So it the car is the problem, what if you could build out new train rails everywhere and get people to use them?
What if people refuse to use the train because it's scary, dirty, stinky, etc.? What if you could re-imagine trains where everyone can bring their own private mini-car and add it to the train? Then the car can be private, clean, luxurious, cheap, or whatever the owner wants. Would people adopt it then?
Yeah. that's pretty zany. As long as I'm not forced to pay for it, why criticize? I'm curious to see which zany idea out there proves itself.
>What if people refuse to use the train because it's scary, dirty, stinky, etc.? What if you could re-imagine trains where everyone can bring their own private mini-car and add it to the train? Then the car can be private, clean, luxurious, cheap, or whatever the owner wants. Would people adopt it then?
Because the "private mini-car" isn't as space efficient as just having one person. Space efficiency is a major point of public transportation, and the "scary, dirty, stinky" aspects can and have been solved in other parts of the world like Europe and Asia. What public transport advocates are worried about, I think, is that just like freeways, we are potentially going to create an enormous strain on the surface road system... the cars are going to have to come out of the tunnels some time, after all, right?
The reason criticism is warranted is because unfeasible, far out ideas like Musk's distract the conversation from proven and viable solutions and undermine their implementation.
Musk is providing ammo for persons that oppose public transit spending for political and idiological reasons that can be used in the political arena to argue to decrease public transit spending and slow down or stop implementation of public transit expansion.
You know what you might do if you were a problem solver like Elon? You would identify the problem you just described, then you would start a company that operates van-sized buses that could easily use the Boring company's tunnels. You pick up 4-10 people and carry them through the tunnels and let them out.
For bonus points, your vans could be autonomous.
Or, you could, you know... complain that tunnels aren't a complete solution.
They boggle your mind. But they represent the will of the people.
I live in a small desert community that was largely agricultural in my youth. Today, most of the water rights have been sold away and most of the farm land has been developed for other uses.
I think it is unfortunate. Sometimes I think the remaining farm land should be protected from development. But I do not own the land, and I did not do all the work to turn it into farm land. I believe the owners of the property have the right to do as they decide for themselves.
So, if I really want the land to be preserved, I can try to raise millions of dollars and buy the land from the farmers. But I can't otherwise just block them from selling it to a developer.
If you think state officials mismanage public lands and would prefer the feds to mismanage it, the feds should buy it from the state. This should not be a forced sale, either.
If a state has willingly sold its land to the feds... well, I guess they can't complain. Can you tell me how the federal government came to own 80+% of Nevada? Ask the Sheahans [1] and the Bundys [2].
I was referring to something like this [1]. I imagine there's a lot of mining, oil, and forestry state contracts that look the same way.
Private land is private land. If farmers want to sell it to condo developers they (albeit sadly) can.
My problem is that state government is largely unprofessional. Say what you want about the revolving door in DC between public and private, but state governments make that look downright respectable: generally instead there's kickback + sneaking an agreement in at the last moment + underfunded local news not noticing = public gets screwed and someone gets a cushy private sector job next year.
I was amused to visit Capitol Reef National Park and enjoy a tour of a small canyon where a boardwalk lets you see the names of some 19th century folk carved into a cliff face. Along the way were signs warning you of the criminal prosecution that would result if you carved your own name into the cliff.
I have seen significant preservation efforts regarding a name scratched on a hillside near the Grand Canyon. The author was still living down the street from me, but the scratching was 50 years old.
The abandoned houses across town are blight, but the one in Yosemite is a national treasure. My child's mud hut is a safety hazard, but the one up the cliff is a sacred Anasazi artifact.
On the other hand, I have seen a small local wilderness area turn from a fun spot for a family Easter egg hunt to a regional ATV attraction so crowded the local Boy Scouts could no longer camp there.
Balancing the past, present, and future is always a subjective thing. When the BLM actually does its job, it does land management. But that is a hard job. It is often easier to just close everything down and not let anyone in. That is not management. But when pressure on a wilderness grows from a couple hundred visitors a year to a couple hundred visitors a day, a policy of "anything goes" is also not management. Management can be expensive.
The people in the best position to observe and propose solutions are always local. But BLM struggles to build local partnerships. They try to manage through a multi-layered bureaucracy that ultimately makes decisions from Washington, D.C. The result can often look like the United Airlines video--constructing and enforcing a policy in a manner that doesn't fit the local situation. There are any number of ideas that could get the job done cheaper and with more sensibility.
> I was amused to visit Capitol Reef National Park and enjoy a tour of a small canyon where a boardwalk lets you see the names of some 19th century folk carved into a cliff face. Along the way were signs warning you of the criminal prosecution that would result if you carved your own name into the cliff.
That boardwalk is called the "Petroglyphs Trail", and it's there for ancient Native American art. Fixing the names of some people that carved their names near it would cause harm to the petroglyphs, so they opted to leave them instead of repair them. I feel like you're being intentionally misleading in completely omitting the fact that the boardwalk is there specifically for Anasazi Petroglpyhs.
> The abandoned houses across town are blight, but the one in Yosemite is a national treasure.
Care to share which house this is? Only information I could find was on the Bodie Ghost town, which is a historic mining town. Again, there's obvious cultural significance to an old gold rush town that is not present in some abandoned craftsmen in the inner city.
> My child's mud hut is a safety hazard, but the one up the cliff is a sacred Anasazi artifact
Really? Do you really not see the difference?
> On the other hand, I have seen a small local wilderness area turn from a fun spot for a family Easter egg hunt to a regional ATV attraction so crowded the local Boy Scouts could no longer camp there.
Which is exactly what a National Monument designation protects.
> Balancing the past, present, and future is always a subjective thing. When the BLM actually does its job, it does land management. But that is a hard job. It is often easier to just close everything down and not let anyone in. That is not management. But when pressure on a wilderness grows from a couple hundred visitors a year to a couple hundred visitors a day, a policy of "anything goes" is also not management. Management can be expensive.
This is literally the opposite of what National Monument land does. They're not "closed down." They're actually far more accessible for generations, just not by way of vehicles that cause massive destruction.
> The people in the best position to observe and propose solutions are always local. But BLM struggles to build local partnerships. They try to manage through a multi-layered bureaucracy that ultimately makes decisions from Washington, D.C. The result can often look like the United Airlines video--constructing and enforcing a policy in a manner that doesn't fit the local situation. There are any number of ideas that could get the job done cheaper and with more sensibility.
Can you cite some sources for that? Let's look at Utah, which is at the center of the National Monument controversy. Yuba Lake, a state park, is an absolute disaster of motorhomes, ATVs, and speedboats. Capitol Reef, Canyonlands, Arches and Zion, all federal land, have all maintained a large percentage of their natural beauty and cultural significance. What exactly would the state do better with those lands?
Edit: I also want to bring up Goblin Valley, one of the more popular state parks in Utah. It's $13 for day-use access to 3500 acres. Grand Staircase, on the other hand, is 1.8 MILLION acres, free day use, and arguably far more fragile and spectacular.
For many, the question is which public hands should hold the public land. Why should the federal government bring staffers from Arizona to manage the Everglades? Why is the Grand Canyon "governed" by Vermont? Why can't Bears Ears be managed by the state of Utah, or perhaps better yet, San Juan County?
Is a hot spring in Arkansas really so remarkable that it should belong to the people of California?
rkt is still not fully functional as a container runtime for kubelet[1]. kubelet is the underlying daemon used by Kubernetes and OpenShift for running containers. I am not sure if and when rkt will reach feature parity with the docker runtime but once it does, we wouldn't need to do much and enable it in OpenShift.
I don't understand why you would be hit by significant monthly fees just because you can't prepay.
You mean that you can't prepay when you think currency exchange would benefit you? Well, if you think you're in a currency exchange sweet spot, go ahead and exchange. Then just leave the money in your bank account for next month's bills.
What's that? Your bank won't let you hold a balance in another currency? That sounds like a problem with you bank, not you hosting service.
While your point isn't invalid, having to contact my bank and work through the process of setting this up is another layer of hassle that I don't have to deal with on another, more flexible provider.
> In the past year and a half, the grandson and grandfather have rarely spoken or seen one another, communicating mainly through lawyers, says Tyler Shultz. He and his parents have spent more than $400,000 on legal fees, he says. He didn’t attend his grandfather’s 95th birthday celebration in December. Ms. Holmes did.
> “Fraud is not a trade secret,” says Mr. Shultz, who hoped his grandfather would cut ties with Theranos once the company’s practices became known. “I refuse to allow bullying, intimidation and threat of legal action to take away my First Amendment right to speak out against wrongdoing.”
> what the hell is wrong with Theranos that they seemed so focused on attacking anyone who questions them, rather than focusing on actually fixing the problem
The problem is unfixable because it's a complete fraud. There is nothing. They're holding the fort for as long as possible, and it's amazing they've been able to hold it for so long.
Off topic: he's 95 years old?! I don't care how well connected he is, who thought it would be a good idea to have a nonagenarian on the board of a (supposedly) cutting edge health-tech company?!
Such individuals are often chosen to be on the board for their experience and networking prowess.
It's quite true that testing their mental faculty would be a challenge. Therefore the decision could simply lie with other board members based on their observations of his behaviour and the direct contributions he makes to the company.
To suggest that mental acuity is uniformly distributed with respect to age seems a bit "post-truth". The priors at play most definetly suggest much greater scrutiny of a 95 year old, but by no means should they be preclusive.
For the same reason an auto insurance company charges my 86 year old grandmother thousands of dollars per year more than myself; your faculties degrade with age.
I remember in the 90s being a teenager reading Boies brilliant work shredding the Microsoft monopoly with such overwhelming skill, and he was almost a hero of mine. Since then I've realized he's just a hired gun, a genius with no morals or integrity who's in it for the money and nothing else. What a disappointment.
If you only want lawyers to take cases on popular sides you're going to be disappointed. And, in fact, I'd argue that you're effectively arguing that only popular opinion should have good representation--which is pretty much at cross-purposes with the function of the judicial system.
Wells Fargo seems ok in your experience??!! Is that a joke?
Your account is wide open to any of thousands of employees who conspire against you. You're ok with that?
It's people like you who keep companies like that in business and encourage such atrocious activity.
What if people refuse to use the train because it's scary, dirty, stinky, etc.? What if you could re-imagine trains where everyone can bring their own private mini-car and add it to the train? Then the car can be private, clean, luxurious, cheap, or whatever the owner wants. Would people adopt it then?
Yeah. that's pretty zany. As long as I'm not forced to pay for it, why criticize? I'm curious to see which zany idea out there proves itself.