I don’t believe that was the same group, but I’m fairly certain that protest just involved leaving a note on the windshield and using a lentil to deflate the tires. Their notes did touch in the environmental impact of SUVs, but from what I recall the notes focused on the negative impacts that SUVs have in cities. Such as the skyrocketing number of pedestrian deaths we are seeing.
And for whatever reason you think we couldn’t do literally the exact same thing we did with highways to build nationalized rail?
Railroads are land intensive but somehow 27 lane highways aren’t? Also wait until you find out how expensive it is to maintain all of those highways…
It is possible to switch, but the more experience you have the less likely it will be. Switching teams internally can be easier if that is an option.
Easy, buy a $15,000 dollar bike.
Corporate cattle farmers.
I’m not sure that the National Motorists Association, and organization that thinks drunk driving laws are unfair to motorists and claims to be a “grassroots organization” but refuses to provide any membership statistics or funding sources is a reliable source on the topic of right on red laws.
Aren’t roundabouts typically significantly larger than an equivalent intersection with traffic lights? If so I’m not sure that’s what we need in urban areas. We already give up so much public space to automobiles. There’s also the question of where does that additional space even come from? Do we bulldoze more homes? To me it seems real solution is to move away from personal vehicles in urban areas. Anything else is just trying to justify an inefficient and unsustainable lifestyle.
You can be all of those things and still hold certain reactionary beliefs.
Boy are you going to have a real egg on your face whenever X becomes a successful blogging/dating/banking/investing app \s
This is why I always git push origin +branch_name
I don’t game much, but with the few games I do occasionally play I’ve had really good success at getting them to run on Linux under proton. It’s way better than it was even a few years ago.
That’s valid, but if it’s a dump I would have a hard time describing it as an asset, at least in the financial sense. But I suppose it could be if you’re willing to put in the work to fix it up.
Even if it’s not, houses appreciate 5% a year on average. Assuming average appreciation over 10 years that house is now worth ~163% of its original value. That means that the mortgage was taken out for ~61% of what a comparable house would go for today which assuming the same interest rate would be a fairly significant reduction in the monthly payment. You also have the potential to refinance to further reduce that monthly payment.
Or you could sell it and get that 10 years of equity + appreciation out in cash and that might be enough for a sizable down payment elsewhere.
TL;DR unless your parent’s place is a dump in a low demand area it’s an asset even if it isn’t paid off.
I see. That is an entirely separate discussion. Whenever you bring up air conditioning on a thread about the ozone layer everyone is going to assume you’re talking about the refrigerants.
You realize that banning CFC’s did have massive implications on industry right? Most CFC use was industrial. This comment really just shows that you’re clueless on the history of this issue. Consumer air conditioning was far from the only casualty. If we had not banned CFC’s then the ozone layer would be in an absolutely dire state today.
The Montreal Protocol is literally proof that if international governments wanted to they could come together and stop industry from destroying the planet, and you think we should roll that back for air conditioning? Give me a fucking break dude.
That we should go back to knowingly destroying the ozone layer because the lingering effects of our previous attempts at destroying it haven’t gotten completely better yet and that has had bad effects on air conditioning. Won’t anyone think of the poor deprived people forced to sit in their cars that are a sweltering 70 degrees Fahrenheit?
You and I have vastly different experiences of cities. I grew up in the middle of nowhere in a town of 5,000 and I would never even consider moving back to a rural area, or even a suburb. I own a house in a city that is on the list above, but I’d prefer to have an apartment in nyc. As for traffic, live in the right place and you don’t have to drive. I’ve been car free for years. I recognize that is not an option in a lot of US cities, but it should be. I also don’t really have any issue with crowds and I think the trash problem is very exaggerated.
I’m not saying that cities are better for everyone, but a lot of people genuinely prefer them.
Refer to the title of the info-graphic. Salary required to buy a home in the 50 largest cities in the US.
Obviously people with money exist in rural areas. I never claimed that there were no good jobs. I said if your industry does not exist outside of large cities then you are basically forced to live and work there. Take for example a hardware engineer for a tech company. They absolutely have marketable skills, but the work cannot be done remote thus without changing industries how are they supposed to move to a rural area?
If you have those same marketable skills you can make a ton of money in large cities. Senior software engineers can realistically make $300K or more in nyc. If they go into fintech then they can make absolutely absurd amounts of money. Even in traditionally wealthy neighborhoods like the uws or ues the median household income is $130k. They are not hurting for cash or sacrificing any sort of lifestyle to be there.
The price of building solar and wind is going down everyday. Natural gas will only continue to increase in price as more and more public pressure mounts towards ending our use of fossil fuels. Coal is already not economically viable without government subsidies. Betting on the cost of fossil fuels staying low is a losing strategy.