Even with an overall hierarchical design, some places still tend to have fairly major roads with houses on both sides, these are the places I'm concerned about, directing more traffic to these major roads from historically less trafficked roads.
I would think having gaps in the barrier, say every five or ten meters would be sufficient?
I like your humble opinion :) that seems like quite a fair solution all around.
Maybe it's some limitation of the human brain that causes us to reduce everything to the same recurring roots :)
It may be better to open things up elsewhere, as long as the reason that it is elsewhere is not because elsewhere had a weaker residents association.
I've seen the paradox you mentioned a few times, but I think it is like a lot of paradoxes, interesting but rare and not very relevant most of the time.
It may be a net negative for the people on that street, but overall, I'm not so sure.
Let's say that a given road has a certain service life, maybe measured in tonne-miles (e.g. a car which weighs 1.5 tonnes and travels a mile on the road would reduce the roads service life by 1.5 tonne-miles) (maybe not a good way to measure it because the damage caused to the road is probably non linear with increasing weight)
What I don't know is if the cost of a small road per tonne-mile service life is any different from the cost of a large road per tonne-mile service life. If the cost difference is negligible then I don't see the problem.
Maybe it is that different parts of the government fund the small roads than the large roads, and the parts of the government that funds the small roads doesn't have the budget to do much road work?
Do heavy vehicles generally use these small streets, it seems like it wouldn't be worth it in a heavy vehicle with most small streets.
But how is this different to how the road system has developed from the start? People choose the popular routes by driving on them, then these are the roads that are repaired/upgraded.
I don't know if it's cheaper per vehicle mile to drive on a large road or a small road, but I couldn't see it being very significant, but maybe it is?
I would be interested to see how the use of lots of small street routes around a main route affects the flow of the main route, and what the efficiency gain generally is.
Maybe it is also in your best interests if the street is modified to accommodate modern use cases.
Why is it okay to push even more of these costs on people around the main route, don't you think that people in all areas should take on their share of these costs.
Also struggling to see how a guardrail could be burdensome.
So, I guess you think that this new driver tracking would be cheaper than traditional obstructions (i.e. speed humps, chicanes, etc...)? I guess it could be, but what are the non obvious secondary and tertiary order costs of tracking all car movement? This seems worrying to me.
But why should it be for residential traffic, if the through traffic is driving within the speed limit? Again, just because the history of a street made it appropriate for relaxed pedestrian use, should that now be in perpetuity?
Maybe a better solution would be to put in barriers.
First time I've heard of "rat running", but am having a hard time seeing the justification for the negative connotation. I can only see it as a more efficient use of the road system.
Just because at some time in the past there was less traffic in your street doesn't mean it won't (or shouldn't) increase in the future.
It seems to me that these residents associations are trying to push the problem of higher overall road use on to others that don't have such strong residents associations.
"Another metaphor would be like a computer with many programs running simultaneously. The more programs that are running, the slower the computer functions. This is a problem then. With all the programs running that are demanded of our consciousness in this modern world, we have problems finding deep integration."
I find this part disturbing if he sees the different programs as competing viewpoints and wishes to enforce a "deep integration" by limiting the possible viewpoints to a single one. I see a mind that is in constant contradiction and disagreement as the only way to prevent a person from becoming a zealot of any particular viewpoint.
Yeah, it's kind of amazing that people can have any sort of an objective view of the world, with the amount of noise being input to their senses. I guess even if you have almost complete garbage in, it is still possible to get mostly not garbage out if the processor is diligent enough :)
I disagree that the caricature protagonist is necessary. I think a more nuanced hacktivist character could have made the show much more ambiguous, and in my opinion, interesting, maybe approaching some of the complexities inherent in the material.
Given that the world is shown as perceived by the protagonist, what irked me was the straw man depiction of how a "hacktivist" supposedly perceives the world. Maybe there exist hacktivists who perceive the world this way, but it seemed completely implausible to me.
Yeah, I think that's how the GP meant it, ideally that would be the way it is thought of, but I could see it being used as a justification to look down on people like that farm worker.
It may be better if a person used that creative energy in a side project, if the product they work on has a large, varied user base.
I would not want to stop people being elitist, only for those who are to understand that their behaviour has a cost on at least some of those around them.
I appreciate the sentiment, but what if striving for "artistry" turns out to just cause a nuisance for the user? I think the problem here is that everyone experiences "art" differently, and what may be an impactful experience for some may just be irritating for others. Is it always better for someone to strive with their heart?
I think this is the way it is commonly thought of in society, I don't think this is a particularly good way to look at it though. I think the implied assumption in this framework, is that a laborer is less than a craftsman, who is in turn less than an artist. I see this as ripe for abuse by people who wish to project an elitist view on the world.
I don't like the endless repetition by people trying to exploit flaws in the human brain for their own purposes, but if you are able to mentally filter the inanity, you can experience the rare patches of awe inspiring creativity, well, at least I have been able to on occasion, I don't go there often and not recently so don't know if this is still true.
As for the expression of unpopular opinion, I feel that a society that is able to handle it's members freely expressing the most offensive viewpoints is infinitely more robust than one where these things are left to simmer just below the surface.
I find 4chan valuable because it seems to give an insight to raw humanity without the self censoring common in normal human interaction. I would rather people tell me what they really think, and I hope that as humanity evolves, normal interaction will become more direct.
I would think having gaps in the barrier, say every five or ten meters would be sufficient?
I like your humble opinion :) that seems like quite a fair solution all around.