This is great. Especially for people with disabilities that prevents them driving a car. Hopefully, coverage area will increase exponentially over time..
Self-driving jitneys will be able to extend public transit into the cul-de-sac subdivisions that are impervious to useful bus service. Let little 8 seat shuttles bring people out to the main line for trains or full-size busses to carry away. It is terribly inefficient to run a 50 person bus with 3 people in it, one of whom is a paid driver. See https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/autonomous-driverless...
Or try this - Waymo giving a discount for pickups at station. I used to use the Toronto subway this way - take the subway as close as I could get, and then take a taxi the last couple of kilometres. https://waymo.com/blog/2024/10/clean-rides-clear-benefits-wa...
Strongly agree. The future is what we used to call "share autos" in India. It's a small vehicle that can transport some 6-8 people. Currently these aren't feasible for the public because driver operational cost dominates, but once driver operational cost is near zero, we can bring much more public transit online. One of these vehicles is 4x-8x as dense as a car, and with America's relative lack of density, it's the only realistic way to have widespread public transit.
Particularly useful with dynamic dispatch and dynamic routing is that the vehicle's stopping can be much more infrequent, leading to lower total trip time and greater frequency. San Francisco is very dense but is also very old, so large 40-60 person busses stop every block forcing low throughput high latency rides. As a consequence, I prefer an e-bike over a bus everywhere in SF.
Taxi services make going carless more feasible, this isn't a net negative to public transit, rather a positive: you mostly use transit for your daily routine, and use a taxi/ride share/autonomous car for those edge cases where transit or biking makes little sense.
Except that isn't what really happens. We've been over this with uber rollout. It legitimately captures ridership from transit rather than supplementing it.
It works that way in Asia. You have taxis but really bad traffic jams drive you to subways during rush hour. On the weekend you might have a few taxi trips for shopping and going out. I can’t really comment on uber, but in Seattle they are too expensive to be considered in competition with transit, although personal safety issues on Seattle buses makes the value proposition weird.
A few autonomous taxis in each of the 1000 most sparsely populated counties would dramatically improve the quality of life for those people, particularly for the elderly. No bus line in the world can do that - not in places like Idaho or Western Kansas. I think they should be government funded as soon as it's feasible.
If the goal of the pardon was to handle a corrupt Judicial branch, then a better answer would have been for the Executive branch to nominate someone for a pardon to the Legislative and require a 2/3 majority of the Legislative to approve.
But something like that would fly in the face of the "Unitary Executive" insanity and would (I suspect) require a constitutional amendment, which is no longer remotely feasible.
A first comment said "without saying why". The second comment just says that this is blatantly not true, and that the rationale presented has been since confirmed as a very accurate prediction.
On Israel/Palestine issue, it was not a "tiny misstep". I will remember Joe Biden as "Genocide Joe" for the rest of my life. My perception (naively) of both parties has changed, but I don't trust Democrats anymore because of this issue. They are all the same..
I just now remember Joe Biden openly taking bribes in the office, on camera. I remember his "Joe for Life" jokes as he paraded "Joe Biden 2028" hats. I remember his attempted coup on January 6th. I remember him deploying the military on domestic soil against US citizens and proclaiming random tariffs across our allied countries that change on a weekly basis.
I remember him being found civily liable for the rape of a woman. And referred to in multiple court documents on the rape of a 13 year old girl. And in the flight records and friend circle of a child sex trafficker. And that he tried to cover that sex trafficking ring up.
I remember him denying Fox news access to the White House or pentagon. And his administration's overt threats to take news stations off the air or deny them business mergers for not covering him in positive light.
And I definitely and absolutely remember him publishing an AI video on Twitter of a purged, captured Palestine turned into a gaudy gold resort for rich Americans.
How in the world is that whataboutism? You said they were they same, this is a direct retort by enumerating a mere fraction of the enormous list of behaviors enacted by an actual fascist takeover of the US government.
Biden did not handle the Palestine situation appropriately, but the utter audacity to claim the solution is the death of tens of millions of people through the demolition of aid and trade and the total regression of all climate change mitigation and global stability policy by aiding the installment of an outright, self-stated dictator...
I am so utterly tired of this rhetoric. It's like looking at Hitler or Stalin and saying "well... His opponent wasn't Christened by God himself."
Maybe, just maybe, we should aim for "basic decency and operating in the same objective reality to keep the basic tenants of peaceful society operating" before "go to war with a nuclear power over their religious jihad."
Not sure what you are referring to in your last sentence.
Democrats enabled genocide just like Republicans are doing the same now. I don't like or endorse current government and Trump but saying that we should support democrats because they are "decent" and talk in a politically correct way is wrong as well.
For REIT example (O), the yield is 5.61% and you need to pay tax on top of that. Assuming 25% tax, you will net 4.2%. Current inflation is 2.9% [0], so assuming principal conservation, you can only spend 1.4%. Much worse than 3.5/4% on the market.. Am I missing something?
Exactly. From the article: "As originally scored, the test was intended to pass 60% of applicants, but predictions suggested only 3% of black applicants would pass"
21% of Israel's population is Arab - they have lived side by side with the Jews there for centuries. Why on earth would the Jews displace some of the Arabs and give full citizenship to the others if they just wanted the land?
I hate your pseudo-intellectualism - "uncook your priors" indeed. You've roasted your priors and burnt your likelihood.
Mandatory Palestine was way more than 21% Arab. And Jews did live side by side & were culturally assimilated, but those that migrated to Palestine/South Syria (after 1890s) didn't & had ambitions of an exclusive state for themselves.
> Why on earth would the Jews displace some of the Arabs and give full citizenship to the others
No, those that were allowed to remain ("the good Arabs") post 48 were under military rule for 2 decades.
Those that now remain occupied after 67 are under hybrid IDF+PA rule.
> hate your pseudo-intellectualism
Intellectualism? You give me too much credit. Hate the "New Historians" who are all Israeli & speaking their truth.
the Arabs who live in Israel today enjoy the same rights as the Jews.
the ones in the post 67 are under hybrid rule precisely because the Oct 7 attacks are the sort of things that happen when the people of Gaza and the West Bank are given freedom.
> Arabs who live in Israel today enjoy the same rights
Uncook:
There is no shortage of examples illustrating the widespread view in Israel that Palestinians' political participation should be monitored, controlled and curtailed, and that their right to vote and run for office should be drained of any meaning.
The Military Rule imposed on Palestinian citizens until 1966 treated this entire population as enemies, severely restricting their political activity. Mapai (later the Labor Party), which governed the state and most of its institutions in Israel's early years, refused to take on Palestinian candidates until the early 1980s and set up satellite parties for Palestinian citizens, dictating who would run in them and how they would vote.
Efforts to delegitimize Palestinian political participation continue to the present day, clearly showing that some of the Israel's leaders and the public at large see such participation as undesirable.
The message to Palestinians and their candidates is clear: Do not seek full equality and recognition of collective national rights. Demanding equality on matters such as land, immigration and national emblems is perceived as repudiating Israel’s constitutional principles, as it undermines the country's definition as a Jewish state.
Prime Minister Yair Lapid recently spelled out this principle, saying: "Twenty percent of the population are Arabs. We can and should give them civil equality... On the other hand, we will not give them national equality, because this is the only state the Jews have."
Palestinian citizens who choose to participate in the electoral process have no choice but to enter the political playing field with their hands tied. The parties representing them are barred from challenging the fundamental principles of the regime that is dispossessing and oppressing them. They cannot seek to abolish the laws and systems that harm them, which are considered defining features of the Jewish state. They cannot fight for a core democratic tenet: full equality for all those living under the same regime. This limits political participation exclusively for Palestinian citizens. No matter what they do or how they vote – constitutionally, their vote is worthless.
I addressed your claim that 48-Arabs have "equal rights" when the former Israeli Prime Minister himself doesn't think so and says so openly.
And rich of you to mention "the military rule ... 1966" when you knew nothing about it 2h ago (as evident from your previous reply). Judging from your other replies, you probably don't know a lot, but see yourself fit to engage in Hasbara-like fashion.
You broke the site guidelines repeatedly and extremely badly in this thread. We've asked you before not to do that. We have to ban accounts that post like this, and I'm sorry to say that what you did in this thread is well over the line at which we'd normally ban someone, especially given the past warning.
I'm not going to ban you right now because the other account was also breaking the rules pretty badly. If you keep doing this, though, we're going to have to ban you.
Commenters here need to follow the rules regardless of how other commenters are behaving or how wrong they are, even on a topic as divisive as this one. Especially on a topic as divisive as this one. Note this from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
You also broke the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread. That's seriously not ok, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are, and regardless of how badly they might be breaking the rules.
It doesn't look like we've warned you about this before, but it does look like you've been breaking the rules when arguing about divisive topics in other contexts. That's not ok, and we eventually have to ban accounts that do this, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stay within the rules in the future, we'd appreciate it.
Doesn't matter. Comrade Dang probably already throttled you. Also you can get shadow-banned so your up- and down-votes as well as flagging and vouching do nothing. Only "good" users and their opinions are allowed!
