[-] jessta@aus.social 9 points 6 months ago

@TootSweet @ajsadauskas They'll just completely rewrite it from scratch using a newer LLM and that will be considered normal. In those 5yrs the percentage of developers who remember the idea of code having longevity will be tiny.

[-] jessta@aus.social 17 points 11 months ago

@themeatbridge @sexy_peach Commuter driving has the same 'last mile' problem, but it's parking.

The photo doesn't include the $250 million worth of carparks for those 10,000 cars that has to exist at the other end of the highway.

[-] jessta@aus.social 26 points 11 months ago

@blandy @frostbiker
In Victoria (Australia), the fine for using your mobile phone while riding a bicycle is the same as when driving a 2.6 tonne ute.

[-] jessta@aus.social 2 points 11 months ago

@JasSmith @cerement @lysol Density is the panacea. Cycling is just what makes it possible. You can't have nice livable density with cars.

[-] jessta@aus.social 6 points 11 months ago

@Crazypartypony @glasgitarrewelt But if parking restrictions are enforced and people can't park and thus can't use cars then there will be political will for public transport. Public transport is cheaper to deploy than all the car infrastructure even for small townships.

[-] jessta@aus.social 7 points 11 months ago

@ChicoSuave @HiddenLayer5 you've got it the wrong way around. The anti-car/pro public transport/urbanism movement always has the goal of reducing the cost of transport and the cost of housing to make places that are livable for people on lower incomes.

Cars in rural areas aren't a concern because they're places where population density is so low that cars have fewer negative effects.

But rural public transport between townships and major cities can also make getting places quicker, easier and safer.

Building public transport in and to higher density areas doesn't stop you from driving your car in a rural area.

[-] jessta@aus.social 9 points 1 year ago

@zoe @frankPodmore Driving licences and traffic lights were invented because car drivers were too dangerous to safely mix with existing road traffic and we needed to restrain them. Bicycles have never been a significant danger to other road traffic. We don't require licences for people to ride bicycles for the same reason we don't require licences for pedestrians, it's a ridiculous idea that would do nothing useful.

[-] jessta@aus.social 2 points 1 year ago

@dudewitbow @JetpackJackson my concern with robo-taxises is specifically that they're not good at the edge cases. This means there will be a push to remove those edge cases, to simplify streets to match the abilities of the robo-taxises. We start to design our cities for the limitations of some software

[-] jessta@aus.social 4 points 1 year ago

@ME5SENGER_24 @bumble these behaviours in themselves don't cause injuries...are you sure you're not thinking about some other thing that is dangerous? Perhaps something that causes so much carnage that one way streets and red lights had to be invented?

[-] jessta@aus.social 23 points 1 year ago

@Princeali311 @buckykat bicycles and pedestrians got a long fine for decades before the invention of traffic laws

[-] jessta@aus.social 3 points 1 year ago

@cantstopthesignal @bumble does that work for people walking? If enough people walk in New York then they'll get walking infrastructure? Or does it only work for car drivers?

[-] jessta@aus.social 2 points 1 year ago

@Salty @ajsadauskas @fuck_cars nah, we want them to be sued in to bankruptcy.

view more: next ›

jessta

joined 2 years ago