Oh, I didn't even see it on there. But yeah, that's a lot of growth. Maybe some people were only subscribed to the .ml one and suddenly realised this one existed too? Anyway, it's nice to see it growing

I completely agree with this and I would never blame anyone who doesn't bike without good infrastructure. What I meant was that instead of hoping that self-driving cars will solve all issues, we should be pushing for better alternatives, beginning with improving infrastructure. Maybe I wasn't clear in my previous comment, because as a Dutchman I am used to safe bike infrastructure (public transit is not so great). To summarize my opinion: we need policies that support safe infrastructure to create alternatives to driving, because cars are never the solution to climate change. Biking should be made safe and convenient, so people will actually use it.

It doesn’t seem like anything happened to it to me: I can still see the community with posts and all. Maybe it has something to do with your instance?

This may be true, but reduced car ownership will not solve many issues with cars, like the vehicle miles travelled. If we don't change our lifestyles, we will still emit a lot of CO2. Here is a Dutch graph (maybe you can translate it, otherwise let me know!) showing that only that the production of the car causes less than half the CO2 emissions for EV's (the second to last one in the graph). If we want to reduce emissions more than that, which we really need to do, we need to find something else, like biking, which is way cleaner.

In Dutch, the Common Drone Fly is also called "Blinde Bij", which means "Blind Bee". This is because this animal is neither blind nor a bee and the Dutch are very good at naming things

Most of the people in both Finland and Japan live in cities, while most North Americans live in cities. Moving away from cars in rural areas may not be easy, but there is no reason why it would not be possible in the cities. The things that are needed are: denser cities (less tight zoning laws) and more alternatives to driving, like bike lanes or trams. These things are achievable by policy change. Also, the USA has around five times as much population density across the country as Finland, so while it may be big, it is not too big for decent alternatives to driving

This may be true, but I am not convinced that it is any better than nuclear. To start up regeneration quick the gas winning needs to be on a pilot light (dutch source: https://nos.nl/l/2485108). In Groningen there are (according to the same source) 5 places on pilot light that together must produce at least 2.8 billion cubic metres of gas a year. This is quite a lot of fossil fuels, so I would rather have a nuclear power plant than this gas winning (which comes with other disadvantages as well).

A big problem with solar and wind is that they are not as reliable as nuclear. In a worst-kaas scenario neither will produce energy because there is no sun or wind and there is no way to store enough electricity for these moments. Therefore we need a constant source that creates electricity for those moments. Of course, we do also need renewables, but nuclear is essential because it is reliable.

In naam van Oranje, doe open de poort

If you don't know, you should check to see if there is any /s in the comment. In this case the comment is not serious, because there is no /s and obviously /s stands for serious. /s

*Stroopwafel, cultuurbarbaar