this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
1179 points (86.1% liked)

Technology

59696 readers
2022 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I had my way then manufacturing would be publicly owned and based on open source principles

You start off very well... but after that sentence you just take a running nosedive into bog-standard green capitalist apologia.

They’re incredibly versatile and ~~hugely~~ somewhat efficient in ~~certain usecase~~ extremely limited situations,

FTFY.

Ecologically they can make a lot of sense too

No. They absolutely fucking do not in any way, shape or form.

aviation thus making flying a far less polluting means of travel than trains

Never going to happen, genius. Just the massive infrastructure air travel requires makes this attempt of yours a joke. When it comes to efficiency, nothing beats trains - except ships. That's not going to change any time soon - or possibly ever.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're saying a lot of things in strong terms but not proving any evidence for why you're right and groups like TfL who are regarded as one of the most advanced public transport networks in the world are wrong when they say mixed mode integrated transport networks are the only viable option.

Just adding swearwords and huffing like youre some expert talking down to a fool is a fun tactic in a discussion but when you don't have anything to back it up then it just makes you look like a bloviating jackass.

Do you really think that running train lines to every rural house is ecologically more sound than cars? And we run them all empty on the of chance that someone wants to use them? Do we run a cargo line to ever farm and factory?

There are use cases where ecologically speaking personal vehicles are the only even vaguely sensible solution.

If you had a heart attack would you like the paramedics to spend an hour waiting for trains then another hour on trains taking you to the hospital? Maybe special ambulance trains that wizz past the others and delay everyone hours because the schedules got messed up while they were in sidings? No? Then we're building roads anyway and it would be silly not to use them.

And yes air travel using efuels is ecologically far less impactful then train travel even on legacy lines (i.e. lines which have repaid their initial construction cost (ecological), these don't really exist much because maintenance continues to add significant ecological cost.)

Cost over the life of infrastructure per person mile is actually very low for aviation, airports are cheaper than trainlines by a wide margin and planes are about the same cost as trains per served mile, a bit cheaper but thats largely due to economies of scale so I'll be charitable and handwave it.

We need more trains, we get more trains by being realistic about where they're useful and proposing and supporting sensible developments. Personally I am angry at the endless green flag waving idiots that opposed HS2 because it was going though forests, that is an amazingly good use of trains and have been already reducing both car and lorry use on some of the UK's busiest roads while also serving as a great starting point to a integrated cargo network requiring only last mile trucking - but it got shit all over by so many people including idiots that shout on Facebook about how terrible cars are and then say the HS2 cargo transport plan was bad because it was built around mixed mode rather than some magic transporter or what most the lunatics actually seen to want a return to barbarism and the destruction of our modern society.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you had a heart attack would you like the paramedics to spend an hour waiting for trains then another hour on trains taking you to the hospital?

Oh, look... hysterical hyperbole. Yawn.

And yes air travel using efuels is ecologically far less impactful then train travel even on legacy lines

Prove it.

and the destruction of our modern society.

Oh, look... more hysterical hyperbole. Yawn (again).

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So what is your magic answer for emergency services in a zero car world? Or do you want to admit that yes roads and automobiles are kinda vital?

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So what is your magic answer for emergency services in a zero car world?

Oh... look - the person that can't argue without resorting to hysterical hyperbole is mysteriously resorting to yet more hysterical hyperbole.

Who woulda thunk it?

What are you trying to do - win the prestigious "Right-wing Shill Of The Year" award?

Can you show me one person that has ever advocated for this (alleged) "zero-car" world?

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you're saying we do need cars and a road network?

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So I guess that's a yes on the“Right-wing Shill Of The Year” award thing, huh?

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd wager I've been an active member of more leftwing movements than you, certainly since you seem to be in the very naive mindset of 'anyone who disagrees with me must be a right wing monster'

But I'll accept that as a 'yes we still need roads and you were right about the integrated transport network thing and first/last mile and the many areas where trains don't make sense economically or ecologically'

I think it's Mao in Contradictions that talks about how in the search for a better world you can't afford to hold resentment against tools simply because they were once in your enemies hands, or maybe it was Deng, but the point is if cars can help us in the structure of a better society we shouldn't reject them just because they can also be useful in a bad society.

Certainly we shouldn't resist improving them simply out of some emotive grudge.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’d wager I’ve been an active member of more leftwing movements than you

Don't bet anything you might need now, you hear?

Mao in Contradictions

I don't give a fuck what Mao or Deng has to say about anything - do tell... what reactionary faux-left organisations have you actually been in?

No wonder you are so ready to shill for capitalists.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you have any argument based on anything besides yelling and stomping your feet? So far all you've done is backtrack on your original statements and cry about how I'm not left wing enough, or the wrong kind of left wing or whatever your next childish attempt at defection from the topic is.

It's ok you can just say that you don't really understand the complexity of mass transit systems and that your original stance was nothing but kneejerk emotion - you don't need to keep making yourself look more foolish.

I'm sure you're very sweet really when you're not all flustered like this, take a moment to breathe and try to remember that being wrong doesn't have to be scary it can be exciting, it's learning and putting you on a better track for thinking about things in the future.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So far all you’ve done is backtrack

Oh… look - the person that can’t argue without resorting to hysterical hyperbole is now hysterically (and hyperbolically) pretending I backtracked on something to save face.

Ho hum.

your original stance was nothing but kneejerk emotion

Oh... look - here's my knee. And it's still exactly where it was when we started.

Fancy that.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah but have you noticed how I keep going back to the subject at hand and reiterating my initial statements but you're actively ignoring all of that and instead choosing to just try and insult me in vague terms?

You obviously realise that I have enough interest in and understanding of transport infrastructure that your emotive and catchy slogan based arguments aren't going to hold water as I can refute them with actual evidence based studies and the work of experts in the field. Possibly you're also aware that my grasp of the importance of such systems in a left wing or socialist state eclipses your rudimentary idealism.

If this was a debate for points and prizes then you'd be making the only sensible move, but we're not here for prizes - we're here to try and broaden understanding of what's needed in a better world and to determine how we can work towards that together for the benefit of all.

So stop being hissy and get back to the important matters, you seem like a good kid with a lot of passion and energy - if that's directed right then you could be a real boon to the movement for a better world. Getting lost in ego and fear of admitting you're wrong isn't going to help anyone though, least of all yourself.

Let's make friends and forget about all the angry stuff you said, and yes I have been mean and rude too and I do apologise very genuinely for that, I just care about this stuff and it gets me caught up when I feel people are making it harder to shill for urban modernisation through trams and track based cargo networks. I don't want to have to be explaining the limitations of mass transit but also I don't want to be part of groups that will make me look foolish and to have to start every argument in favour of trains with 'yes obviously a lot of people who argue for trains are crazy and wrong but...'