rtlfe

> The article briefly mentions ReasonML, which offers a different syntax which aims to be more familiar to JavaScript programmers but is also likely to be more familiar to most programmers of C-family languages.

One thing I don't like about this is that they've replaced:

> let x = 1 in

with

> let x = 1;

In plain OCaml you only use semicolons on lines that evaluate to unit, so they're a clear indicator that you've done something with side effects. ReasonML loses this useful visual distinction in order to look more like JavaScript.

> letting the MRI machine talk to the laptop than putting redundant chips in every device

This sounds like a huge security risk.

> Is it even possible to build new housing when the population density is already at 20k people per square kilometre, like in the cities mentioned?

Absolutely. The most expensive parts of Manhattan have tons of 3-4 story townhomes that would become 12+ stories practically overnight if the zoning allowed it. Not to mention all the single-family detached homes near subway, PATH, and LIRR stations nearby.

> There's a trend towards urbanization because people move to where the jobs are.

Look at how many people stayed in or moved into NYC after their jobs became fully remote in the last 2 years. It's a lot.

And of course nearly all of those involved cars. There would be basically no bicycle deaths if we didn't have to share the roads.

> over a typically 6-11 year timeframe

The dates there are just when the street view photos were taken. All of those smaller apartment buildings can be built in under a year, and 1-3 years for a highrise.

> With radio, air conditioning, seated on a comfy seat,...

Last year 40,000 people died in car crashes in just the US. Cars are one of the top contributors to climate change and air pollution. The space they take up prevents people who want to walk from being able to.

But yeah, that's all worth it so you can listen to the radio.

> 4 people can share a ride

You can easily carry 3 kids or one adult as a passenger on an e-cargo bike. Or even better, each of the 4 people can ride their own bike and the total cost is still less than one car.

> one doesn't get wet

Fenders

> or freezing cold

Jacket

> goods can be easily transported

Most things people need in daily life can be easily carried by bike.

And if one of the people turns out to be a creepy perv, the other one can leave without having to depend on them for a ride home in their car.

> Also real estate in dense cities is disproportionately more expensive.

That's not a law of nature. It's a result of deliberate choices made by city governments to restrict the supply of housing over the last few decades. Also the fact that it's so expensive and people keep moving there shows that it's an attractive way to live.

In the US it's because the least car-dependent cities all enacting zoning ordinances in the mid-1900s that prevented housing supply from keeping up with demand and made it very expensive to live there.

> New York are famously considered generally rude

Unclear why people believe this, but it's absolutely not true. Spend a day watching people walk to work in Manhattan vs people sitting still on the freeway in LA and it's clear who's happier and friendly. Road rage is real, and cars make people miserable.

Or golf carts. If cities would allow them on the streets, they would be a great way to start transitioning away from cars.

Avoiding sweat is not a good reason to keep people in 5,000lb mobile air conditioners. There are plenty of hot cities where the majority commutes by walking or non-air-conditioned trains.

There are plenty of mid-sized cities with decent bus service and bikeability, where living car-free may not be the easiest option but is totally possible and preferred by many people. Austin, Seattle, Portland OR, Boston, DC...

That's just not true at all. With the current nationwide housing shortage and sky-high rents, developers will jump on any opportunity immediately. All you need to do is set the right zoning code and streamline the approval process.

Check out this tweet series for many examples: https://twitter.com/search?q=turns%20into%20(from%3Amnolangr...

I'm no expert on 1800s London, but I'd expect the average person couldn't afford to own a horse and instead walked everywhere.

> In the US, people need cars because of how cities are designed.

There are plenty of places in the US where this isn't true, and the number is growing.

> I don't think we could go down to zero cars any time soon

Of course I have no idea the specifics of where you live, but I think many suburbs could make this possible within 5-10 years by:

-zoning an area to be the suburb's "downtown", i.e. a few blocks of small apartment buildings with ground floor retail including a grocery store and restaurants

-building high-quality bike lanes to get to the new downtown

-subsidizing a service like car2go to make it easy to access cars on-demand when you need to go somewhere farther

> People need cars to do things.

Some people need cars to do some things. For many of them it's easier and cheaper to use taxis and rentals than to own a car. As more people give up car ownership it becomes easier for others to follow.

Same. I'd love to see somebody like OP riff on something the Atreus [1] to end up with something beautiful, practical, and ergonomic.

[1] https://shop.keyboard.io/products/keyboardio-atreus

Buying cheap clothes and wearing them until they fall apart is fine. Buying cheap clothes and wearing them once is not. Lower class people are not the ones causing problems with fast fashion.

Yeah "serious cyclist" feels so impossible to define that it's meaningless. If I ride to work every day but go to a shop for maintenance instead of buying my own tools am I not serious?

> Our email addresses are often available through a quick search of HN

Your customer service strategy is really "go to a small internet forum that only some startup nerds know about and find my email address"?

> most devs and most job openings

I'm not sure. I'd guess very few companies that hire more than 20 devs a year would have any language requirements. But I don't know what % of jobs are at companies of that size.

> That still takes time.

Yes. I want to work somewhere that shows they're committed to the long term, not somewhere that's focused on how much I'll get done in my first week.

I've interviewed at probably 15+ companies over the last decade, and none of them had language requirements or tests. Honestly I see those things as red flags. If you can find somebody with good problem solving skills and proficiency in any language, they'll be able to pick up your language no problem.

That's pretty excessive. I've switched languages whenever I get a new job, every 2-5 years. I think this is more what OP had in mind.

> In the US, roughly as many vaccinated people in the US die from COVID every day as there are total deaths across the country in motor vehicle accidents.

It's truly shocking that we're not doing more to reduce car dependency.

That sounds better for basically everybody except Elon.

> No, that’s typical software development.

Software that controls multi-thousand pound machines at 70+mph isn't typical, and typical practices don't necessarily apply.