Comments by "" (@jasonreed7522) on "City Beautiful" channel.

  1. 64
  2. 60
  3. 46
  4. 46
  5. 35
  6. 31
  7. 27
  8. 18
  9. 18
  10. 17
  11. 16
  12. 14
  13. 13
  14. 12
  15. 9
  16. 9
  17. 7
  18. 7
  19. 7
  20. 6
  21. 5
  22. 5
  23. 5
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26. 4
  27. 4
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33.  @francisdayon  green energy is not too expensive, it can be the cheapest option, especially economic "externalities" are considered. (It cost a factory nothing to polute a river with industrial waste, but that has massive social costs that the government will pay. This is why china stopped importing a bunch of recyclables from the US, the companies profited having sweatshops sort plastic by hand but the health effects were costing China's government big time) And who says the "developing" world has to climb the tech tree and make all the same mistakes as the developed world. They don't have to use coal and steam engines for hundreds of years, they can import specialty goods like windmills and solar panels. Hell india could start will concentrated solar in the south or the deserts near Pakistan, all that takes is mirrors and molten salt as the heat exchanger with a conventional thermal plant system. They have enough Brain power to have both nukes (weapons) and a space program, they could build nuclear power as an alternative to coal and build hydro in the Himalayas to serve as the battery for they concentrated solar. Upgrade transmission lines enough and they can make different regions capable of supporting eachother fully so you don't need to burn coal locally. (Also natural gas killed coal in the states thanks to fracking so I'm sure india could import nat gas or extract its own to avoid using brown coal, the dirtiest of the coals) Coal is simply cheap and dirty, unimaginably dirty with long term consequences. (Litterally creating the poor districts in western cities like London because were the smoke from the factories fell only the poor couldn't escape)
    3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42.  @Jetliner  ACC definitely feels like its in its infancy as a technology, like if cruise just locked the throttle at whatever percentage of max you had it at instead of giving more or less to maintain a target speed. ACC is currently (as far as i can tell) only using instantaneous position/distance to set the target speed so when you get cut off or someone jumps in that gap because people drive with cat logic (if i fits, i sits) it will notice the distance collapsed and set its new target like 20-30mph lower for this distance and start braking. What it needs to do is at a bare minimum take the derivative of the position data, smooth it slightly because dervitives amplify noise, and then use this relative speed to determine if it really needs to slow down. (It could also just find out exactly the speed the other car is going and make that its target if that speed is lower than yours while trending towards the desired follow distance.) As far as lane sense and blind spot monitoring, go to setting and disable the chime, i only have it on for long road trips where fatigue is a concern. And lane sense is similarly poorly implimented with it just turning the wheel a fixed amount instead of dynamically inreasing it to keep on its side of the line, i leave mine off since it isn't actually able to do its job. (At best the wheel turning is an alert you drifted, amt worst it actively fights you) I think the real leason here that can be applied to self driving cars are that programmers apparently don't drive or many of these issues wouldn't be a thing because its common sense that cruise isn't just lock the throttle at 45% because that only works on perfectly level ground with 0 weather. Overall these technologies are a net positive even in their current form, but that doesn't mean they are perfect yet. (I still wish other drivers would just use normal cruise, let alone the fancier assist features)
    2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. I think part of it is that most of Europe is significantly older than the USA so the economies of the cities are more diversified. Gary was born in the 1920's as a steel foundry barracks, when 60% of the population is employed by 1 employer/industry, its highly likely that the rest of the population is basically just service for them and not other self supporting buisnesses. (Restaurants and stores that have 90% of their clients be employed by a single factory or mine will close when that factory closes) I think the USA just has more of these Boom towns that were originally just a village that suddenly found gold, oil, or build a steel foundry and one day the well runs dry, the gold or coal gets mined up, the factory closes and then the city/town has nothing else to offer anyone so its economy crashes and everyone moves away. Compare this to NYC or London which have very diverse economies supported by financial, legal, trade/shipping, political, 30 different industries, ect. They have such a diverse economy that if one industry implodes that the entire economy won't collapse with it. Part of this diversification is time and part is city planning, actively finding ways to get other income sources to move into the city. If you have steel maybe you can get cars and canned goods as well, in modern times electronics are huge, even Universities can support a smaller town by litterally importing students from other areas who will pay tuition amd spend money in stores, the university then pays professors good money who then pay taxes and spend money in stores which distributes some income to the area around the university. I think america just has a lot more single industry towns & cities than europe.
    2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. Thats cool, 2 things i always wondered about for highspeed rail (or maglevs, or generally any fast train) is if Amtrak could build them along existing highway right of ways (its already reserved land for noisy transit with a wide footprint, i figure highway interchages pose the bigest obstacle for this idea, but it should be easier than having to get through residential NIMBYs) And 2, can trains have premium services to have your car loaded on as cargo at the back to solve the last mile problem, admittedly more usefull for rural destinations where you get dropped off in car dependent small town america. (The place cars actually make sense, not NYC) For reference bibwas checking out Amtrak's website to see if i could take the train home for Christmas (laughably bad at 20hrs to have the track stop 3hrs from my hometown, i can drive it in 6-7hrs, and going to destinations that have stops a car is twice as fast and doesn't end in the middle of a car dependent city), anyway I found 1 line they operate between DC and Orlando that advertises a take your car with you service to bypass I-91 in comfort which sounds so much better, especially if it makes the same time or better. Anyway i wonder what your end result was, i know college papers can end in unexpected results first hand. (I did a paper on how to handle nuclear waste, turns out the cheapest and best option is to find a filled in subduction trench and bury it 3km deep in clay in land bound for the mantle and in the time it takes to surface as lava its already decayed to nothing. Hardest part is convincing Seattle to let you put it in the cascadia subduction zone clay filled trench)
    1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84.  @Techischannel  you clearly know very little about such vessels. Every ship has a characteristic called its draft, or bow deep into the water it sinks. (Like how 90% of an iceberg is underwater) So heres a list of drafts of various vessels: Cruise ship (Oasis class): 30ft6in (9.3m) Aircraft carrier (Nimitz class): 37ft, won't enter less than 41ft of water Frieghters: -ULCV (biggest) : over 49.9ft -great lakes: 29.5ft My dad's 18ft long pleasure boat: 3ft I couldn't find anything for a typical house boat. Point it a skyscraper would be most comparable to a "floating city" like a cruise ship or aircraft carrier and you will notice that these vessels need over 30ft of water to start to float. Using some basic physics and rough estimations (I'm going to use the Empire State building because its stats are easy to find): first its dimensions are 381m tall (roof) by 129.2m by 57m for a footprint area of 7,364.4m^2. its mass is 331,000,000kg which must be displaced by water to float (boyancy 101), the density of water is 997 kg/m^3. We must therefore displace about 331,996m^3 of water. Assuming the tower is a perfect prism and not its terraced shape, the water would need to be atleast 45.08m deep or 147ft deep. (From the base of the tower which is already above see level) Using this as an estimate of the percentage of a buildings height that need to be under water as draft we get 45/381 = 11.8% for a perfectly rectangular empire state building. Please tell me how a massive 10ft flood event is supposed to float a skyscraper with a 147ft draft? And this ignores how the building will immediately fall over into a much more stable position without massive rails. It was a fair question to ask if we can make stuff float, but basic physics and math says that the dense core of a city will never float. Low density houses cam float but this introduces a lot of other problems like utilities connections, not getting washed out to see, landing back on your foundation, having the building handle wave action and not spring any leaks. Louisiana has decided to instead build houses on stilts above the expected flood level.
    1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1