because a job doesn't require a lot of skills and training doesn't make it easy. But chefs are even more screwed as they're specialised, they can only work in restaurants with the skills they have, unless they want to chase the tiny niches of personal chefs and food development. Of course people can be retrained, but only for jobs that exist, and the most acute worker shortages in the US are these service and hospitality roles. A lot of other things they could train for don't really have these big shortages and more, and in some cases are actually shedding jobs.
    1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. ​​​​​​ @SamyasaSwi I know how these things go, I'd always be ignorant in your eyes unless I agreed with you. If I were to claim that British people were actually really healthy eaters would you believe me just because I said it? I don't think so. I'm not going to believe you just because you're Dutch, and I wouldn't expect you to believe me just because I'm British. Honestly I think it's your completely humourless "well acktually" response that frustrated me, it took a long time for you to even concede that Dutch food does have somewhat of an unhealthy reputation, which was my original claim, then you move the goal posts to say it had zero impact on the actual diet because the Dutch eat other cuisines too, which is true about everyone but we don't claim their cuisine doesn't affect their diet at all either. I almost feel that you reacted the way you did because I suggested the Dutch aren't a perfect culture who all eat healthy, exercise and live in ideal communities. But I don't think that can be true, you must be somewhat self critical, I've never met a leftist who doesn't have something bad to say about their own culture! If my weakness is overconfidence, I think yours is lack of humility. I think we could have had a much better conversation if you'd been a bit more conciliatory and willing to play into the joke, something like "Yeah, Dutch cuisine doesn't have the best reputation for being healthy (which I think we've established is true) but of course we don't eat the most unhealthy stuff every day. Perhaps the bikes do help us keep a kilo or two off a year!" (A reasonably small effect, and non-commital). Perhaps that's not a position you can agree with, but I think it might be. I'd do that with claims about the British that were a bit exaggerated (except for the teeth, I'm damn sick of that stereotype because it's so common and completely untrue).
    1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. It's interesting how the UK and Germany differed with post war reconstruction. Both had cities that were pretty much equally bombed to shit. But I think in the UK there was more of a diffusion of people out of the cities. Like the US, people in the UK tend to prefer low density housing over apartment blocks, and the aftermath of WW2 arguably accelerated a trend of suburbanisation. There were also the "New Town" projects which expanded small existing settlements ten or even a hundred fold into, well, new towns. Vast housing estates were built all over the country. It was very car dependant, but in a different way, more spread out, lots of individual driveways instead of vast underground garages. Of course some tower blocks were built, but the result was the same as in Germany, they attracted crime and only the poor and desperate wanted to live in them, even the worst housing estates out in the suburbs were better. Nowadays things are a little bit different, some new towns have suffered as the UK economy has become increasingly centralised around London, those in commuting distance like Milton Keynes have benefited but others are struggling. New apartment blocks tend to be a bit better quality but are still disliked by many people, especially after Grenfell Tower. Vast identikit housing estates are still being built in suburban and rural areas, but increasing resistance from locals slow their progress. Public transport is generally poor in all but a few of the biggest cities and is generally worse for local transport than Germany (if perhaps slightly better for regional rail).
    1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. I don't think the argument here is whether the systems are inadequate, it is obvious they are not and I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't hard right who thinks otherwise. The argument is around how to fix them. You can do one of two things, improve on the system you have or throw the system away (or "smash the system" as it's often said) and start again. The former is reform, the latter is revolution. While it's silly to generalise "the movement" as coming down on one side or the other, a vocal subset are certainly advocating strongly for option B, and I think it's fair to criticise them on that because of the rosy view Americans have of revolution. However, I can understand exactly why people who are angry, frustrated and fed up with the inevitably slow pace of reform feel so attracted to revolution. It feels easier when where you want to be feels so far away. "If only stark inequality and racism just vanished overnight" must be a strong desire in so many people, and proponents of various economic and social "-isms" will happily persuade people that this is what will happen if the average citizen threw off their metaphorical chains, ate the rich, and replaced the old system with something new and shiny. But I have to agree with UEG on this one, revolutions usually don't work, they don't bring the benefits people want, or if they do they come with dire consequences (The old saying "all communists are equal, equally impoverished" comes to mind, even though even that wasn't true as those in power enriched themselves). Reform feels like it's just too slow, and when people are dying that can easily tempt people off the path. But in the long run it does lead to more stable and meaningful change. So for people crying for revolution, I understand your pain, but think before you leap, would this really work, because I bet it almost certainly wouldn't. You will also probably make more of an impact pushing for reform, and yes, maybe sometimes reform could be sped up a little, though again, you have to be careful you don't create more problems down the line.
    1
  2156. 1
  2157. I think there are a couple of political/cultural issues that make building homes difficult in europe. One is a cultural reverence of agriculture and rural life, and a constant worry over food security, this makes building on farmland, which often surrounds cities, particularly unpalatable. Nightmarish images of bucolic european countryside being concreted over in a wave of urban sprawl have haunted europeans since the 19th century. Another is the massive number of historical buildings in cities and the strong desire to preserve them, and the general idea that no european city wants to end up looking like Singapore or numerous cities in China, old buildings swept away and replaced by a forest of modern skyscrapers. Personally I think the path of least resistance is residential conversion in urban centres. Europe does still have a lot of ugly post war office buildings nobody would miss, and converting those plots into housing would probably not raise too many objections. I appreciate the office vacancy rate isn't as high as some places in the US, but you might be able to increase supply by about 5% in many cities, which would add up over a lot of cities and are generally where these new immigrants are moving to. There's also some low value industrial areas quite close to city centres in some cities which might be suitable for housing, I know Leeds is building a lot of apartments on what used to be a railway yard. Again something very few people would miss. That might not be enough, but it would at least help.
    1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. ​ @firstlast-cs6eg  I did, but my post got deleted this time! To summarise what I said, my first point was that we already have the first thing you said in cap societies, it's called a condominium or condo, they're very common in certain countries like the US, as a form of shared private ownership. That's about as "for the people" as you can get. Of course you still need a developer to build the thing, but that's always been the case even for public housing unless you use a state run construction company (which most countries don't for a variety of reasons). The whole "soc has not been tried" argument I don't really buy, as whenever examples are given there's a "no true scotsman" argument to discount it. I also disagree that capi doesn't work, because so far capi countries have been fairly stable and soc and com countries have not. It's not perfect, but I'd disagree that it's not a functioning system. I'm not against apartment blocks per se, if they are well built, attractive, appropriately located and a response to local demand for them. Hence why I think it's important for their construction not to be driven mostly by central planning. Some limited construction may be needed to alleviate local population issues (though sometimes the problem is more complex than lack of accommodation, homelessness can occur even where there is a residential surplus), but I don't think we need to house everyone in state planned and/or owned housing. I can understand the issue NIMBYS can cause, but I also appreciate that people generally want to live in a particular environment and changing that environment often confers resistance. I also appreciate that local objections are not always baseless or selfish, they can have wider legitimate concerns, and that can include putting too many people in a place that does not have the infrastructure or environment to support them.
    1
  2195. 1
  2196. ​ @firstlast-cs6eg  Apologies for not replying sooner, no offence but your posts are long, verbose, and tiring to read, and I needed a break. I would not like to find another venue to debate as I would rather keep debates like this contained to a few outlets for the sake of my own sanity, but thank you for the offer. Here's the thing, your housing proposals have been tried, in part or in full, over the past century. Communist governments have housed people in gargantuan apartment complexes in pretty much exactly the manner you're imagining, and capitalist governments have also done the same but generally only for those who could not afford anything else. And when you have governments in charge of housing masses of people without having to respond to market forces, the result is "maximum housed, minimum cost". You get carbuncles made of cheap materials and built to the minimum of standards (sometimes, sometimes the builder cuts so many corners and a gas explosion causes half the tower to collapse). And I do believe aesthetics matter. People do not take pride in a living space that is an ugly expanse of stained concrete, you get graffiti, vandalism and crime. But to a government with budgetary pressures that's one of the first things to go. But I accept that sometimes, *sometimes*, that is the only option available. So a few of these things will inevitably be built. But the idea of expanding their construction to house more people, or everyone, just doesn't appeal to me at all, especially if they start popping up in the middle of sleepy suburbs. Call me a NIMBY if you want, but I wouldn't want to live next to anything like that, ever. Not only would it be an eyesore, but now my quiet neighbourhood is full of hundreds more people. I don't want to live next to hundreds of people, the dozen or so on my street are enough. They're nice people, and I like that they're there, but I wouldn't want more of them.
    1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. While country based caps might not be the best option, it does not really solve the problem, because in the end changing those restrictions to ones based on income or education will still make it impossible or highly impractical for a lot of those people to immigrate legally. You can't give everyone in the world an attainable legal option when it comes to countries like the US, because you'd have so many people attaining it that your numbers would skyrocket. And in the end immigration, like it or not, is a numbers game. You want just enough of the right kinds of people to keep the economy healthy and keep different political factions calm. Not too few, not too many. Every immigration policy is designed around those numbers, how many do we want to let in every year, and who should they be in terms of education and financial standing (and let's face it, ethnicity and culture also regularly play a role even among liberals). That's not going to change by abolishing country caps, it just means that the requirements on education and income will tighten in order to keep the numbers stable. For specific corner cases where children need to take care of parents, those can probably be addressed with something like a carers visa, that ends on death of the parents. It's harsh, but it's a practical option that isn't going to be considered a back door for unqualified people to get in. Also it's important to remember many of the migrants illegally crossing are not Mexican, they're from poorer and more unstable central american countries like Nicaragua and El Salvador. Mexico's border with Belize and Guatemala is considered fairly porous, it is argued Mexico doesn't really care too much about illegal crossings as they know the vest majority will be transiting to the US. Making it harder to cross the US border, in theory puts pressure on the Mexicans to tighten up theirs as migrants clog up Mexican services and draw the ire of locals.
    1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279.  @melissasingleton58  As I've mentioned in other comments, I don't think this is entirely possible since some aspects of society are a zero sum game, what the majority enjoys are anathema to some people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Severe autism is a great example of this, a lot of neurotypical people love stimulation, and want to live in and experience stimulating environments. If you take that stimulation away for the sake of a minority who can't cope with it, you can imagine the uproar. The only truly workable solution I believe, to be brutally honest, is segregation, if not always in space but in time. That is really what happens now, we have "autism friendly" screenings of films but these don't integrate autistic people into society, they create a parallel society which is tailored to autistic needs. Hopefully, we will get better at accommodating the needs of those with cognitive and developmental disabilities. But I really think it will still end up being a seperate society. I think we'll see "X friendly" self contained communities pop up which have their own specific rules and designed to cater for specific needs. Public spaces may have more special timeslots outside of typical busy periods where these people can come and do activities in an environment they are comfortable in. But I think that is as far as it will go unless we're prepared to consider "fixes" to allow these people to manage mainstream society better. Because I really don't think you can change society all that much before you end up in a situation where you can't please both sides, and in that case, majority wins.
    1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. Honestly, I think the investors are party to blame, for pushing Tesla's stock price to ridiculous highs. At one point, Tesla had a higher market cap than every large legacy car maker in the world combined, Toyota, Ford, Volkswagen, the lot. And yet it only made a fraction of the number of vehicles even the smallest of those manufacturers in a year. It by all means made absolutely no sense. The only way it made sense was if Tesla wasn't seen as a car company, but as a tech company that just made cars on the side, that's often the justification I would hear from the muskolites. That all the real money was to be made in the battery tech and the autonomous driving AI sometime in the future, the cars themselves didn't really matter. The stratospheric stock price probably also fostered a culture of complacency. After all, if your product has all these quality issues and yet your stock is still going to the moon, is it really that much of a problem? I think Tesla would not have been facing these problems if the stock price had reflected reality. Building poor quality vehicles in a sane market makes investors unhappy and your stock price drops. Seeing that your market cap is much smaller than legacy auto makers, as it should be for a company that produces a fraction of the vehicles and has a fraction of the profits, also shows the company how far they need to grow and how they are progressing. Tesla could have sustainably increased in market cap over the last decade or so, and with the right decisions and just a bit of luck, they could join the table with the big auto makers, producing ten times the number of vehicles a year with a realistic valuation.
    1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. IMO the TRL of this technology was much lower than a lot of people thought. It was a lot more advanced than booster recovery that really just needed advanced guidance and thrust vectoring, two technologies that have made leaps and bounds in the last couple of decades. That said I don't think the idea is completely without merit in the long term, because I think while booster recovery is great it is unlikely to scale as well if you're trying to make spaceflight more routine. It's fine in the current environment, it doesn't matter if it wastes a lot of fuel on retrograde burns because we don't really care about fuel efficiency, it doesn't matter if the booster can only be reused less than 100 times and requires a week or more to recondition and reassemble because even SpaceX's impressive launch cadence pales in comparison to that of a commercial airliner and that's seen as plenty enough. If anything we have a surplus of launch capacity currently as we see with SpaceX dogfooding its launchers for Starlink. Skylon, or a variant of the design, was an elegant solution to problems that currently don't exist in the space industry, but might in the far future. Still, it's a shame to see REL fold. I think part of the problem is the UK is not a great place for long shot technology startups. If REL was a US company it might have gotten a lot more VC and/or federal funding (or been picked up by an eccentric billionaire) and may have been able to develop something much more quickly. Perhaps even a scaled down "Skylon-Lite" that could have worked with a booster or air launch and would have provided a much better compliment to Dragon than the hot mess Boeing came up with.
    1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596.  @richardwills-woodward  Manchester and Birmingham have mainly terminus stations. There are a couple of through tracks but they don't have the capacity to take more than a small fraction of services cross city (and they don't really cross the city centre but bypass it.) You don't see many S-bahn style cross city services because of it, it's already full with intercity services. This is especially acute in Manchester where the ordsall chord is extremely underused because there just isn't enough room to run services that could use it. Of course London does too but there have been efforts like Crossrail and Thameslink to create more capacity for cross city services. Regarding the Newcastle metro, I think it's a mistake to say S-Bahn trains need to be certain length or mass, it's a concept that is designed to adapt to cities of different size. Many smaller German cities have S-Bahns, and like in Newcastle they have smaller trains and sometimes they share tracks with intercity and regional services. Newcastle just decided to have a more distinct and separate system. It is a bit different, but it's not a completely unique system. As for France, Spain and Italy, we can look at cities like Lyon, Turin, and Malaga. All have small but useful metro systems, in Lyon and Turin an extensive tram network complements these metro systems. It's an alternative to the "pre-metro" idea, build new metro lines for more express journeys between higher density parts of the city and keep the trams as is. I get people hate on the UK and make it out like its entire public transportation system outside of London is in tatters, and I agree that's overblown. Regional and commuter rail systems still have some issues, but they can be good, rural coverage is better than in many european countries and reliability isn't as bad as many people think it is (at least until recently). Many of the issues are also not really our fault, we were the first and that means many lines are built to comparatively ancient standards in the rail industry. But I have to agree with a lot of other people that UK cities outside of London do lag their european peers on urban public transport, often quite considerably. And I think that has hampered their development and growth while London has gotten monstrously large. If Birmingham and Manchester had built proper metro systems, or even just a pre-metro, in the 70's, 80's or even 90's I think they could have stolen at least a million each of London's population growth by the present day. An honestly I think that would have been way better for the country, including for London.
    1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. 1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1
  2655. 1
  2656. 1
  2657. 1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666. 1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. 1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. 1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686. 1
  2687. 1
  2688. 1
  2689. 1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. 1
  2699. 1
  2700. 1
  2701. 1
  2702. 1
  2703. 1
  2704. 1
  2705. 1
  2706. 1
  2707. 1
  2708. 1
  2709. 1
  2710. 1
  2711. 1
  2712. What it essentially does is trade a small number of points of failure with severe consequences for many more points of failure with less severe consequences. With a microgrid system you'd expect there to be more failures, after all, there's more equipment to go wrong, but each failure only effects a small area as opposed to the catastrophic cascade that can happen. So it's a trade off. I think it's unfair to demonise centralised power distribution in this way. Big power plants tend to be more efficient, be they fossil, nuclear or renewable, and having fewer points of failure does mean a lower maintenance overhead. Centralised grids can also take steps to improve resiliency, and possibly for less than a microgrid model depending on available generation and consumption patterns. Consumer needs are also different, while the energy needed to run a few residences may be able to be generated locally, industry and infrastructure maybe another matter. That's not to say microgrids can't be superior in some places, but I wouldn't expect them to be superior everywhere, or even for a significant majority. Also, while a lot of developing countries have seen success with microgrids, in many cases they are starting from a pretty poor and unreliable baseline. If you're getting daily blackouts from your decrepit centralised power grid, or have practically no electricity at all, even a fairly unreliable system by developed world standards is a vast improvement. The lower demand and willingness to be more flexible with consumption must also be taken into account.
    1
  2713. 1
  2714. 1
  2715. 1
  2716. 1
  2717. 1
  2718. 1
  2719. 1
  2720. 1
  2721. 1
  2722. 1
  2723. 1
  2724. 1
  2725. 1
  2726. 1
  2727. 1
  2728. 1
  2729. 1
  2730. 1
  2731. 1
  2732. 1
  2733. 1
  2734. 1
  2735. 1
  2736. 1
  2737. 1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741. 1
  2742. 1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749. 1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. 1
  2753. 1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. 1
  2758. 1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. 1
  2777. 1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. 1
  2781. 1
  2782. 1
  2783. 1
  2784. 1
  2785. 1
  2786. 1
  2787. 1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790. 1
  2791. 1
  2792. 1
  2793. 1
  2794. 1
  2795. 1
  2796. 1
  2797. 1
  2798. 1
  2799. 1
  2800. 1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1
  2803. 1
  2804. 1
  2805. 1
  2806. 1
  2807. 1
  2808. 1
  2809. 1
  2810. 1
  2811. 1
  2812. 1
  2813. 1
  2814. 1
  2815. 1
  2816. 1
  2817. 1
  2818. 1
  2819. 1
  2820. 1
  2821. 1
  2822. 1
  2823. 1
  2824. 1
  2825. 1
  2826. 1
  2827. 1
  2828. 1
  2829. 1
  2830. 1
  2831. 1
  2832. 1
  2833. 1
  2834. 1
  2835. 1
  2836. 1
  2837. 1
  2838. 1
  2839. 1
  2840. 1
  2841. 1
  2842. 1
  2843. 1
  2844. 1
  2845. 1
  2846. 1
  2847. 1
  2848. 1
  2849. 1
  2850. 1
  2851. 1
  2852. 1
  2853. 1
  2854. 1
  2855. 1
  2856. 1
  2857. 1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1
  2860. 1
  2861. 1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. 1
  2878. 1
  2879. 1
  2880. 1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883. 1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888. 1
  2889. 1
  2890. 1
  2891. 1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894. 1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. 1
  2901. 1
  2902. 1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. 1
  2906. 1
  2907. 1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. 1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917. 1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. 1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923. 1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928. 1
  2929. 1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. 1
  2936. 1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 1
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. 1
  2948. 1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957. 1
  2958. 1
  2959. 1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. 1
  2964. 1
  2965. 1
  2966. 1
  2967. 1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. 1
  2980. 1
  2981. 1
  2982. 1
  2983. 1
  2984. 1
  2985. 1
  2986. 1
  2987. 1
  2988. 1
  2989. 1
  2990. 1
  2991. 1
  2992. 1
  2993. 1
  2994. 1
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. 1
  2999. 1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003. 1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. 1
  3017. 1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021. 1
  3022. 1
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. 1
  3027. I think we can compare RoP with another fantasy reboot, The New Legends of Monkey from Netflix. Both received backlash from diversity casting, though Monkey got it from the political left rather than the right, because as we all know diversity casting is only there to reduce the number of white people, if it's replacing an all Chinese cast then it's a bad thing. The tone and style was also quite different to the original, the reboot pulling heavily on 90's made for TV fantasy shows like Xena and Hercules, oozing with cheesy dialogue and rather fake looking sets and effects. In other words it was absolutely a divisive reboot. But it still did fairly well, with 59% audience score on RT for the first series and 65% for the second. I think for new audiences and children who hadn't seen the original Chinese version, it was seen as a fun family-friendly retro fantasy series, much like the reboot of The Mummy did in cinema, turning a schlocky horror into an Indiana Jones style adventure franchise. RoP has not had the same reaction, as you say. It's not different enough to be complete overhaul (as such a famous fantasy series it probably never could be), and it's not similar enough to be considered a faithful spin-off to the original material. So it ends up stuck in a position where it's pleasing nobody. Honestly at this point I wonder if doing something similar to what The Mandalorian or Andor did in Star Wars would have been better. Focus on something that's only lightly covered in the existing lore, and give themselves more of a blank canvas to do what they want. Maybe don't set it in Middle Earth at all, there are plenty of nearly undescribed lands outside it, full of people that could be nearly any shade of skin tone you want. Throw in a few characters travelling from Middle Earth, and you've got a lot of flexibility in the story you can tell.
    1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032. 1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. 1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039. 1
  3040. 1
  3041. 1
  3042. 1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. 1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. 1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066. 1
  3067. 1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 1
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. 1
  3079. 1
  3080. 1
  3081. 1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1
  3086. 1
  3087. 1
  3088. 1
  3089. 1
  3090. 1
  3091. 1
  3092. 1
  3093. 1
  3094. 1
  3095. 1
  3096. 1
  3097. 1
  3098. 1
  3099. 1
  3100. 1
  3101. 1
  3102. 1
  3103. 1
  3104. 1
  3105. 1
  3106. 1
  3107. 1
  3108. 1
  3109. 1
  3110. 1
  3111. Honestly, I can't blame NASA for not wanting to overly rely on commercial launch providers for such an important programme, even if it means using an overpriced "in house" launcher built on a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. There's a certain additional risk about handing off too much of the control of future space exploration to a single private company. With SpaceX in particular, I think there's probably a feeling that giving them too much control over the hardware will make Mr. Musk want to do things his way, and I wouldn't be too surprised if he started to take control of the programme, he's made no secret about his own personal ambitions to lead his own exploration programme. I'm sure that would make a lot of Musk fanboys very happy, but it would definitely piss off NASA, and by that point there would be little they could do about it, short of spitting their dummy out and cancelling the whole programme. There's also the additional risk that SpaceX runs into some kind of trouble, and NASA is now left high and dry with no launcher. NASA is making a point that they want to involve multiple commercial companies in any future moon mission. That could mean in the future that launchers, transit vehicles and landers could be made by SpaceX, Blue Origin, and probably some other companies that aren't even on the radar yet. Then they have a diverse selection of companies that can provide redundancy in case one fails. But right now the only option that is close to SLS in its payload capacity is the F9H and, when it's ready, Starship. So NASA would be overly reliant on SpaceX without the SLS, and I don't think that's a risk they're willing to take.
    1
  3112. 1
  3113. 1
  3114. 1
  3115. 1
  3116. 1
  3117. 1
  3118. 1
  3119. 1
  3120. 1
  3121. 1
  3122. 1
  3123. 1
  3124. 1
  3125. 1
  3126. 1
  3127. 1
  3128. 1
  3129. 1
  3130. 1
  3131. 1
  3132. 1
  3133. 1
  3134. 1
  3135. 1
  3136. 1
  3137. 1
  3138. 1
  3139. 1
  3140. 1
  3141. 1
  3142. 1
  3143. 1
  3144. 1
  3145. 1
  3146. 1
  3147. 1
  3148. 1
  3149. 1
  3150. 1
  3151. 1
  3152. 1
  3153. 1
  3154. 1
  3155. 1
  3156. 1
  3157. 1
  3158. 1
  3159. 1
  3160. 1
  3161. 1
  3162. 1
  3163. To me the diversity push was just very poorly handled, done in a way that was almost guaranteed to piss off a lot of hardcore Tolkien fans. I get the desire to introduce diversity into updated versions of existing media, and I'm generally not against it unless it would be ahistorical, I think there are many examples where it was done in a good way that was generally well received (you are always going to have a few racists!). With Tolkien's work, you had a revered author (who sits up there with Shakespeare in the UK) with a universe that is one of the most complex and well developed in SF and Fantasy. Naturally if you go messing with anything, you need to be super careful, people are going to be upset at any change, so if you are going to make a change or add new content, you need to do your research, and build a justification that works with the existing lore. Then when you announce the change or content, you need to give your audience that context that reassures them that you do care about the existing lore and that your change or addition integrates well with it. And I don't think Amazon did that, they released some pictures of black elves and dwarves with little to no context, and the hardcore fans assumed the worst, that Amazon didn't care about the lore at all, that to them the elves and dwarves of Middle Earth were, and have always been, races with a very wide mix of skin tones because that's more reflective of our modern human society in the west and because it's fantasy, skin tone has no functional bearing on any race whatsoever. Now that might not be true, at all, perhaps Amazon does have a decent lore that means these black elves and dwarves make complete sense being in Middle Earth, and I really hope they do because it would be a great expansion of the existing lore, but if they do they certainly haven't communicated it very well.
    1
  3164. 1
  3165. 1
  3166. 1
  3167. 1
  3168. 1
  3169. 1
  3170. 1
  3171. 1
  3172. 1
  3173. 1
  3174. 1
  3175. 1
  3176. 1
  3177. 1
  3178. 1
  3179. 1
  3180. 1
  3181. 1
  3182. 1
  3183. 1
  3184. 1
  3185. 1
  3186. 1
  3187. 1
  3188. 1
  3189. 1
  3190. 1
  3191. 1
  3192. 1
  3193. 1
  3194. 1
  3195. 1
  3196. 1
  3197. 1
  3198. 1
  3199. 1
  3200. 1
  3201. 1
  3202. 1
  3203. 1
  3204. 1
  3205. 1
  3206. 1
  3207. 1
  3208. The tourist industry in the UK is already gearing up for a boom in domestic holidays this year in anticipation that travel restrictions will still be in force for most of the world in at least the early summer, and even if they aren't many people will either choose not to fly because of the lingering COVID risk, or, as you say, will be priced out of the market. Whether this will carry into 2022 is another question. That said, many mediterranean destinations are really desperate for northern europeans to come back this year, since their economy is so tourist dependant and could continue to shrink if they don't come back soon, so we might see some subsidised flights to certain destinations. Though I think there are signs that the airline industry maybe adapting to the new situation, so things might not be as bad as you predicted. As Wendover said in one if his recent videos, now is a time of great crisis in the airline industry, and where there is crisis, there is opportunity for new business models to come in and disrupt the market. When it comes to the long haul market, we could see some big changes, a rise in airlines with smaller aircraft doing long haul point to point services catering mostly for a leisure and diaspora market (as in, people visiting family and friends who live a long distance apart from each other). Business and first class are replaced with premium economy and additional fees for things like extra legroom or better meals. Ticket prices may still rise, but not by a huge amount, as they are balanced by slashing expenses, flying to more regional airports with lower fees, fewer staff etc etc. much like any budget airline.
    1
  3209. 1
  3210. 1
  3211. 1
  3212. 1
  3213. 1
  3214. 1
  3215. 1
  3216. 1
  3217. 1
  3218. 1
  3219. 1
  3220. 1
  3221. 1
  3222. 1
  3223. 1
  3224. 1
  3225. 1
  3226. 1
  3227. 1
  3228. 1
  3229. 1
  3230. 1
  3231. 1
  3232. 1
  3233. 1
  3234. 1
  3235. 1
  3236. 1
  3237. 1
  3238. 1
  3239. 1
  3240. 1
  3241. 1
  3242. 1
  3243. 1
  3244. 1
  3245. 1
  3246. 1
  3247. 1
  3248. 1
  3249. 1
  3250. 1
  3251. 1
  3252. 1
  3253. 1
  3254. 1
  3255. 1
  3256. 1
  3257. 1
  3258. 1
  3259. 1
  3260. 1
  3261. 1
  3262. 1
  3263. 1
  3264. 1
  3265. 1
  3266. 1
  3267. 1
  3268. 1
  3269. 1
  3270. 1
  3271. 1
  3272. 1
  3273.  @goste4  Then the solution is a minimum global tax, or preventing certain countries from hosting such arrangements, not banning the whole construct. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We don't need to abolish it to temper its more harmful qualities. I'm not really considering the quality of your argument based on if you are a radical socialist or not, it's just a lot of your rhetoric and language matches with that political position, those who hate the rich and want to take a lot more of their money, so making it harder to be rich would help them achieve that goal. Though in this case I'd argue you'd have an even more unequal society, as the ultra rich with their teams of several million a year lawyers would be able to punch the slightly less wealthy back down. If I'll be honest, I wanted to see if you would admit to being so and proud of it, deny (perhaps even be offended by such a suggestion) and provide reasoning, or refuse to say either way. I guess you chose the latter. For me, it's not about benefits, it's about fairness, and not having people who have earned their wealth through honest means drained of it by greedy people preying on them. Perhaps you prepared to give these people a hard time in order to make it easier to recover damages from a legitimate claim (though I'd point out limited exposure tempers any outlandish compensation claims, plaintiffs would still be able to claim something in most cases since most rich people keep some worth on their person, but not all their worth), but I don't think it's worth it. Perhaps you consider the fairness of the group more important than the individual, which I guess is fair enough, but it's not my position.
    1
  3274. 1
  3275. 1
  3276. 1
  3277. 1
  3278. 1
  3279. It's interesting when you talk about the peak district as if it's a place seemingly quite remote when it's surrounded by several major cities (Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Derby) whose urban areas get pretty close to the border. The argument that inner city urbanites don't visit the country all that often I don't think is nessecarily the point of the green belt any more, most of its most vociferous defendants are those that live near it and therefore make the most use of it. They don't want to live in an endless housing estate and lose their immediate access to the countryside, but at the same time have a job in the city or local area so can't just pack up and move. At the same time there are a lot of cities outside the south east still with a lot of abandoned land and low value industrial areas from post industrial decline, so I think it's reasonable to argue that these places should be redeveloped before any green belt is considered (developers do sometimes push for greenbelt because it is cheaper to build on, even if brownfield land is available and in a more convenient location). The nature argument is often pretty weak I agree, but we can approach it from the other end with food security. The UK already has to import most of its food, so there is an argument that concreting over more prime farmland (and not all of it is prime, I know) is not a good idea. Even though the amount might not seem like a lot, there is a lot of prime farmland near cities. Personally as someone who lives on the edge of the green belt, I would want to see as little as possible sacrificed for housing, and the bits that are carefully selected with good justifications, like existing transport infrastructure such as a railway station or a shortage of brownfield or low value industrial land in the area. I can imagine if it's a free for all we'll get a sea of Barratt boxes as far as the eye can see, with local roads completely overwhelmed with traffic since of course the deveopers won't build additional capacity. I can appreciate British planning rules can border on the ridiculous on many occasions, and I'm all for a bit more reasonable pragmatism, but I'm not willing to throw them out entirely. Where I am I see skyscrapers going up in Manchester, and I think that might be the ultimate solution. London is too big as it is, and sightline rules make building high a challenge. The UK is way too London centric, allowing other city centres to build up and absorb more of the population seems like a good solution to me. It's a win win in my mind, London gets the pressure taken off it, other cities grow their economies, urbanites get modern dense high quality housing out of often decrepit inner city areas, and suburbanites get to keep more countryside on their doorstep.
    1
  3280. 1
  3281. 1
  3282. 1
  3283. 1
  3284. 1
  3285. 1
  3286. 1
  3287. 1
  3288. 1
  3289. 1
  3290. 1
  3291. 1
  3292. 1
  3293. 1
  3294. 1
  3295. 1
  3296. 1
  3297. 1
  3298. 1
  3299. 1
  3300. 1
  3301. 1
  3302. 1
  3303. 1
  3304. 1
  3305. 1
  3306. 1
  3307. 1
  3308. 1
  3309. 1
  3310. 1
  3311. 1
  3312. 1
  3313. 1
  3314. 1
  3315. 1
  3316. 1
  3317. 1
  3318. 1
  3319. 1
  3320. 1
  3321. 1
  3322. 1
  3323. 1
  3324. 1
  3325. 1
  3326. 1
  3327. 1
  3328. 1
  3329. 1
  3330. 1
  3331. 1
  3332. 1
  3333. 1
  3334. 1
  3335. 1
  3336. 1
  3337. 1
  3338. 1
  3339. 1
  3340. 1
  3341. 1
  3342. 1
  3343. 1
  3344. 1
  3345. 1
  3346. 1
  3347. 1
  3348. 1
  3349. 1
  3350. 1
  3351. 1
  3352. 1
  3353. 1
  3354. 1
  3355. 1
  3356. 1
  3357. 1
  3358. 1
  3359. 1
  3360. 1
  3361. 1
  3362. 1
  3363. 1
  3364. 1
  3365. 1
  3366. 1
  3367. 1
  3368. 1
  3369. 1
  3370. 1
  3371. 1
  3372. 1
  3373. 1
  3374. 1
  3375. 1
  3376. 1
  3377. 1
  3378. 1
  3379. 1
  3380. 1
  3381. 1
  3382. 1
  3383. 1
  3384. 1
  3385. 1
  3386. 1
  3387. 1
  3388. 1
  3389. 1
  3390. 1
  3391. 1
  3392. 1
  3393. 1
  3394. 1
  3395. 1
  3396. 1
  3397. 1
  3398. 1
  3399. 1
  3400. 1
  3401. 1
  3402. 1
  3403. 1
  3404. 1
  3405. 1
  3406. 1
  3407. 1
  3408. 1
  3409. 1
  3410. 1
  3411. 1
  3412. 1
  3413. 1
  3414. 1
  3415. 1
  3416. 1
  3417. 1
  3418. 1
  3419. 1
  3420. 1
  3421. 1
  3422. 1
  3423. 1
  3424. 1
  3425. 1
  3426. 1
  3427. 1
  3428. 1
  3429. 1
  3430. 1
  3431. 1
  3432. 1
  3433. 1
  3434. 1
  3435. 1
  3436. 1
  3437. 1
  3438. 1
  3439. 1
  3440. 1
  3441. 1
  3442. 1
  3443. 1
  3444. 1
  3445. 1
  3446. 1
  3447. 1
  3448. 1
  3449. 1
  3450. 1
  3451. 1
  3452. 1
  3453. 1
  3454. 1
  3455. 1
  3456. 1
  3457. 1
  3458. 1
  3459. 1
  3460. 1
  3461. 1
  3462. 1
  3463. 1
  3464. 1
  3465. 1
  3466. 1
  3467. 1
  3468. 1
  3469. 1
  3470. 1
  3471. 1
  3472. 1
  3473. 1
  3474. 1
  3475. 1
  3476. 1
  3477. 1
  3478. 1
  3479. 1
  3480. 1
  3481. 1
  3482. 1
  3483. 1
  3484. 1
  3485. 1
  3486. 1
  3487. 1
  3488. 1
  3489. 1
  3490. 1
  3491. 1
  3492. 1
  3493. 1
  3494. 1
  3495. 1
  3496. 1
  3497. 1
  3498. 1
  3499. 1
  3500. 1
  3501. 1
  3502. 1
  3503. 1
  3504. 1
  3505. 1
  3506. 1
  3507. 1
  3508. 1
  3509. 1
  3510. 1
  3511. 1
  3512. 1
  3513. 1
  3514. 1
  3515. 1
  3516. 1
  3517. 1
  3518. 1
  3519. 1
  3520. 1
  3521. 1
  3522. 1
  3523. 1
  3524. 1
  3525. 1
  3526. 1
  3527. 1
  3528. 1
  3529. 1
  3530. 1