Oh trust me, I get that the state wants to punish this and set a red line, no doubt about that. That doesn't make the label of terrorist appropriate, there is plenty of things other than terrorism that are illegal. My idea of terrorism doesn't include this form of property damage, and labeling it as such seems to be what sets a dangerous precedent here.

Haha oooooh okay, no worries, consider my heart mended!

I have nothing against old school graphics, I love anything that looks awesome, no need to break my heart like that!

Is it really? Because that claim goes against my intuition so if it's true I would be happy to get more details! But what you say doesn't quite make sense to me, sorry if I seem pedantic: transporting people faster is not the same as transporting more people. You transport more people per unit time, but not necessarily in total. I also don't see how faster trains need less staff. When you say it's cheaper, do you also take into account investment cost, or do you neglect those and just mean operating costs?

That's really a great article, thanks for the link!

Still, there's plenty of criticism in the article I linked that is not touched on, I hardly think it becomes irrelevant by reading Jon Worth's writing! Even with his proposals I'm really not sure if we would get back the cheap and still relatively fast connections that have been removed. To me there's not a clear benefit to getting rid of the old "low-speed" rail even if we fix SNCF.

So the article is very long so let me TL;DR a little. It mentions that when high speed rail is build, existing low-speed rails are often removed. Those removes routes are a little slower but often MUCH cheaper. I would say, like the author, that more expensive trains that are a little faster doesn't rhyme well with "let people go fast". He also has examples of night trains being removed in favour of a high speed rail, which hardly is a time-save if you count sleeping at night! Great examples in the article.

High speed rail doesn't have to hurt low-speed rail, it just has the way we've been doing it in Europe.

Hey, so I side with Ukraine in the current conflict, but in general I'm somewhat of a NATO sceptic and really not a fan of US foreign policy. I was curious about the information you provided, but honestly, in contrast to what you claim, it seems to me that you have not explained most of your points. Yeah there's been a clear political divide in Ukraine, but it requires an enormous leap of logic to see that as justification of the Russian invasion. Yeah NATO sucks in many ways, and it and Ukraine too have done some shitty things, but again, there seems to be absolutely no sensible argument for any of that to have justified the invasion.

I haven't watched the French documentary yet, in case any of your arguments relied on it. A quick online search on the journalist does mention several untrue pieces of Russian propaganda that seem to be mentioned in the documentary, though. Any chance you could explain more, or is this lack of explanation all there is for someone curious to understand why the war is happening?

Personally I hated the game the first couple of hours before I discovered the autopilot, because I was dying too often too achieve anything interesting. Then I discovered it, and then actually learned to fly, and since then I just loved the game. Maybe consider if you might be in a similar situation, or if maybe it's just not your thing!

Yeah I (and probably everyone else) agree that indefinite growth is not sustainable, but no-one argues for such growth and as far as I know there are no reasons to suspect the world population will grow indefinitely.

I don't know of the top of my head how sustainable a lower-middle class Westerner is, but my guess is not overly sustainable, as it feels that modern society is made so you naturally emit quite a lot. My guess is that we could sustain 10 billion or a bit more, I haven't really heard any convincing arguments we couldn't. I agree there must be an upper limit, but I think it much be much further than you think.

Pretty sure that he pointed out that a small fraction of the population is responsible for an absolutely disproportionate amount of emissions. Is really decreasing the population necessary, or would it be more effective to decrease the emissions of the current population, since we see that a lot of emissions come from so few people?

Also, industrial revolution changed more than just population, I'm sure you know better than simply implying that such a correlation as you describe implies a causation.

You're not blaming the poor, but you're still pointing to population growth as the cause, which raginghummus convincingly argued against.

My impression is that the hope is it will stop them from doing EEE on us