pmg102

Right so these are orthogonal problems. We could solve the transport element of carbon emissions while solve none of the other problems of personal vehicular transport. Or we could solve multiple of those problems.

But it makes no sense to critique a solution to problem A by saying it is not ALSO a solution to problem B.

It's a bigger factor for small cars than for large ones, naturally. A Peugeot e208 EV weighs ~50% more than an ICE Peugeot 208 (1560 kg Vs 1065 kg).

CO2 emissions definitely are a problem. Because carbon in the atmosphere causes climate impacts globally. Switching an ICE car to an EV car reduces carbon emissions significantly, perhaps by a factor of 2x to 5x.

Particulate emissions are a separate problem. A local one but also important. Poor air quality contributes to diseases and deaths and EVs don't solve this one completely, although they do 1. reduce tailpipe particulate emissions (especially conpared to diesels) and 2. Use regenerative "engine braking" meaning less particulates from brake pad wear. However they still have tyre wear and that may be rather worse than an ICE car partly due to weight and partly due to immediate delivery of high torque to the drivetrain.

You have a moral obligation to your own family though. I think that is the point that OP is making.

Your point about taxation which is usually progressive is well taken.

It could be offset by the fact that you could invest the money from the first 25 years thus benefitting from a compound return.

I don't know which has the bigger effect.

Things changed very rapidly in the seventies with the oil shock, I believe. Cars suddenly shrank. Noone wanted big old bloated barges.

Maybe something similar will happen again, ie energy will become expensive.

Another approach could be to work for 25 years at full time then 25 doing nothing, instead of 50 years part time.

I've heard this approach called FIRE - financial independence, retire early.

> massively rolling out China

I think you need an edit there

SOME people did, yes. Others quietly enjoyed the improvements. Things seem to be moving in the right direction, despite the usual reactionary noises.

I read that no councillor had suffered at the ballot box for their pro-LTN news. Which suggests it's a noisy minority.

There are, although it's a bureaucratic palaver in the UK getting them registered, taxed, insured and legal. And then they, like mopeds, aren't allowed on cycle paths or in cycle lanes... In short, losing much of the freedom that makes bicycles such fun.

I'm generally pro-cycling but I found this story curious. No-one can reserve spots outside their house, for a car or any other purpose. So it seemed they were arguing not for parity with car users, which I would unquestionably support, but for special treatment?

Although I don't really understand why you can't reserve/pay for the spot outside your own house, for a vehicle OR a bike, which would seem to me a solution that would please everyone.

In the UK, as in Europe and Australia I believe, Ebikes ("pedelecs") are legally limited to assistance only up to 15mph=25kph (it's possible to exceed this downhill, of course). As someone used to riding a regular pedal bike, I would say this is close to but not quite fast enough to feel comfortable among urban traffic. Yet raising the limit to say 20mph could feel arguably unsafely fast on a shared use path through a park. It's a dilemma.

I'll have a go:

If you ask developer A how long it will take, the best outcome for them is that they AND EVERYONE ELSE go high. So they should go high.

BUT if everyone else goes low, but they go high, then they look bad. So they're forced to go lower. But then not too low, or they won't be able to deliver in time.

So perhaps this settles on an estimate that's "as low as possible but no lower"?

I read most of the article thinking it was satire and that was partly because the domain was medium.com not microsoft.com

Increasing atmospheric CO2 levels

After work or after lunch?

The headline on TFA reads "Science Museum removes trans-inclusive display after ‘propaganda’ complaints"

Trans inclusive, not trans exclusive.

"Just ONE MORE YouTube video, and then I will stop!"

Assuming you live in a democracy, I guess this goes alongside "I vote for higher/more progressive taxation or fairer redistributive policies whenever I can."

We solved the N+1 queries problem where I work by raising the level of abstraction from "queries plus serialisation" to "what shape data is required". We open sourced the solution at https://www.django-readers.org/.

My daughter was never sleep trained. At 7, she still requires an adult lying in the bed with her or at the very least in a chair beside the bed with an arm to cuddle to get to sleep.

Presumably this won't still be the case at age 14 though so it doesn't seem like its a problem.

I love the optimism about human nature implied by the use of the phrase "not realising".

Status, yes.

If you earn good money similar to your peers, your social opportunities will often be commensurate with those earnings.

If people know you earn less you may find them sympathetic eg suggesting cheaper social options. But if they know you earn as much as or even more than them, they may not look upon you so happily. They feel in a way cheated that instead of spending your money on time with them, you save it for future-you. Kind of selfish, it could be argued.

Having an above average income may be a necessary but is far from a sufficient condition to being able save up such a fund.

If you have above average income, most likely you will have above average outgoings, including on things you can't instantaneously cut like housing costs, car finance and school fees.

The only way I managed to create savings is by earning like a wealthier person but living like a less wealthy one, but there's a social cost to this course of action.

A burnt-out parent with an income may be more helpful to their family than a happier parent without one, depending on other factors.

“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.

“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”

The dialogue above is from Ernest Hemingway’s 1926 novel, The Sun Also Rises.

How do you know?

They somewhat reduce it. Perhaps by 50%, against currently dominant variant (which is itself of course subject to change.)

Everything that helps to reduce prevalence helps kids stay in the classroom.

Here in the UK there's a huge subpandemic among 5-11 year old schoolchildren, a group which are not vaccinated. I have a child of this age, off twice with covid in the last few months. I wonder if it'd be more effective to vaccinate them or to just do away with self isolation rules for them. The problem is the spillover into parents, who will be at higher risk due to age and possobly at much higher risk if clinically vulnerable.

On this one I find it hard to form a strong opinion.

Perhaps so. But it certainly sounds distinctly odd to me. Fairly confident I have never used or heard the construction myself. (Native speaker, 43, southern UK.)

This is not correct. "Quite few" is not correct English.

EDIT: on reading some of the linked sources I realise I was wrong about this.