gspencley

Don't forget "trickle down economics." After collusion, price gougers, speculators, hoarders and bankers you always get to fall on "trickle down economics" as the convenient scapegoat.

Unless of course you're a conservative. Then it's somehow always immigration's fault.

Nice straw-man. I never once suggested that business people should be making technical decisions. What I said was that engineering solutions need to serve the needs of the business. Those are insanely different statements. They are so different that I think that you actively tried to misinterpret my comment so that you could shoot down something I didn't say.

It's not FUD, it's pointing out a very real fact that most problems are not engineering problems that you can fix by choosing the one "magical" engineering solution that will work for all (or even most) situations.

You need to understand your business and your requirements. Us engineers love to think that we can solve everything with the right tools or right engineering solutions. That's not true. There is no "perfect framework." No one sized fits all solution that will magically solve everything. What "stack" you choose, what programming language, which frameworks, which hosting providers ... these are all as much business decisions as they are engineering decisions.

Good engineering isn't just about finding the simplest or cheapest solution. It is about understanding the business requirements and finding the right solution for the business.

> You may think this ought not be true, but as a matter of reality it is. Each generation carries the weight of the previous one through retirement.

To the extent that this is true, it is by choice.

> Is it just? I think so - but regardless of that, it is the agreement every child is born into.

"Agreement" presupposes the consent of each party. You cannot be entered into an "agreement" without your own participation in the act of agreeing.

Children cannot consent, therefore this is no "agreement" by definition.

What you have called an "agreement" is more appropriately referred to as a "duty." There is a very critical distinction between the two concepts which I will elaborate on in a moment.

> Somewhat, but it is rude to point that out.

What do manners have to do with anything?

What you're describing is the concept of duty. You're saying that by virtue of just being born, a child is obligated to care for his or her elders through retirement and that their personal choices are irrelevant.

In this case there is a very important question: "What are you going to do about it when the child says 'no'?"

You can either do nothing, which is a valid option, but it means that the entire concept and discussion was moot. You can invent "duties" all you want, but people ultimately get to decide how to live their own lives and there's nothing you can do about it.

Or, you can pass laws and use force in order to compel people to do certain things "for the good of society."

Which brings me to why I asked the question: "Are people who choose to be child-free parasites?"

That's a very important question because if a "society" depends on children in order to pay peoples' pensions and to take care of them when they are older, and that dependence is so fundamental that we consider people who choose not have children "parasites", and we obligate children to a duty to take care of elders ... then you've weakened the recognition of individual rights (at least reproductive rights and the right to travel / emigrate) to such an extent that you've opened the door to banning contraception, abortion and freedom of travel.

> They will work for our pensions and care for us when we are old.

That sentence sent chills down my spine.

Life is an end in itself. It is a not a means to the ends of others. Your children are no more my responsibility than they are my tool to serve me in old age. My pension and care in old age is not their responsibility any more than their behaviour is my obligation to put up with.

If this sounds strange and overly "individualistic" then let me frame the issue in a slightly different way.

If we accept that children are an "absolutely necessary part of society" because "they will work for our pensions and care for us when we are old" then what happens if people choose not to have children? Are childless (by choice) people parasites in such a society? If more and more people decide to not have children is there a point where this becomes a social crises to the point where we start forcing people to have children?

And what about children who decide to emigrate as adults? Is there a point where you prevent people from travelling in order to guarantee that you have enough people around to pay pensions and take care of old people?

Not that it should matter, but I write this a middle-aged parent of two adult daughters who I do not hold to any sort of moral obligation to take care of me when I'm old. If they choose to then cool, I guess, but it's their life to live as they choose. The mere fact that they exist does not automatically obligate them to anyone else for any purpose.

I agree. I'm a parent with two (now adult) daughters. I'm not intolerant of other peoples' children because I am personally child-free or was an only child (though I was). I'm intolerant of other peoples' children when those children draw attention to themselves.

If your kid is quiet and keeps to themselves, then I haven't even noticed them in the first place in order to take issue. The reason I take issue is because your kid is being loud or obnoxious and ruining my experience in (grocery store | restaurant | movie theatre | public transportation | anywhere that I'm politely minding my own business but your kid is forcing me to know that it exists).

As people like to say when discussing rights and freedoms: your rights end where my nose begins.

My wife and I recently travelled to Walt Disney World for a vacation. While in a hotel lobby we walked past a child around 8 or 9 years-old (if I had to guess) accompanied by a man that I assumed was his father. As we walked past, the kid punched my wife in the arm. It wasn't a mistake. He telegraphed the hell out of it. When I confronted the father he just smiled and shrugged it off.

If people didn't constantly have to deal with situations like the above, then we could talk about being more tolerant towards other peoples' children.

But if it's not a child invading physical boundaries, it's auditory. God help those of us with misophonia that have to listen to children make the most hideous noises (and not always due to a temper tantrum, sometimes it's just loud screeching or yelling as part of play or whatever).

Why should anyone have to tolerate this? And no, I don't blame the children, I blame the parents. But who is at fault is irrelevant. No one should be obligated to put up with assholes whether those assholes are 40 years-old or 4 years-old.

Government is force. It is laws, police, courts and the ability to seriously screw up your life if it chooses.

A corporation might have "power" in an economic sense. It might have market significant presence in the marketplace. That presence might pressure or influence you in certain ways that you would prefer it not, such as the fact that all of your friends and family are customers/users of that faceless corporation.

But what the corporation cannot do is put you in jail, seize your assets, prevent you from starting a business, dictate what you can or can't do with your home etc.

Government is a necessary good. I'm no anarchist. But government is far more of a potential threat to liberty than the most "powerful" corporation could ever be.

SaaS stands for "software as a service." When I think of SaaS I think of subscription-based software. It is usually web-based (meaning web applications that run in a browser and talk to a remote server), but I can't think of any reason that it necessarily has to be, and one could probably call newer versions of Photoshop / Adobe Creative Cloud "SaaS" since that is subscription based.

This distinguishes SaaS from traditional software that was sold as a good. In the good-based model, you purchased a copy of a particular version of the software and could install it and use it independently, on your own machine, no remote servers required for the rest of your life without requiring any "services" from the creator of that that software for the normal every day operation of that software.

As someone else already pointed out, all software (and most hardware) is an abstraction over top of something more primitive.

But to say that all SaaS is a "wrapper" around another service seems to be making the case that SaaS as such cannot provide original functionality that is not exposed by some preexisting lower-level service and that's not true. I currently work for a SaaS company and while we do provide integration with 3rd party services, our core functionality is entirely developed in-house. Our databases which store customer data are analogous to what storage devices on our customers' own devices would be doing if it were good-based software.

As with anything, the word starts to get applied to things that the originators didn't necessarily intend.

My working definition of "maker" is someone who fabricates physical things. It's less DIY'er and more crafts & hobbies on steroids. The classic example is people who work in prop departments in movies and theatre. In that arena, you need to be a jack of all trades when it comes to fabricating physical anything. The skills include everything from woodworking and metalworking to mold making, model making, painting etc.

The more you specialize the less the word "maker" applies as I conceive of it. A guitar luthier could certainly be considered a maker by some, I mean it is "making guitars" but the term is intentionally broader than someone who specializes in making something very specific.

But consider the term "furniture maker." We have used the word "maker" in the past to describe someone who makes something specific. You just take off the qualifier and you have someone who makes all sorts of things.

My wife and I are part time magicians and what I often say drives me to magic is that it is the ultimate "maker" hobby. It is extremely multi-disciplined. There's the strict "magic domain" (misdirection, sleight of hand) but depending on what you want to do you end up getting into all sorts of tangential skill development from costume and wardrobe fabrication to building illusions out of a variety of materials (woodworking & metal working) to making smaller hidden devices ("gimmicks" as magicians call them) to practical VFX (makeup, prosthetics etc.)

All that being said, I completely agree that the term has become so overused as to start to border on meaningless.

> And why did you quote “IT people”, who said anything about IT people?

I'm not the person you're replying to but I interpreted what they were saying as meaning "tech savvy."

The average, non-tech-savvy user doesn't necessarily understand the concept of client/server applications let alone realize that what makes the software that they purchased work is bound to a remote server / someone else's computer that could one day disappear.

I've been following this thread and in another reply it was pointed out that Finale has a 30 day money back guarantee, that "everyone" who uses Finale knows about the remote activation mechanism and that if they discover it after purchase and do not agree they can take advantage of that 30 day money back guarantee.

I think this argument is weak.

What a user typically experiences after installing new software is a dialogue asking them to enter their email and password that was used at the time of purchasing.

What happens after that is not necessarily clear.

Does it need to send the email and password to a remote server in order to verify the license every single time the application starts, or is this a one time activation?

From the user's perspective, is it made blatantly clear that the software is asking for the information for the purpose of product activation or is it merely for personalization purposes?

For that matter, does it actually serve any functional purpose at all, or is it just annoying data collection that can't be skipped?

20 years ago, EULAs were one of the big talking points online when it came to software companies. There was a question as to whether EULAs would actually be enforceable, binding contracts that courts would recognize at all. This came up time and time again because of some of the content that these EULAs included. I can't remember any specifics, but I remember that there was some really eyebrow raising stuff in some EULAs. Regardless, it was well understood that most end users blindly clicked "I Agree" without ever reading the EULA. It was seen by most as an annoying thing that you had to do when installing software, and few understood the point or gave it a second thought.

My argument is that when it comes to product activation, most end users probably view it as similar to clicking "I Agree" on the EULA. I doubt very much that most non-tech-savvy users are really thinking about the fact that someone else's computer is going to need to be running in order to activate their software should they need to re-install or if they lose access to the Internet. And very few are thinking about the possibility that the company could go out of business or one day just decide to stop activating the software on re-installs because they feel like it.

I'm repeating some of what I've said in earlier replies of mine ... but this really comes down to contracts and by "contract" I don't necessarily mean a hand-written and signed document laying out terms, I just mean the agreement that was between the vendor and purchaser. That agreement can be complicated because you've got the EULA on the one hand, the company's marketing on the other and what a court would recognize and enforce if it were litigated.

I'm personally more concerned with the implied agreement because I doubt anyone will choose to litigate over this (unless there is an institution somewhere that invested a lot of money in Finale and expected to be able to use the software in perpetuity). The implied agreement matters because this speaks to what promises MusicMaker was making to their customers and if they reneg on that promise, when money is at stake, it makes them a shit company that no one should ever do business with in the future.

I also really don't understand why you're "simping" so hard for MusicMaker. Is it that you've taken a position and you're debating it as an academic exercise or out of boredom? Or are they paying you? I mean ... I've never seen anyone go to bat so hard in favour of a company screwing over their paying customers.

As a Canadian I appreciate his concern but kindly ask that he mind his own business. I will decide for myself how much U.S entertainment.. I mean, er, "news" is unhealthy for me, thanks.

> I like the tactile nature of paper, if only I could select chunks by dragging and erase (fully) without wrecking it.

I'm not seriously suggesting that you do this, but the term "cut & paste" originated from a concept that predates digital text editing ;)

> but FWIW ‘indefinitely’ doesn’t mean forever

You just really like arguing for the sake of arguing don't you?

I'm sure that if I opened a dictionary I would find the distinction, but most people treat the words 'indefinitely' and 'forever' as synonymous. Nit-picking on that minutia kind of makes you come across like the obnoxious little brother who does the "But I'm not touching you!" thing to his sister. It's just annoying and most reasonable people know exactly how 'indefinitely' and 'forever' will be interpreted.

> That’s unlikely to be true, and not anyone’s decision but MakeMusic’s

The nuance here is that it depends on the contract between MakeMusic and their customers. If I'm purchasing a subscription and the fine print makes it clear that service may be discontinued at any point for any reason, fair enough. If I make a one-time purchase and expect that I will be able to use what I paid for indefinitely, then them taking down their activation servers without providing a workaround might be a violation of their contract with their customers.

But I'm not making a completely ill-informed proposition when I suggest that the expense would be minimal and fixed for MakeMusic to do what I suggested. Obviously I don't know all of the details about how their software works, so I can't know for sure. I'm making certain assumptions based on how long their software has been around, the fact that they have a remote activation mechanism and having developed software professionally myself for over 25 years.

I don't have a proverbial dog in this race but I agree with the outrage and I don't think "stealing back" is at all hyperbolic.

I guess if you're really really really young and all you know is subscription based software, then that is the world you know and you might just be accustomed to it and accept it.

But if Finale has been around for 35 years, then it existed long before "cloud" and long before subscription software was a thing.

If someone has invested money and time into using that software, into creating project files that only work with it, in learning how to use that then it is not remotely acceptable in my opinion to disable their access to something that they have paid for and invested in. I don't think that "stealing" is an inappropriate word to use in that case. Not even a little bit of hyperbole.

Does that mean that MakeMusic should continue to invest their own resources into maintaining it? Absolutely not. To answer your question: "what do you actually want to have happen to Finale that’s realistic for MakeMusic?": I would suggest that they allow people who have paid for it to continue to use it indefinitely.

This might mean that they need to release a patched version that's not going to activate remotely through their servers with a download link that will eventually expire.

I acknowledge that that doesn't cost them "absolutely nothing" but it's not a major expense (also happens to be a fixed cost) and it prevents them from being akin to your fridge manufacturer saying "we are discontinuing this model, as well as repair services for this model, therefore we are going to enter your house and physically remove your fridge one year from now so that you will be forever unable to use the thing that you paid us money for." What they get in return for this one time "end of life" service for their paying customers is customer retention and good will. I mean, I know that I will never consider buying anything from MakeMusic as a result of hearing that they might shut off my access to things I bought and paid for at any time.

Yes. GrapheneOS can't support NFC payments because Google won't certify the OS nor does it provide any avenue for getting certified / "approved."

I can see how this could be a deal breaker for some.

Speaking only for myself, personally, I'm 42 years-old and have been a very slow adopter of smart phones in general. GrapheneOS let me feel like it's finally my phone and I've started using it more. Mostly as an mp3 player while exercising, and I've got an open source password manager that I've started using a lot. But I've never been comfortable with the idea of my phone replacing my wallet. I mean, sure it can do everything that my wallet can do but it's also susceptible to malware or attack and if I lose it then not only do I lose all of the data on my phone but I lose access to my identification and payment methods as well? That is a terrifying prospect to me. I don't like the idea of single points of failure. Losing my wallet would ruin my day. Losing my phone would suck but nothing catastrophic would happen. For most people losing both would be a nightmare scenario.

But I don't even do online banking on my phone. I probably could. I choose not to.

This obviously isn't 100% "de-Googled' but I use GrapheneOS with the sand-boxed Google Play Services and Aurora Store for the few proprietary apps that I use. I don't do online banking using my phone so I'm not sure how well that works (GrapheneOS' documentation has some words of warning about banking apps), but for ride sharing and other stuff that I occasionally need it has worked pretty well.

The one thing that didn't work well was Location services when my wife and I travelled to Walt Disney World. The My Disney Experience app worked great for the most part, but occasionally I would get errors related Location claiming that I was outside of the country. Uber worked fine though. Fortunately we were travelling together and had her phone to fall back on when we needed it.

I've thought a lot about this because I owned and operated a business for 18 years, for 15 of those years it was my primary source of income, and it was entirely ad-based even though my "users" often complimented me on having an ad-free product. It was all affiliate promotion, they were there for the free content and it wasn't obvious that the free content was promo for subscription services, plus the affiliate links weren't being shoved in peoples' faces. They were there if people wanted more and were willing to pay, and the click-through rates were decent and it was profitable, so this type of "non-intrusive" advertising does work.

But ... I happen to be someone who REALLY DESPISES ADS ALWAYS

I'm not as "black pilled" as the comments that started this. My issue is not that ads try and psychologically manipulate people. I don't think that there is anything intrinsically wrong with trying to persuade someone to buy something.

My problem with ads is that they are annoying and distracting, most are this way by design, and they come at you completely unsolicited.

If there was a way that I could opt in or out of being shown ads in all areas of life, so that if I were interested in learning about new products I can, but if I'm not interested the ads can kindly fuck off and leave me alone ... that would be grand.

And that kind of exists. I mean, if I attend a ComicCon I'm going to a big trade show. I'm hoping that the show floor will have tons of wares and demos and such. I'm looking to buy. If I go on Amazon and start searching for products, by all means spam me with results related to what I'm looking for.

But if I'm trying to watch tv, or I'm on social media or in a context where I'm not actively looking to discover products that I might be interested in purchasing, I get downright offended and triggered when suddenly some dipshit character in a commercial is like: "look how ridiculous and annoying I am while using this product I want you to buy. If you buy it you can be just as moronic, obnoxious and annoying as me." In those situations I wish that advertising would just cease to exist in all forms all together.

Agreed. What's your point?

I've watched some brilliantly produced independent documentaries where the filmmakers procured funding, went on the ground and did the hard work. MY point was that you don't need the backing of some biased mega-corp to greenlit these types of things.

> Is there any meaningful progress being made to reassess our preference for finality over justice?

I think the problem is that, despite a prisoner's constitutional right to habeus corpus, once you are convicted you no longer have the presumption of innocence.

Add to the fact that the convicted was convicted by a jury of their peers. Therefore, to overturn the conviction, the courts not only have to recognized and acknowledge their own error, they need to overturn the jury's decision. And the system places such a high value on jury decisions that it doesn't treat overturning them lightly.

This means that there is a huge uphill battle to climb. The presumption is that you are guilty, because you were convicted beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt. You are no longer in a position of defending against a prosecutor's case where they need to prove you guilty and you have no burden of proof what-so-ever. You are now in a position where you need to prove your innocence.

I'm not sure what the process is like when there is exculpatory evidence. I would hope that as long as the evidence has the slightest hint of merit that the case can be reopened. In the case of the article, however, (which I will readily admit that I didn't study in its entirety since it was pretty TL;DR, so I skimmed and skipped parts) it doesn't sound like there is new exculpatory evidence, it sounds like the DA is unconvinced by the evidence and that if the trial were to occur today, that evidence would have been given much stricter scrutiny than it was at the time. It sounds like we need better ways to rexamine cases when standards of evidence change. To offer a made-up hypothetical, imagine that polygraph tests were admissible at one point and then it was deemed they are unreliable and are no longer admissible, could people who were convicted on polygraph evidence demand an appeal on that ground? I'm not a lawyer so I don't know, but I would hope so.

While I would agree that there is a hole for certain news and information that isn't being filled (specifically investigative journalism and foreign affairs), I think there is a valid point to be made that, in the age of smart phones and social media, what use is there for the local newspaper and news network when if something happens close to you there is raw footage of it all over social media that shows exactly what happened without editorial. And that footage gets to you much quicker. Before the media companies can publish an article and find a way to spin it for sensationalism, complete with ads.

In this regard, I think there is a replacement. And for local news, I would argue that in many instances the replacement is far better since it is quicker to publish and has the potential to be far more objective.

EDIT: actually I think that hole is being filled, at least in part, by independent documentary filmmakers. What got disrupted were the mega conglomerates like Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc. And while spin and misinformation will always exist, because news is published by humans, I don't know why we would trust those conglomerates any more than any other random joe.

Yeah my personal view on the "rehabilitation" vs "revenge" (or "punishment") debate is "neither."

I don't know if it's possible to change or mold other people, but even if it is I don't see that as being the proper role of a government.

But revenge or "punishment"? I think that presenting the issue as if those are the only two options (rehabilitation vs punishment) is incorrect and doesn't address the role of the penal system or of governance.

I think that the proper role of government is to protect the rights of all individuals within its jurisdiction. Consequently that means that the role of the penal system is the exact same. How the penal system achieves that, with respects to dealing with those who have infringed upon the rights of others, is a wide open discussion and one that should often be revisited. I'm opposed to the death penalty, for example, because the risk of human error and the consequences thereof are way too high. And I think that as long the system employs prisons, how we treat prisoners and how we determine sentences is of the utmost importance.

But I don't think the purpose should be to either seek vengeance or to try and "rehabilitate" criminals (assuming that's even possible). I think the main focus ought to be on achieving the purpose of governance: to create an environment of peace and liberty where the rights of individuals are recognized and protected. If you demonstrate that you are a threat to the rights of others, as proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt through the judicial system, then the purpose of the penal system in my opinion is to prevent you from continuing to be able to infringe upon the rights of others. Again, how it does that should be a never ending discussion and, depending on the severity of the crime, the ability to turn one's life around should be available. I certainly don't want to lock petty thieves up for life with no ability to put aside their criminal ways and become productive members of society should they so choose. I just think that the onus for making things right needs to be on the offender. That that's not what the system ought to be there for nor should it be the responsibility of the victims ("society", tax payers, as well as the direct victims etc.) to try and "impose" those very personal choices and actions on the offender.

> On the other hand, jail time for this? Isn't that a lot?

No I think that if you physically assault someone that jail is very appropriate. Obviously there is a lot of context that should be taken into consideration: first time or repeat offender? Severity of the assault, including whether there were injuries. Aggravating factors such as whether it was hate-crime motivated etc. All of this stuff matters when deciding upon the appropriate remedy.

But I think that the role of government is to protect the rights of all people within its jurisdiction. It does that by removing the element of force from civil existence. I think there is a very healthy and important debate that should be ever ongoing about how to achieve this when people infringe upon the rights of others. But as a matter of principle, I'm completely fine removing people who would assault others from society. Whether it's for a "time out" in mild cases or indefinitely in extreme ones (with everything in between to cover case by case).

That's an interesting interpretation. I kind of agree. The risk of this remedy is that this unhinged person might throw food at coworkers or customers. Obviously such an incident would likely land her in that 60 day prison sentence plus additional charges and remedies for those, but the judge is clearly taking the "rehabilitation" approach here in the "punishment vs rehabilitation" debate.

Personally I'm not a fan of that dichotomy. In my world view, government's reason d'etre is to protect the rights of all individuals within its jurisdiction. That means that the penal system, by extension, serves the same purpose. Within that framework, "punishment" and "rehabilitation" are both non-considerations. It's not really up to the state to be the daddy figure to make a criminal feel bad for doing a naughty, nor is it up the mommy figure to try and shape and mold the criminal into a productive member of society. It's up to the state to remove threats to life, liberty and property.

That doesn't mean that a first-offender should get a life sentence or anything. Of course not. And I'm not even necessarily opposed to the idea of the "forced empathy" remedy since I do think that the end-goal here aligns: which is to prevent this from happening again and given the judge's experiences with sending offenders to prison and her stated reason for offering this remedy, it might work. But do I care if this woman wants to improve herself? Not really. I'm far more concerned with her victim and preventing more.

I'm just offering my thoughts because I think it's an interesting discussion about the role of the penal system and appropriate remedies.

> I do think it's good to be polite to anyone who calls

Out of curiosity, why?

It might be (probably is) my asocial personality and the fact that getting interrupted is very triggering for me.*

But while I am amenable to the argument that there is no use in being rude to someone who cold calls, I can't help but pick on your choice of words: "good to be polite to anyone"

Is it morally good to be polite to someone who wants to harm you? Perhaps if they are physically threatening you and politeness is part of your deescalation strategy. But a cold caller? I like to believe that there is a special rung of hell reserved for cold callers (right next to lawyers and people who talk at the theatre).

I don't go out of my way to be mean or nasty to them because there is nothing of value that can come from that.

But they certainly don't deserve a "please" in front of "delete this number click" in my personal opinion.

* - While I'm not a huge fan of smart phones, they do have one killer feature that has won me over: the ability to set the default ring tone to silence and assign people in my contacts a ring tone that will actually get my attention.

> Uncooked chicken? I'll just push it to the side and eat the rest.

Really? You're not just being facetious?

I NEVER send food back if I just don't like it. If it's under-seasoned or not up to my standards, no big deal. I'll go elsewhere next time.

But if it's a food safety issue, or if I order something pricey and it's missing a key ingredient (they don't have to take it back in that case, just bring that ingredient to the table and we're good). I mean, if you paid for it and you can't eat it because it's unsafe or you didn't get what you paid for ... that should be totally understandable and expected that it gets sent back. I've worked in food service and while I would never spit on anyone's food no matter how much of a dick they are, I wouldn't even feel the temptation if it was a legit kitchen screw-up.

Logically, the more dispersed people are the less concentrated they are in any one area. Obviously. That said, Toronto is extremely walkable. Maybe not as much as certain European cities (I honestly wouldn't know), but everyone walks everywhere in Toronto. My wife and I had a dinner reservation with friends one night and we chose to Uber instead of walk because my wife wanted to dress up and wear high-heels. Big mistake. The walk would have been 25m, the Uber trip took over an hour. Toronto even has the largest indoor walking path network anywhere in North America, it's something that Toronto prides itself on and was motivated by our cold winters. The point being, you don't need to walk on sidewalks on roads. You certainly don't have to drive (and most people don't). And there are paths all over the place that short-cut through buildings, parks and court-yards etc and avoid busy roads.

And still, you can't find yourself anywhere in downtown Toronto where you're not trying to dodge people or get one second to yourself without having people constantly around you anywhere that you look. Though my definition of "crowded" likely differs from people who don't mind being around people as much I as do. Our friends told us that we would despise New York given how bothered we were by the amount of people in Toronto.

So I'm skeptical that there is some high-population-density major urban centre where crowds would not exist on a level that makes me feel uncomfortable. At the same time, I'm happy to say that cities, in general, just aren't for me. Fine to visit from time to time when there's some special occasion (comic-con, concert, trip to Vegas or what-have-you). But not a place that I would want to live no matter how "walkable" they are. For my preferred, secluded & remote lifestyle, a vehicle is a necessity.

That's really cool. Usually when discussions come up about "walkable cities" the discussion is around major urban areas and city planning.

Though you mentioned banks as something that is still pretty far away. A few years ago I was self-employed, collecting old-fashioned checks (it was slow moving to digital) and I had to frequent a bank once every week, two weeks at most since I had to deposit checks that were in USD and my bank in here Canada couldn't yet do that via an ATM. My nearest branch was walking distance but I still chose to drive because it was a 20m walk, 5 - 10m bike ride or 1 - 2m drive. Since it was such a big chore to have to go there in person, I opted for a car more often than walking or biking.

I think that at least some of what drives these discussions is congestion and parking in major cities. I can't stand driving in downtown Toronto. But in my mid-sized city I really don't mind driving 5 - 10 minutes vs having to double or triple that to walk or bike there. Add the benefit of personal space and a trunk to carry groceries in and I can't see any benefit (beyond maybe environmental impact) to a "15 minute" city in a medium-sized city where traffic congestion is not really a thing and a short car ride will halve your 20 - 30m round trip.

City advocates claim that North American suburb existence requires you to plan your grocery trips and buy lots at a time, vs the "benefit" of city life where you can run to the store to grab milk if you're out of it. The idea of going to a crowded grocery store is such a chore that I welcome any strategy that gets me going there once a month or even less if at all possible. The idea of running to a grocery store, even if it were a block away, for a single item or two is nightmare fuel given that the trip could be avoided all together with the smallest bit of planning, whether walking or driving. So how do I accomplish buying a month's worth of groceries if I have to walk there? Whereas, if I have the choice to drive or walk, I can decide how much to buy at a time and how often I want to go. Big win for cars.

Another drawback to the "15 minute city", from an extreme introvert's perspective, is that the closer things are to your home, the closer PEOPLE are to your home. It actually bothers me if I'm sitting on my couch reading a book and I can hear people walking by on the sidewalk. When everything is close by, so are people. I really like living as far away from people as I reasonably can. A vehicle becomes a necessity with remote living.

> "comfortable" is a stretch. But yes, I won't think much of an unassuming person 2 feet away from me

I envy you. Unless there is an obvious reason that more space is impractical / impossible, my thought in such a situation is "Why do you need to stand so close? Please get away from me."

> So I guess one question I'd pose is: if you could have that personal space without the car, would you still prefer the car and why?

That depends on context. I would say that I would prefer to always have the ability to drive a car even if I were to choose to walk more often than not. Reasons for this: bad weather, needing to get somewhere while ill, feeling anti-social and not wanting to risk running into anyone, needing to get around with a minor injury, needing to transport a large or heavy items.

I know that we're talking about walking vs driving, but public transportation will inevitably enter the picture when it comes to physical or mobility issues. I would like to travel to Europe one day because what I hear from Europeans is that their cities are night and day compared to North American cities when it comes to not only walkability but public transport. Here in North America, I would rather walk on a crowded sidewalk than use public transportation for no other reason than being in what feels like a "tin can" full of strangers is nightmare fuel for me. At least on a crowded sidewalk I am outdoors.

> And given the negative externalities of the car, are there other ways those needs could be solved?

Sure. To the extent that "negative externalities" are something that we need to care about, let's use technology to reduce those negative externalities without having to give up the things that make our lives better.