Really interesting -- thanks for sharing!

Coming from a transport modeller, the title of this article is incredibly flawed, and the write up should row back a bit.

The study itself seems great; looking in detail at the carbon cost of a transport mode throughout its lifecycle. However, it emphatically shouldn't be used to inform transport policy on its own.

This will have a focus on the UK, as this is what I'm familiar with.

Rail schemes, particularly heavy rail, has massively high start up costs due to all the engineering that has to go in place (because if rail goes wrong, it tends to go very wrong, and so the rail industry and legislation is naturally very cautious).

We don't just need to get to net zero; we need to get to net zero fast. Bus rapid transit is much faster to get off the ground, and can be electrified by putting batteries in and having quick charging at certain stops and, crucially, has a capx that a cash strapped local government is more likely to swallow.

To give some context, this is the progressive era, which was a reaction to the excesses of the gilded age. Specifically: trustbusting was big under Teddy Roosevelt, attempting to introduce legislation to break up monopolies, and reform of the political system to make elections much more democratic (e.g. introducing direct elections).

So: this comic sits in the context of this political swing towards more open and transparent government and business, but before it was fully realised. Specifically, the date in 1909 is before the 17th amendment in 1912, which introduced direct election of senators, so the perception was of corrupt, unaccountable senate members.

Heyyyyyy 🪱🪱

This might bring you some joy

Brainwormed take + not a gigahon + love yourself.

boysmell pog

I want to defend tragedy of the commons. The point is that if you have a resource that is depleted by use but that gives advantage to the individual user, then people are incentivised to use it.

However, the point we should take from it is the exact opposite of 'communism bad' -- it's that we need governance and regulation to prevent overuse of finite resources.

It's not necessarily malicious -- given general humour in this country, it's likely he wanted to lose weight and asked his friend to text him that daily as a form of motivation.

Edit: however, I'd like to point out that consensually being sent that by a friend is fundamentally different to having abuse thrown at you by a stranger on the internet for your body shape.

No.

N

I find the comparison to clowns quite helpful, as they fill a weirdly similar niche -- in most cases a performance art with clearly defined tropes, based on exaggerated makeup, carefully choreographed routines, while retaining an ability to improvise with a crowd, and of course some people have an irrational fear of them. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense to have them do the reading for kids. The makeup turns them into a cartoon character that kids find exciting; the practice with improv means children, who aren't always the best listeners, can be managed without harshing the vibe; and their general stage experience and presence helps them retain that tough crowd to get them to listen to the story.