imilk

Damn Jim Lahey had a nice voice before he hit the booze

I don't know if there is a language barrier going on but I'm explicitly saying that Almere is not a walkable city (in most of the residents being able to rely on walking to complete most of their daily tasks). The majority of neighborhoods where people live are ~10 blocks wide stretches of identical row homes pretty spaced out around a town center without amenities in their neighborhood.

https://imgur.com/a/xgbRE15

There is a lack of necessary dynamic spaces that change in character throughout the day as people flow in and out that you look for in great urban areas. There is no real mix of residential, commercial, park, and event space that create a dynamic living environment.

We can keep going back and forth but it seems like you don't really understand the value of having an entire city be walkable, not the the city center. Because just having a walkable center is not a great urban city; it's the definition of poor planning reminiscent of suburbs all over the world.

Flevoland sounds like an Efteling style Dutch theme park dedicated to Guy Fieri

Not exactly. Almere is not walkable but it is bikable. The main issue is whether or not bikability can supplant walkability in terms of providing everything an urban area needs to thrive.

For me, walking > biking > cars and you cannot create the same dynamic urban environment if an area is not walkable.

Ok, but I'm talking specifically about Almere. Which unless I'm massively mistaken, does not look walkable (in most of the residents being able to rely on walking to complete most of their daily tasks) at all.

I think you're meandering a bit from the topic. Manhattan is not similar at all to Almere. Manhattan is filled with multi-use zoning and multiple modes of transportation options on every block, while still being highly walkable. It's also not a great biking city.

But while people ride bikes in both areas, it's a bit absurd for the article at hand to call Almere the "future of urban living".

Well my original larger point is that the city we're all discussing here is not walkable at all. And you can't make up for that by saying, "Well I know it's a 1.5km walk through identical rowhomes to the nearest pub, but the fact that you can bike there instead makes it the future of urban living."

Almere looks to be a commuter suburb to Amsterdam, where no culture, events, or urban life of any significance takes place. The fact that it is bikable is nice, but there are plenty of suburbs with well designed bike infrastructure. And that in no way does bikability supplant a well design urban area with residential, commercial, park, & event spaces combined together to create a dynamic living environment.

Walking in a urban area well designed for it also requires no helmet, no hassle of dealing with cars trying to kill you, and no pain from hunched over road bike posture. You also can stop and chat or pop into businesses easier and don't have to park or lock up your bike anywhere.

I love biking, but it's a bit shortsighted to think that bicycling in urban areas can replicate the same benefits of a city that is well designed for walking.

Sure, but it falls a bit short to be in the vision of "future of urban life". There are a sprinkling of commercial businesses in the gray areas of the map outside the city center. But not nearly enough to be considered urban by any means. And most of the areas where people live seem quite far away to be considered "walkable" from the commercial district.

I'm sure it's a nice place to live, but this is not the future of urban life.

https://imgur.com/a/xgbRE15

(I put a 1km marker on the map for reference)

I guess so but I'm seeing 1-2 restaurants/bars in sub-neighborhoods that are about 1.5km wide.

I'm not saying the city is bad by any means, I'm just saying that it falls very short in what I would hope to be the "future of urban life". Maybe the future of smaller towns or exurbs. But there seems to be a lack of necessary dynamic spaces that change in character throughout the day as people flow in and out that you look for in great urban areas.

I've never been there and was just making a quick assessment by Google Maps. It is nice that you can bike anywhere, but I'm mostly seeing residential neighborhoods (~10 blocks wide of identical row homes) pretty spaced out around a town center without amenities in their area.

So in terms of meeting someone for a coffee/meal/beer/event it looks like you'll have to hop on a bicycle unless you want to go on a 20-30 minute walk past monotonous homes. Which is not that different than suburbs anywhere else.

It's interesting - but it's hard for me to see this being the future of urban life when most of the city looks entirely suburban (not very walkable), separated from the main commercial area without bars/restaurants/shops in their own sub-neighborhoods.

I would expect a key part of future urban life would include one of the most important parts of current urban life; walkability and a harmonious melding of commercial, residential, and public spaces.

Everything?

Just scroll past the 2nd picture and start reading.

Holy moly - reading that article I never knew the British caver's lawyer was the same completely delusional Lin Wood from the idiotic "kraken" lawsuits. No wonder he lost the case.

Not really when the "microsubmarine" solution was never going to work and every minute was vital to get the kids out alive. So more of a "piss off and let people who actually know what they're doing focus on the job"

And regardless of that, it is still a massive asshole move to call someone a pedophile because they told you to shut up. Those two insults couldn't be more different in severity and social implications.

> I would be more interested in him implementing certain features like a journalistic credibility score for outlets and individuals. Base it on number of retractions, mistakes, and outright lies. Surely a score like that might put certain fake news propagators in line.

Which then raises the issue of who scores the scorer. You already have people throwing fits because the garbage they post gets labeled as misleading or not true. So how would this be any different besides you liking the person in charge of the scoring?

You may not be personally deafening him, but you are certainly offering a possible defense. So while you say "Not to defend childish Twitter name-calling" , you are also offering a possible defense for someone calling another person a pedophile without cause.

Your sentence is a a classic example where everything after the "but" pretty much contradicts what came before it.

> sometimes fired from their jobs because of a racist tweet or off-putting remark

I don't know about you, but I sure as hell am firing someone who is says racist things. Keeping them around is not good for your company, for the other employees, for your vendors/clients, or anyone else associated with your company.

There are very few things you can do that are a bigger asshole move than calling the person who bravely rescued a bunch of children a pedophile because you didn't get to be the hero.

Who would join his new network that isn't already on gab, parler, gettr, or truth social besides Telsa fanboys and a bunch of crypto enthusiasts?

Funny how his free speech ideals come to an end as soon as someone says the word "union" at Tesla.

I can't really tell from the website, do they make their own laptops or are these rebranded Clevos?

I know he is an expert on the subject, but he is talking about ridiculously high dosages that most people would not find pleasant in that clip.

I would never tell anyone I care about to take 5 grams dried in their first use.

If it grates you so much, give the money to someone or something else who would appreciate it more.

Lol the only people who would join Musk's social network are Tesla investors, crypto enthusiasts, and people who've already joined gettr, parler, truth social, etc..

Also having the head of a new social network be someone who is notorious for being a dick is not the best way to build a healthy community.

Is there psilocybin in the macarons? That's really the only way it would be the same.

For anyone who's never tried mushrooms before, 3 grams is a pretty large dose. If it's your first time start with 1 gram or so. After all, you can always take more, but you can't take less.

Put them in a peanut butter sandwich (with jelly/bananas/etc) and you taste them way less