Compared to other countries, yes. And that’s not even comparing it to the US, which would be like kicking someone lying on the ground.
Try riding a train in rural France, outside the 5 TGV lines, for instance, and you’ll pray for Deutsche Bahn. Ever been to the UK?
But we could have much better PT if Germany weren’t the world’s greatest car exporter by far and the ministry of traffic deep in the pockets of automobile makers, that’s true as well.
Been in Colorado for the past week or so. You guys are a lot further ahead than Illinois is. Lots more bike paths and lanes, better traffic control that doesn’t result in stop and go movement, overall a lot more green space in your shopping centers and in human spaces, also lots more walking areas.
Don’t beat up your state too much, it’s fantastic compared to mine. :'c
I’m from So. IL originally and been to CO 4 times. Colorado is so much better in my opinion. People biking and jogging everywhere, everyone I met was really nice, like went out of their way to help my friends and I nice. Obviously that’s not everyone there, but it was the experience I had. Overall, it’s probably my favorite of the states I’ve been to and hope to go back, maybe permanently, someday.
I’d love to be a gatekeeper saying “we’re already full, turn back around”, but I’m a CA transplant myself. Personally, I’m looking to leave myself: too cold most of the year, and it’s getting really $$$. YMMV
So, as a not very smart man. Wouldn’t underground roads be better? I feel with it being underground it’d be easier to manage pollution and install some things to fight it.
Underground roads are crazy expensive. You need something to hold up the earth and anything else above it. There’s issues with water leaking in. Piping will have to go around it. If it breaks down somehow it will take longer to repair. It’s only really an option if the detour would be a lot longer or within urban areas for the extra space it frees up.
Or if you know, having greener spaces and roads underground are actually better for climate change. I’m not sure if this would help in that matter or not, but I think it’s a possibility. Not everything is about our made up concept of money.
What’s better for climate change is less cars on the road, not underground roads. If we are going to be digging these expensive tunnels in every city they should be for subway systems. That would be a substantially better use of the funds and would be a good step towards reducing the emissions of a city. This is all assuming that we stop subsidizing car ownership so heavily of course.
The entire process of building and repairing roads is pretty carbon intensive due to the amount of concrete involved.
I doubt it would affect pollution significantly. It’s not like both ends of the tunnel aren’t open to the air. It would definitely locally displace it so it’s not distributed across the above ground length of the road, but the same amount more or less (minus whatever adheres to walls) is still coming out of either end.
Underground tunnels also have the danger of fires rapidly spiraling out of control and in the past have killed dozens of people, and that was before electric cars became common. I would not want to be in a tunnel when a Tesla’s battery explodes.
I’m not saying this has no advantages, but for the trouble and cost it seems like a train would be better.
Nothing underground generates oxygen, but moving the roads from above to underground gives more “it’s free real estate” to grow grass and trees, like in the second photo, which generates oxygen and stores carbon. It’s not the best thing like suppressing the cars all together, but it’s better than the first picture.
Yeah, I completely forgot about the whole fire thing.
When yku say it like that. It makes more sense. It’s a shame we don’t have super efficient ways to convert exhaust gasses into healthier gasses. But yeah, if it’s just a short tunnel, the entrance and exits would just not funnel it right. I wonder if really long tunnels would be better. Maybe being able to use the entrances with a system to input clean air and force the exhaust through vents.
And I wonder if those fire suppression systems that starve the fires of oxygen could be something that could be useful? But that’d require automated doors to seal the tunnel, and then if someone is trapped on there, the fire is the last of their issue. Unless there were refugee points that also seal, but then you’ve gotta make sure everyone’s in them. I wonder if some form of scanner could be used to allow humans in. But then there’s that thing where a fire has been starved, but then gets a sudden burst of oxygen and it becomes explosive. I forgot what it’s called. I’m sure someone actually smart could brainstorm it better.
It’s so backwards. Making this stretch of coastline walkable means more people show up, and if businesses realize this potential then they can capitalize. Makes sooo much sense
Fun fact this is actually the Rhine river that runs sort of ⅔ of the way through Düsseldorf, similar to the Thames in London or the Seine in Paris.
The other bank is much more residential and a little high end so it’s not really a gathering place for the population, whereas the bank shown in the picture is 2 blocks from a tram line that runs parallel to the river and runs into the heart of the CBD making it an extremely approachable body of water and pedestrian strip.
On the weekends, the city holds public events to draw people to gather on this bank like food fares, carnivals, concerts. It’s always packed on the weekends and generates a shit ton of foot traffic for all the pubs and restaurants in adjacent streets.
I had no idea all this was covered in highways just a few decades ago, making the city more walkable was an amazing choice. If you’ve never been to Düsseldorf before or don’t know anything about it, it is definitely one of the highlights of Germany once you’ve had your fill of all the war sites. Extremely liveable city without feeling overcrowded, and just a stones throw from the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France.
I feel it’s more likely they don’t understand proper usage of quotation marks like that. They probably think they give emphasis; I see it all the time.
This title is under a few layers of irony, there are similar pictures floating around of green spaces converted to highways in the US with the same title, OP is suggesting the European version actually is progress
I remember as a kid hearing this vague ideological warfare around it. The Boston Science Museum had a big exhibit on it, as a kid I learned nothing about it. Then it was lamented for being wasteful spending - and only now do I hear about how it was meant to give us back urban areas.
That’s surprising to me. I remember at the time, NBC Nightly News and PBS Newshour (my family’s news diet in the 90s) did stories about it, and they both definitely mentioned reclaiming city space as one of the benefits.
I think the Big Dig, while it ended up costing several times what it was supposed to, will go down in history as one of the best highway projects of its era. It also proved infrastructure naysayers wrong. A lot of people insist that any highway projects always just induce demand, resulting in even more congestion, but the Big Dig did nothing of the sort. To this day, 30 years on, Boston traffic is still not as bad as it was pre-Big Dig.
A lot of people insist that any highway projects always just induce demand, resulting in even more congestion, but the Big Dig did nothing of the sort. To this day, 30 years on, Boston traffic is still not as bad as it was pre-Big Dig.
Induced traffic does not mean that traffic on a specific place inevitably goes back to what it was before a new highway. It means that total traffic, including old and new infrastructure, always goes up if the total road capacity goes up.
Do you think the total car traffic in the Boston area today is greater than it would have been had the Big Dig not been built? If yes, the ‘infrastructure naysayers’ were correct.
Of course, this means new highways can be locally beneficial, for example when they are used to divert car traffic from a city center. But they still deepen the overall car dependency. Investing in rail-bound transportation while imposing heavy fees on car traffic into the city would likely be a better use of resources.
Do you think the total car traffic in the Boston area today is greater than it would have been had the Big Dig not been built? If yes, the ‘infrastructure naysayers’ were correct.
It’s probably gone down, actually, at least in per capita terms. Boston’s population is a lot bigger than it used to be, so that has to be taken into account.
Keep in mind, the Big Dig actually reduced the total number of highway ramps, which is part of why it increased traffic flow. And by reclaiming neighborhoods from elevated highways, it reconnected areas. You can easily walk places that were not possible before.
But they still deepen the overall car dependency. Investing in rail-bound transportation while imposing heavy fees on car traffic into the city would likely be a better use of resources.
Boston is far from car dependent; it’s probably one of the worst cities in America for drivers, and best for cyclists and pedestrians.
It’s probably gone down, actually, at least in per capita terms. Boston’s population is a lot bigger than it used to be, so that has to be taken into account.
The comparison is between today and ‘today but without the highway’, not between today and before the highway was built. If the population increase is greater with the highway there, that’s still part of the induced demand.
Boston is far from car dependent; it’s probably one of the worst cities in America for drivers, and best for cyclists and pedestrians.
A city being “bad for drivers” is not a great indicator of it not being car dependant. Cities in the Netherlands are probably the most walkable and bikable on the planet, and also great to drive in because there are hardly any cars.
How about comparing the before, where rush hours totaled like six hours a day of bumper to bumper, stop and go, just sitting there polluting, wasting so much time, money, health. Today, while rush hours is still too long, traffic continues to move, no stop and go, much less time sitting there, raging. Today, on the surface in Boston, there is likely much less traffic, benefitting everyone
Because the point of the comparison is to determine if the infrastructure investment was cost effective. What would traffic look like today if the money had instead been used to build public transport, bike lanes, and walkable streets? If the alternative investment had improved traffic even more, building the highway was the wrong thing to do.
– just look at those pictures someone linked, and they don’t actually do it justice. Before, you might have to cross under a six lane elevated highway with surface streets. Now getting from one part of the city to another is a literal walk in the park. Reconnecting parts of the city to be walkable was one of the main goals, and it achieved
– part of the mitigation was required transit improvements. Of course, some of that was delayed by politics, but I believe it did happen.
The comparison is between today and ‘today but without the highway’, not between today and before the highway was built. If the population increase is greater with the highway there, that’s still part of the induced demand.
I wouldn’t suggest that highways never induce demand, but the idea that people are driving more in Boston because of the Big Dig seems doubtful to me.
A city being “bad for drivers” is not a great indicator of it not being car dependant. Cities in the Netherlands are probably the most walkable and bikable on the planet, and also great to drive in because there are hardly any cars.
The Netherland has pretty robust car infrastructure too.
And I agree; a city can be bikable, walkable, and drivable all at once. That should be the goal.
Plus, it’s not like the climate will just snap back into place when the boomers are finally too old for their skeleton talons to cling to power. That shit is going to take generations of sacrifice to roll back, if it doesn’t topple civilization first.
The whole ethos of the majority of baby boomers seems to have been to raze the forest they got to enjoy behind them (as opposed to planting trees whose shade they’d never sit in like most generations aspire to), and they seem to be having remarkable success in that.
The wealthy are savvy but with the boomers gone they lose a lot of their support. Of course they will try to maintain the status quo, but the people will be affected by the material conditions and see the truth. The only thing we have to fear is hate, but MTG, Boebart and Desantis were all elected by Boomers. Young people don’t vote for those idiots. I’m more concerned about Andrew Tate.
This isn’t new though, many boomers were the hippies at one point, they had the photocopier, fairness doctrine TV & Radio and liberal attitudes for sex, gender, and civil rights.
But the same tactics were used to stop and convert many of them, plus around half of them were the same sort of assholes that give them a bad name now.
It's not about a magic cure that'll fix everything over night.
It's about repairing decades of harm done by a generational mindset that valued wealth acquisition and material possession above every other facet of society. We won't fix that trauma in one, two, or three generations but it will get better and better with time and distance to boomerism.
The values of wealth accumulation and materialism are not at all limited to or even expressed mostly strongly by the Baby Boomer generation.
The line of thinking that capitalism dies with boomers or that Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z, or whatever comes next will not fully embrace capitalism and will move towards socialism or some other non-competitive society seems pretty naive.
Humans are a competitive species. Most people want to win. I doubt this mindset dies with boomers.
Humans are a co-operative species, same goes for our ape and monkey cousins.
It is this instinctual nature of working together that enabled us to take down bigger prey, settle new lands, and become the dominant species on the planet.
I don’t disagree. That said, would suggest that externally we are cooperative, but internally we are competitive. Even in ape families, there exists a hierarchy generally ruled by the biggest, strongest male.
Which brings us back to the point at hand. Will humans come together to solve climate change? Or will humans continue to try to win at all costs?
I can see either as a possibility. But I don’t see boomers dying as a catalyst.
The rich are very concerned about the fact that all statistical evidence pointing to younger generations being starkly more socially minded than boomers. Don’t forget that Millennials have lived through a major economic crisis. Just like the Great Depression, that generally makes people realize that Capitalism is bullshit.
The wealthy are funding massive propaganda campaigns as a result. They are unfortunately making some in roads with young men. But overall I don’t think it will be enough.
Don’t forget that Millennials have lived through a major economic crisis.
Yes, yes we have.
I’ll be very interested to see how the younger generations age. Anecdotally, I’ve witnessed numerous people go from progressive socialists, to centrist capitalists as they age. Not saying that will continue, only saying this as I’ve seen similar studies that show younger people are more progressive than older folks every 5 years for the past 3 decades. It’s not a terribly new concept, and I’m hopeful that it remains true.
I agree! A change of the mindset is generational change at best. In many cases flawed ideologies and poor educational standards are just beeing continued. Yet I want to be one of the naive and think that there will be a new way of thinking and noticeable political change. For the better or the worse…, who knows?!
I dunno, I feel like if I lived through the Black Death and I was there when—at the end of the suffering, surrounded by death—the last plague rat died, I’d take it as a win…
It will solve the problem of their voting habits. They have lead us down this insane path because they are a narcissistic generation. Things won’t be perfect, but we might, just might, start turning things around. If we still can.
The next most conservative generation is Gen X. All few dozen of us. Expect those with power to retain it with massive use of wealth to constrain the rules of democracy, rather than numbers of voters.
Because that’s how it works, right? When your house is flooded because of a burst pipe, when you replace the pipe then your house is magically unflooded right? I mean of course no reasonable person thinks that, but that seems to be the understanding you’re suggesting. Meanwhile you’re trying to say that if we do repair the pipe and the house is still flooded, rightly acknowledging that the pipe is 100% the cause of the flood is somehow… wrong?
The facts are that boomers fucked the world up, heavily, and did everything they could to hold onto power and rob the next generation (at least) of their deserved place in the driver’s seat of society, and cleaning up the messes and lessons left over by the boomers will take generations to clean up. The fact that boomer built long-term systemic problem without simple solutions does not mean that the boomers are not entirely at fault or that we aren’t entirely better off without them.
After seeing this video for the first time, I watched some of his others.
Seemed to be a pretty standard review channel until it hit me in the face:
His earliest videos review restaurants together with his wife. Then it transitions to reviewing bars, then only him sitting in front of his camera at home reviewing whisky. Until the iconic video of his wife leaving him.
Most of these vids were only watched by a couple people, and he reviewed a new bottle of whisky almost every day.
His Youtube channel documents his slow decline and slip into alcoholism. Dude must have drank several bottles of booze per week off camera, for years.
I used to buy for a liquor store. There are tons of whiskey people who open bottles but don’t finish them. He might be an alcoholic or he could be one of those guys. We don’t know why they broke up.
Agreed. I have about 20 open bottles of different whiskeys right now. I’ll probably have a glass or two each week.
You can have a very robust collection of whiskey and also drink in moderation. I know when I buy a new bottle I’m excited to try it, and the seal usually doesn’t last for longer than a day.
You can store whiskey for a very long time if the bottle is over halfway full. Keep them upright and away from the sun and they’ll last for many years and still hold their taste. You might lose some due to evaporation though.
Even if he had only one drink every time, it’s still a form of alcoholism to do so every single day (as the previous commenter alluded to). It’ll still devolve into compulsive behavior.
If he has a single drink a day he’s not an alcoholic by most standards. It’s only in the trash DARE adjacent programs that nonsense like that is taught.
…we have about two hundred opened single malt whiskies and it takes us years and years to finish any one bottle; two or three wee drams are usually plenty to review fairly, maybe twice if we want to come back another day for a second opinion…
But if you buy and try a new bottle every other day and don’t finish it, they will pile up over time and eventually go bad. The amount you buy must be equal to the amount you drink in the long term.
…whisky really doesn’t ever go bad as long as the bottle is sealed; we use teflon plumber’s tape around the neck for long-term storage but there are other solutions, too…
If you are serious about help, and you are still early in the process, just one less bottle per night every day for a week, then the next week one less than that.
It takes will power, but if you want it you can do it. It doesn’t have to be cold turkey. If you are at a six pack a night, or a 4 pack of some 12% ones you can wean yourself off nightly binge drinking in a month or two.
When you are down to one a night, switch it to one every other night… Then don’t buy any for a week. Then you can figure out how to drink more responsibility.
If you are to the point where you drink one when you wake up, you will need medical detox. If you wait… You will probably eventually die from alcohol related diseases.
Thanks for reaching out. I’m at 12-15 6-9%s every night. Once or twice a week I’ll drink one or two before I leave for work so that the worst of the hangover hits at home/ can be staved off with another beer once I get back. I truly appreciate your sentiment and want to use this to give me some momentum to quit. I know I’ll have the shakes and be super sweaty for a week, but I can work with that. I quit meth, alcohol and smoking before, I can kick beer again. I think part of the problem is it’s a lesser issue than the other stuff I quit so I let myself keep slipping. Again, thank you
Genuinely, I encourage you to see a doctor first- at that rate you have a good chance of serious alcohol withdrawal. It is more dangerous than heroin withdrawal and the symptoms can range from sweats and shakes up to seizure and death.
Quitting booze will improve your life immeasurably but you need to do it with the assistance of a doctor or GP, your life depends on it. I believe in you, mate.
Why not? Less risk of being hit by a plane if they’re in the sky and requirements for a pilot license are much stricter. In a plane crash occupants are more likely to die than innocent bystanders, compared to cars that are designed for safety only for those on the inside.
Plane pollution is not that much worse than a car. Depending on what metric you measure it can be better (planes are more fuel efficient and thus less CO2. Small planes like the picture generally use lead fuel and old engine designs that pollute more) on long trips.
Nearly all land near small runways and airports that fly planes using AvGas will have lead contamination. That’s because lead is still used in most aviation fuels a consumer plane would use. Runways are also required to have and use PFAS in firefighting foam for emergencies. Training and system tests will dump that stuff in the surrounding area.
Unless these fine folks have A380s they’re paying a hefty premium for lead exposure and PFAS in their water and soil.
Lead is only one factor of pollution though. You will note that i acknowledged it exists. There is no objective way to say what is the most important factor or how you compare them.
No, planes are not more fuel efficient, even driving alone a car. The reason why it costs more to go by car is due to many reasons, especially the higher cost of fuel at petrol stations.
Yes, some light planes have fuel economy similar to efficient cars (which is very impressive considering how fast they are relative to cars). If you consider the advantages of direct, straight line routing, it’s not hard for planes to do better on fuel economy.
We’re not talking about jets here, though some of those do very well in mpg on a per passenger basis.
bike pollution is slightly more than nil just because of the CO2 we breathe out while riding
Technically, the CO2 animals exhale is carbon neutral because it’s from plants you eat (or your food eats). Unless you’re eating petroleum derived products of course.
I say technically because while the plants themselves are carbon neutral, modern food production and distribution, especially meat production, still has a large carbon footprint. So your breath is only truly carbon neutral if you foraged for food in the forest on foot.
Don’t forget that many small propeller driven aircraft run on leaded gas, and it’s a formulation of leaded gas that has 10x the lead that motor fuel used to.
But, didn’t you hear the Midgley guy who invented TEL like 100 years ago? You can safely breathe it and even wash your hands in it! (said right after he got lead poisoning)
That was a great watch - it’s cool to find out the history.
I must say, society is much better off without widespread use of TEL, but as someone who used to do racecar things, TEL works like magic. A little goes a LONG way, and Midgely did legitimately stumble upon something with very high effect for the concentration (they also touch on ethanol in the video which has the drawback of needing a lot).
I’m not opposed to using it in a small scale racing context (like definitely not NASCAR) because it’s so fucking useful and the quantity is unlikely to cause harm. Unfortunately so much bad has been done with it at this point, I don’t think that’s a very popular opinion.
Whatever your views on it, it’s the only thing that can make gasoline legitimately 120+ octane, and that has huge implications for some types of racing.
Worth noting that the amount of aviation fuel burned annually should make it a negligible contributer to environmental lead contamination compared to widespread automotive use (although I’m sure it contributes on airport grounds).
Edit: All the pilots I know want to use unleaded, and it was recently approved after being stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare process, but market forces may make it hard to adopt.
You’re only taking into account pollution and i bet you with the barrier of entry and cost accounted there would be less pollution from flying compared to driving.
I think they’re trying to say that less people would fly than currently drive due to the cost of flying. Although, if we subsidized personal planes at the same rate that we do personal vehicles I’m not entirely sure that flying would continue to be so expensive.
It’s quite simple really. Less people would be able to fly, so those that can’t will just stand still in confusion until they die from starvation. The remaining population would be the small fraction who were able to afford to fly. Net loss in pollution.
Piston driven planes still do use leaded gasoline. There is a very recent push to certify lead free avgas and progress is being made but they’re being a bit opaque and seemingly rushing it which is making a lot of people weary of it.
Planes that would land here typically use 100LL which contains lead. (LL stands for Low Lead). It’s not banned for aviation use.
There has been a push recently to use alternatives which don’t contain lead but most places still have 100LL as it’s a very long process to get things certified for aviation use.
Cycling has carbon emissions if you factor the additional calorie intake needed to power your bike. :| Which will vary widely depending on your size, diet, and food source. Is it still a more sustainable form of transportation? Probably, but maybe not in extreme cases (like a 300-lb person eating beef daily flown in from the other side of the planet, versus, a tiny two seater electric car power off of solar energy, using batteries sourced from recycled materials) and it certainly isn’t 0 impact.
Also, for extra pedantism, carbon emission are not pollution (in the sense that it doesn’t poison the life forms directly), but it is a GHG which causes harm to the environment too.
If you factor calorie intake of the bike rider you need to do the same for other forms of transportation. And if you account for the amount of exercise people are supposed to get to stay healthy there’s no additional calorie intake whatsoever.
Small aircraft have a carbon equivalent to large cars. My plane is from 1961 and has a fuel economy of 15mpg as the crow flies (arguably closer to 25mpg because of straight line measurements versus winding roads that can almost double the distance), seats 4 people comfortably, and flies at 160 mph.
Hmm, interesting. I had the opposite impression. Maybe from discussion of private jets? I wonder how commercial jets vs. private jets vs. light aircraft fare – similar to cars vs. buses, perhaps? I haven’t actually dug much into this subject :\
Props tend to be more efficient aircraft when it comes to fuel consumption but fly relatively low and slow. Jets are faster so they make more sense for ferrying people and cargo but they burn more fuel in the process.
how commercial jets vs. private jets vs. light aircraft fare
Just looked some up, they’re approximately, per passenger:
-, bus, ~100…300mpg/pp
Commercial jet, -, ~60…120mpg/pp
Ultralight, motorbike, train, ~50mpg/pp
Light aircraft, car, ~15…60mpg/pp
Private jet, limo, ~5…50mpg/pp
Fighter jet, monster truck, ~0.5mpg/pp
The more passengers, the more efficient.
So, fully loaded, there isn’t that much difference between a private jet, a limo, a car, light aircraft, ultralight, motorbike, train, or low range commercial jet.
But if it’s a single person, a private jet would use 10 times more fuel than a motorbike.
It was caught in FAA-Bureauctatic hell for 15+ years and just approved last year. It will be still be slow to become available and adopt for reasons that are complicated, but amount to bureaucracy, economics, and an insane degree of risk aversion. The vast majority of pilots want unleaded and it’s also much better for the engines.
That’s right, bike pollution is less than walking (or running) pollution in terms of CO2 per mile travelled. Cycling typically burns ~⅓ of the calories compared to making the same journey on foot and there’s a direct link between calories burnt and CO2 produced.
Cycling at 12mph takes roughly the same energy as walking at 4mph. You emit the same CO2 per minute, but get there in ⅓ of the time. Running at 12mph takes 3 times the effort of cycling at 12mph. You’ll get there in the same amount of time, but breath out 3 times as much CO2. Bicycles are more efficient than our own two legs - how cool is that!
I’ve got to ask, though—how is breathing CO2 pollution? Aren’t we just taking in air, removing the oxygen, and exhaling the waste gases? Isn’t there the same net CO2 afterwards?
Have I misunderstood something as simple as breathing? Please say no.
You haven’t misunderstood it! You’re just coupling cellular respiration with photosynthesis, which on the surface seems to balance to net zero – 6 CO2 molecules and sunlight create 1 glucose molecule, and we break down 1 glucose molecule for energy and generate 6 CO2 molecules.
There’s one big factor though which isn’t immediately obvious, and that’s the rate of reaction. The chemical equations say nothing about how many molecules are consumed per second. In order for the net CO2 to be zero, they’d need to consume and generate CO2, respectively, at the same rate, which isn’t the case.
It’s actually a really good thing, because photosynthesis happens faster. Plants are net negative CO2 because of that. What we’d need to complete this comparison now is how much CO2 a human generates by existing, and we can determine how many plants are needed per human to have the same net CO2.
I dunno, I was supposed to get 100hrs of driving experience in order to get my license. Meanwhile the minimum required for a PPL is 40, and only 20 of that is required to be with an instructor. You can get away with fewer if you are just getting a Light Sport license, and an Ultralight requires no license at all (seriously though, get training).
Unless you live in an extremely remote place not served by roads. The arctic for example. It’s not technically commuting as in going to and from your 9 to 5, but plenty of small northern communities are still completely dependent on small gravel runways or even bushplanes for things like going to the doctor or dentist, or really anything they need to go to a city for, which is a lot of things.
I actually thought this was a similar situation, that they’re so out in the middle of nowhere flying is significantly more convenient than driving. But then I took a look at the map and realized that they’re not far from Chicago and are within easy driving distance from nearby smaller towns, which makes this way harder to justify though still mildly interesting.
One of the first things my instructor told me was “I hope you’re getting your license for fun or a job, and not planning on commuting. Eventually you’ll get stuck somewhere due to the weather.”
Heavy, powerful commercial jets have deicing systems. They also have the benefit of an entire team of air traffic controllers on takeoff and landing – and they still get grounded by weather. Small planes are grounded by such inclement weather as “fog”, “thunderstorms”, “high winds”, and “low cloud cover”.
I have no idea why you think it would be improved by slight adding of jpeg, but I agree, and I don’t know why. It feels like meme salt. Or maybe meme umami
Whew! We finally made it to Lesson 10. If you missed any lessons fear not: all paying subscribers get access to all previous lessons to re-watch to their heart’s content!
Uk government tried this a few yrs ago trying to spin the welfare part as work shy bambots then it came out that the lions share was pension pots that took up most of it with the teachers pensions being the one the media focused on
The US has a similar breakdown by % as this Australian one, except that what’s called “welfare” in Australia is called “entitlements” in the US and makes up about 50% of the budget. Welfare in terms of the dole aka money given to “work shy bambots” makes up only about half of one percent.
I may be wrong on this but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen some seemingly redundant “no gluten”, “lactose free” or “vegan/vegetarian” labels on a lot of products in german and austrian supermarkets. Could be that these products are labeled that way because they were made in an allergen free environment i.e. no parallel production of something containing these allergens.
gelatin and isinglass are often added to remove impurities and yeast left from the fermentation. They are removed afterwards, but the wine can’t be called vegan anymore.
Unfortunately there are very few redundant "vegan" labels since even plain sugar can be non-vegan (being processed using bone char) not to mention a ton of different fats, colourings, and other additives that can all come from either animal, plant, or synthetic source, and unless the manufacturer confirms, as a customer you have no way of knowing which it is, unless they've labelled it.
What’s funny about this (apart from your excellent joke) is that there are actually a lot of places, where they are a common crop, where bananas are advertised as “boneless”. This is because, I believe the bit that connects the banana bunch to the plant (not a tree!) Is sometimes called the “bone” (I believe it’s “C” in this image:
Having the grocer machete this bit off for you presumably cuts down on the unnecessary weight on your moped back home, and maybe even the costs, if buying by weight.
Caveat: This is just what I have come to understand, from travel experience and curiosity. If there are any actual “Bananologists” about, please feel free to correct!
Some apple juices contain an ingredient called isinglass which is made from dried fish bladders. And some apples may be waxed with beeswax (from bees) or shellac (from bugs) before being juiced.
Seems like a good idea to put that there. People who know what they’re doing won’t be bothered by it, but it might save a few people from getting hacked
Yeah, but when a man really wants to see some Instagram models private nudes, he’ll ignore all those warnings and then some.
You see it all the time with banking, where somebody has literally had the bank ring them up to ask them if they really know the person they’re sending money to, and that they think they’re being scammed, and they push on regardless getting angry with the bank, only to be all surprise Pikachu in the papers when they are, unsurprisingly enough, scammed.
Years ago, when one of those emails with the malicious links was going around (I forget which one), one of our coworkers clicked on it. This one promised pictures of cute kittens. She later said she knew it was fake, but she was hoping she’d still get to see the picture of the kittens…
The cars are still there, in massive numbers. You just can’t see the tunnel they built between those two pictures. It’s right beneath the feet of the pedestrians.
At least they can´t kill cyclists and pedestrians this way and the emissions get somewhat contained. Of course this is only a compromise but on the way to car free cities it might be a useful intermediate step before we can actually get rid of carbrainitis.
mildlyinteresting
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.