swansont

CharonY posted the guidelines - you need to present evidence. Is stuttering a predictive indication of being bipolar? Present medical evidence of this. Statistics, etc. As we say, this isn’t the WAG forum. We require that some minimal amount of scientific rigor be applied.

A lot of big cities have decent mass transit. The city-dwellers that use cabs would probably be enticed by a lower cost and/or more responsive service I think the tall tentpole is the car commuter that has to pay for parking. A two-car family might give up one car if there is a reliable service that gets them to work and back, and give up both if they can (again, reliably) run errands and could safely do shuttle service for the kids.

How do you reduce the cost to the point where it’s cheaper and as convenient to use this service than to own your own car? It’s not just cities that are car-centric. In the US it’s everywhere, and one could argue that cities are less car-centric than the suburbs are

I don’t think the issue of more roads was tied to elimination of mass transit. You would definitely have more congestion if you replaced mass transit with individual cars, just based on how much space multiple cars take up as compared to a bus. Or the added cars replacing commuter trains. And we’ll still have to pay for roads and the cars.

There are people who take mass transit, which you would eliminate, who do so because they can’t afford to own a car. You can’t just assume they can borrow a car (which they aren’t currently doing) and taxis are more expensive than mass transit. And not everybody with a car buys new - lots of them get used cars. What do they do? These aren’t irrelevancies, they are direct consequences of your proposal

People have insisted that sex is not a spectrum. There can’t be an overlap of sexual characteristics if there’s no spectrum. Less than 1% also identify as transgender. And only are readily categorized if you only recognize a subset of the sexual characteristics, i.e. you look at the most visible differences but ignore secondary ones. But that leads us into the circular reasoning that plagues this discussion, that there are two categories because we’ve postulated that there are two categories.

The argument was “no distinction” not “clear and concise distinction” Clearly one can make distinctions, as we can observe it happening in this thread. And nobody is arguing that there is no distinction, since AFAICT nobody is arguing that men and women are identical. The argument is that there are more than two categories, not less.

You need to read it. Figure 5, in particular, which has the information you claim isn’t in the paper. And, while Im here, I will point out that the graph you posted with the arrows is another example of bad faith arguing. You compare a rise where you have cherry-picked the endpoints(as has been noted), starting with a minimum and ending on a maximum. and comparing it to a rise where you didn’t. Had you not cherry-picked the data, you would have two distinctly different slopes. That makes for a different argument I know this because you’re not the first to make this kind of BS argument. The early 1900s had volcanic activity and increased sulfate levels, which cooled the planet.

By the same token, the fact that you can fit ~99% into two categories, based on some limited set of criteria, does not mean that everyone in a category is identical, nor does it mean that there is no overlap between these categories if you consider more criteria. Further, the admission that less than 1% aren’t covered by this (erroneous though that number is*) belies the argument that there are huge numbers of transgender individuals waiting to descend on athletics, if only some circumstances would change. You can’t have both be true. Either their numbers are small, or they are not. * less than 1% considering themselves to be transgender does not mean that this is the percentage of people who have characteristics from the other category. It only means that having such characteristics is not compelling enough to feel as if they are mislabeled.

No comprehensive definition is a far cry from no distinction. That’s a helluva strawman

Nightmare, yes, but actual lawmakers are relatively few in number, and most don’t drive themselves around.

The traffic I’ve dealt with for the last 25+ years (and deal with a lot less, recently) highlight these “A” personality drivers, who act like the rules don’t apply to them. Ignoring the dotted lines dividing the lanes, crossing a lane or two to turn or exit. And forcing themselves into a lane instead of getting in line. I’ve wondered if it’s due to the higher density of lawyers and their ilk (be they practicing attorneys, lobbyists or whatever). There’s also the problem of the folks with diplomatic immunity, possibly not caring too much about following the traffic laws. (Also the incompetent - coming to a stop on the onramp!)

No, it’s not the clarity. It was that it was from a personal anecdote rather than a scientific journal.

What you’re asking for doesn’t exist. I thought that this had been made clear.

One of these needed to be true, and neither one was.

One might ask how they deal with it with conventional vehicles. They might have a gasoline station on-site, and regularly top off the tank. I imagine there’s a checklist of things that must be in place before going out on a call, and “more than half a tank” could be one of the items. They might even refill after each call. How often do ambulances run out of fuel?

This seems like a simple check for an algorithm, diverting to a fueling site when the level gets low, and not getting on a section of road if there isn’t enough fuel to get to the next site. And also being able to immediately dispatch a refueling vehicle when it happens.

We’d like a reasonably clear point of discussion.

! Moderator Note This should be more descriptive; it’s a publicly available (no copyright) book on history, use and effects. Not on how to make them.

It’s not just the roads. You have to update all the cities, too. Rail and subway trains don’t make 90 degree turns with pedestrians potentially blocking the way. And cars are not connected and hit each other. You don’t have trains where only one car stops to discharge passengers or unload cargo. Or have the cars go at different speeds. They don’t pass each other. One train car doesn’t stop short. Some of these issues are mitigated if all of the cars are automated, but how do you get to that point? Do you mandate that everybody get one? Is the government going to buy all of the conventional vehicles that would be worth far less under such a mandate? What of the people who can’t afford a new, rather expensive car?

I will reiterate that rail and subways have significant differences from roadways. It seems obvious to me. Do I need to explain these differences?

Science and engineering are pretty cerebral, too, and there are some well-known sexual predators throughout the various disciplines. And stories of coverups because universities didn’t want to deal with the publicity of the allegations.

Don’t ignore the possibility that women might prefer to not have to deal with sexual harassment, and that might be a contributing motivation for segregated divisions.

Citation? I’ve found sources that peg the number at ~30 million (2021), but they say cars. I see stories of a test program for buses in the UK, but it’s very small scale. (ETA- I see the number for the US is a thousand or two, so I wonder where are these millions of cars? I can’t find actual numbers for China, who allegedly have the most) 30 million vs 1.4 billion cars means we have a long way to go The goalposts keep moving. Buses and trains are not source-to-destination, as autos are, and I think that’s the source of the big problems. I’ve raised concerns about driverless cars. Responses citing trains and buses does not address the issues, and is a tacit admission that these problems are not currently close to being solved. And European cities aren’t the same as US cities. There are huge layout/logistical issues, which is also a reason why we don’t have good mass transit in much of the US.

So you need to have a roadway system with no pedestrians - not even after the passengers leave the car. A city with no inhabitants. Plus no construction, or downed trees, or any other random obstacle. The navigation has to rely on the centralized automation rather than visual cues. It can only work if all the cars are automated, and you have to drive everywhere.