what_a_maroon
No bio...
User ID: 644
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
I'm not sure how to measure/check that. I briefly googled but mostly got sources that only included a few states or didn't seem to be based on solid data.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
In the US, each side pays their own legal bills. Pretty much every other developed country defaults to the loser paying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fees)
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
I've used Feeld and this is such a bizarre description. I did not recognize it at all from the article until they named it. AFAICT the app is aimed at people who are interested in kink and/or polyamory. Most of the profiles that have any information at all include one or both of those things. This group is not necessarily more mature than anyone else, the age range seems pretty similar to other apps (maybe slightly more late 20s than early), and it's not any more hookup-focused than the average non-relationship-type-specific app. Lots of people on it are looking for serious, longer-term relationships. It's probably more progressive than average, but few people explicitly put anything like that on their profiles--again, not much more than any other app if you're in a big city. They would probably rate higher on the Big 5's openness to experiences measure, and are more likely to be upfront about what they want out of a relationship, but that's about it.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
Here's the point, at last. Normally someone holding a belief for the wrong reasons is not enough to negate that belief. But wherever a sanewasher faction appears to be spending considerable efforts cleaning up the mess their crazy neighbors keep leaving behind, it should instigate some suspicion about the belief, at least as a heuristic. Any honest and rational believer needs to grapple for an explanation for how the crazies managed to all be accidentally right despite outfitted — by definition — with erroneous arguments. Such a scenario is so implausible that it commands a curious inquiry about its origin.
This is valid, but then you have to make sure this is actually what's happening. It seems like it might be easy to assume that this is happening, without looking closely at the history of the ideas. Or you might even have different groups coming to a vaguely similar conclusion, but independently--neither is trying to "fix" the other.
My main confusion with this post, though, is seeming to conflate positions with arguments. The DTP example seems like it refers to different sets of claims of what to do rather than reasons why we should it. The moderate liberals aren't coming in and cleaning up after the radicals made a mess, tidying up the support columns after they accidentally built a beautiful cathedral. They're both reacting to perceived injustice, but one is going further in the other direction than the other. Sometimes the arguments they use ("racism is bad") will overlap, sometimes they won't ("we can entirely replace police with X"/"no we can't").
Scott's post seems to blur this distinction as well. It's a combination of "social dynamics that cause strange groupings of people" and "what is actually correct?" If all you, personally, care about, is whether God exists, then you should only care about the strongest arguments from the most reasonable proponents. If you, personally, are just trying to decide on what public policy to support, then it shouldn't really matter what the relationship is between moderate reform liberals and radical DTP leftists. But it does matter politically, for the reasons Scott describes.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model
The name does come from the city.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
According to this video, to be in the clear in most jurisdictions, you should... just not be there when he comes back.
The way I understand it is that if you want to be as sure as you can in all jurisdictions then yes. It doesn't mean you'll definitely be found guilty if you don't leave. But if you can't leave, as in the subway car, I'm not sure how relevant it is?
In the case of Neely... did he have a history of causing grave bodily harm to anyone?
I don't think his criminal history can generally be admitted as evidence unless Penny or someone else involved knew it. The really relevant facts are "what was he doing in the moment?"
This doctrine seems to let you do a lot of dickery before anyone is actually permitted 'deadly force'.
I mean, yes? I have to admit I'm confused by the statement. We're talking about killing a person, regardless of whether some people think that being mentally hill or on drugs or a petty criminal means you're subhuman. This is very much something we as a society should be taking seriously, and not permitting for minor annoyances or slights.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
I agree; I linked a video in another comment which goes into detail on the conditions that permit deadly force in self-defense. It includes, among other examples, a description of how drawing a gun, aiming, and firing can take substantially more time than charging at someone with a knife, even from a distance where the casual observer would look and say "that seems safe." My main point is that these standards have to depend on what the person involved actually did and could do in the moment, and that those actions have to reach an objective standard of threat. They cannot be based on someone's personal distaste, or on guesswork, or on the behavior of other people who might be similar, or on an immediate emotional reaction that is not grounded in reality.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
The best explanation I've seen for non-lawyers is probably from Massad Ayoob: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-j4PS_8R5IE&ab_channel=MrMuscleBilly
This video is long but quite thorough. The specifics of when deadly force is justified start around 27:00. He's being relatively conservative to try to cover as many legal jurisdictions as possible, but given that this is NY it's probably the most legally relevant anyway.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
It should matter, though. As @Rov_Scam pointed out in a previous thread on this topic, you really do not want to encourage people to be very loose with their standards when it comes to applying violence to another person. It certainly can be difficult to summon lots of sympathy for the average person making a disturbance on the train, but that's missing the point. The kind of person who will aggressively (aggressively as the opposite of "conservatively" here, not in the sense of being the aggressor necessarily) use deadly physical force will likely not limit themselves to people that you personally find distasteful. Offend them on the road by cutting them off? They might take it on themselves to play cop and run you off the road. Take part in a protest they disagree with? Maybe they'll start a fight. Get into an argument at a bar? They might leave to retrieve a weapon, or wait for you outside.
To be clear, I'm not accusing Penny of being this type of person. I have no basis on which to make that particular determination. He might have just made an error in judgement (or he could even have acted in the right--I think this is unlikely, given the witness statements I've read, which don't seem to actually include any actions that Neely took that would constitute a serious threat to human life, but they could be incomplete or wrong). But the use of violence by civilians against other civilians has to be based on high and objective standards, rather than how we feel about the people involved.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
Most cities in the US don't have any alternatives beside driving, nor almost any choices for a place to live other than a downtown apartment or a single-family home. Moreover, because of the latter fact, most people don't necessarily have the ability to live where they want, because such housing is so low density and drives up prices. Infrastructure for anything other than cars is completely ignored. So what are all these alternatives people supposedly have?
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
None of this makes any sense. What price? Most roads aren't toll roads. You mean how long they're willing to wait? Not very meaningful without any alternatives.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
This is a very bizarre way of making your point.
Whether or not you personally think reducing congestion is a good goal, it is a commonly stated goal. I've already addressed the "people sitting in traffic is fine because you can eventually get places" elsewhere.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
I picked it because it was the first picture I found of the time period I was looking for, so I wasn't cherry picking. It's not terrible. But I think it does show that Jackonsville was definitely "settled" before cars became common.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
The sidewalks are largely irrelevant, since at the time walking in the street was much more common and generally not illegal. Removing the streetcar is a substantial loss. The buildings on the left have been replaced with a parking garage, so the loss of street parking isn't very relevant either. This example is not as bad as many cities in the US, but it's certainly no improvement for pedestrians.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
No. It was generally due to these cities being settled before cars were in widespread use.
I don't think this is a good explanation. This is Jacksonville in 1914. This is the same location today. It had transit and density, and like most US cities, probably removed it after cars started becoming common.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
So... ignoring externalities, it's okay to widen roads as long as it's for the right reason? (e.g. not to reduce congestion, but to be able to let more people go where they want to go)
I think "it will actually accomplish the goal you claim to want to accomplish" is kind of a bare minimum. I don't know why this is suck a sticking point.
I'm sure there are cases where expanding a road is the right call; it just isn't common.
And again, I see proposals all the time for demolishing roads, or road diets, based off of induced demand too. It's not just an argument against expansion, it's an argument in favor of de-expansion. (But of course they also bring up externalities to argue for de-expansion too, not just induced demand.)
Ok, and? Yes, in or near a growing city, especially, you want more space available to housing, stores, offices, etc. 50 years ago Austin's population was a 1/4 million, now it's 1 million and still growing. Space has become more valuable and it's a lot more likely that transit makes economic sense (not that it actually takes a huge city to make transit viable).
Interesting infographic, but what's the actual usage of those modes? If you're going to make the argument that they take up less space per person, you need to take into account actual usage, and not just theoretical capacity. (And for a true apples-to-apples comparison, you also need to make sure you're comparing trips with origins and destinations in the same places.) For example, for buses, the space taken up often ends up being higher than cars if there's low ridership and the buses are bigger than necessary.
Sure; actual usage depends on how the city is designed. If you build massive roads everywhere (even in the middle of downtown), force the buses to sit in traffic, have one tram line with a handful of stops, subsidize parking, require private entities to provide excessive parking, legally ban dense housing in most places, etc. then people will drive a lot. If you don't do that, then people will use other methods of transportation.
Similarly, if the roads are congested, actual capacity will also be much lower. 2,000 cars per hour per lane, or a bit less than 2 seconds between vehicles, is about the absolute maximum when traffic is free-flowing (and already isn't particularly safe
They just don't get congested from magically induced demand if they take up less space? I still don't understand why demand doesn't just magically get induced to the point that the trains are overcrowded like they are in Mumbai.
-
It is easy to increase capacity on transit, for example by adding more frequent train service. (Note that adding lanes to a highway makes it less pleasant for each user, since they have to move over more lanes, while adding trains makes it more pleasant for each train rider, since they have to wait less).
-
It's also easy to implement congestion pricing on transit, which many places already do. If you did this on the highways, you would see reduced traffic.
-
It's possible for transit to carry vastly more people (see capacity infographic above), which means the point where it becomes overcrowded is much later, and only achieved in a few places. Every city in the world has car traffic, because the threshold of how many cars you can put in a city is so small. Most cities are literally never going to be Mumbai.
So you would be okay with widening roads if the roads were tolled with congestion pricing?
That would be an improvement (still wouldn't solve the other issues)... but again, with congestion pricing, you wouldn't have so much congestion to begin with, that's the whole point!
Sure, but the cost of bulldozing is likely still the same, depending on the way the buildings next to the tracks were built. (You can't just demolish only half a building.)
You could replace some of the existing road. There's quite a lot of it near the highway, frontage roads are common in Texas. I-35 through most of Austin is 2-4 lanes of frontage road each side, plus 3-4 lanes of highway.
not about providing more people the ability to travel through the highway.
So this is the best way to have people get around? Sitting around in constant traffic, completely wasting thousands of hours of human life every single day, in every single city? But they can get places... eventually. Sounds completely dystopian.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
Induced demand is often the justification for opposing road widening projects, or even supporting demolishing roads (a "road diet"). I'm not sure what else the conclusion would be, if you not only legitimately believed the version where roads always fill up immediately once you build them, but also that demand would just magically decrease if you took away roads.
Induced demand is an argument against expansions because reducing congestion is a common argument in favor.
Apparently for those modes, the demand that's been "induced" doesn't end up stressing the network to the point of congestion like it would for cars and roads (not sure why; maybe it's just because they're always fundamentally slower than driving?).
I'm not sure if you just haven't ever looked up the actual capacity of different methods or what, but a slower method being less congested doesn't make sense. Their made advantage is that they take up vastly less space per person, space being extremely valuable and limited in more populated areas. (Also, transit naturally lends itself to congestion pricing--if major roads had toll roads with congestion pricing, that would substantially reduce congestion!).
anti-building/pro-demolishing sentiment, as most of the time, it's invoked as an argument against car infrastructure.
If you equate "building" with "car infrastructure" that's just your issue. You can build things other than highways.
You'll end up having to demolish apartment blocks to do so, but that's introducing the same negative externalities of many road widening projects.
It's not the same, because you can fit vastly more capacity into less space. Trains also often go underground, although I don't think most US cities need that.
In the first few years before population growth catches up, yes.
What is the point of a 7 billion dollar, multi-year project that will be obsolete in less time than it took to complete?
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
I cannot find any information on EE's background; what is the basis for calling him an "economist"? The channel has spawned a number of threads on /r/badeconomics (e.g. https://old.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/mt3emq/economics_explained_thinks_theres_us/, https://old.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/jg5gpf/economics_explained_on_heres_why_supply_and/,
https://old.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/j8p85o/misleading_with_statistics_how_economics/) so I'm definitely not going to take that channel's word for anything. Speaking of BE, here is a thread which points out that ID is, in fact, just basic supply and demand analysis (and that it doesn't really need a separate name).
This video never addresses actual arguments for ID or the best evidence. In fact, it seems to agree that the elasticity of demand is basically 1, which is true. It A) makes a semantic argument about whether "induced" is a good term, and then B) misrepresents the empirical evidence. For example, following this video, you would think there's only been 1 or 2 studies of ID, one of which just looked at increases in road miles and driving over time, but this is not the case. No citations are provided, either, to check any of his following claims
But then it doesn't mean that the solution is automatically "just don't build anything, ever".
Who is saying this?
It may as very well just be to limit the flow of immigration to this area.
That wouldn't stop the existing residents from using the infrastructure more. And would be a terrible solution for other reasons.
You can also make the more subtle argument that, in specific cases, the costs of widening a road are not worth the benefits compared with the alternatives, but I don't buy that as a fully-general argument for all roads everywhere.
That "more subtle" argument is what I've been trying to convey in this thread--it's almost certainly net negative to double the width of I-35 through downtown Austin, but also for many other similar road projects. You also seem to be missing that a lot of people do expect congestion to be reduced.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
This is your 3rd comment and you have yet to say anything that is clearly related to the thread topic. There is no market in roads, which are all built by the government. That roads allow some people to live further out (at the cost of preventing other people from living closer in) does not change this fact.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
If paying for something, but not proportionately to its use, makes it be used above its economically efficient level, that argument also applies to other things paid for in such a fashion.
A salaried employee is, at least for now, an actual human, and thus capable of affecting how much work it actually does. But, this argument absolutely applies to other things. Education and health care are 2 notable examples--the consumer rarely pays anything close to the actual cost, which results in overconsumption and inefficiency (for some reason I feel like I would get way less pushback on The Motte if I made the same argument for these domains...).
(Actually, gas taxes pay for roads and they are proportional to miles driven, but ignore that for now.)
Gas taxes only pay for a fraction of road costs and gas consumed is only roughly related to road cost imposed. It also has very little to do with any externalities, like noise.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
What trades are you talking about? What does any of this have to do with the subject at hand? I'm well aware of what utility is and the fact that people have preferences, but you haven't explained how any of it relates to roads.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
...what?
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
It's not a perfect substitute for I-35 because it doesn't parallel it
Yes, it's not nearby for most of its length, and even the closest stops to where it crosses aren't very close to the highway (except for the very last one, I think).
2.5M, if you include the whole metro area
That definition requires you to go halfway to San Antonio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Austin
The plans I've seen are divided into an 8 mile stretch in the center of the city
It may stretch along a large distance, but it's still a small portion of the total area--or road mileage, but those are roughly proportional.
Also, if you're going to use the whole Metro area for population to split the cost of a road, you should then also use the whole metro area for the number of roads that have to be paid for.
you slog through I-35.
It will still be a slog, that's the whole point of induced demand! Those other cities, as I've pointed out in this thread, have much better loops. If your primary concern is thru traffic, then look at the loops on the edge of the city.
The expensive new lanes are slated to be HOV-only
That's an improvement; we'll see if it turns out that way.
which you might interpret as "non-car-users are heavily subsidized", to be fair
Depends on the details. Probably yes, in practice, but it is possible to have transit pay for itself--Japan, most notably, has private train lines, and NYC used to have private subways. But if you're going to subsidize one form of transportation, transit has fewer externalities and higher capacity.
what_a_maroon
1yr ago
Having your business seized is probably much worse than being able to live in a slightly further out area is good, and destroying the downtown makes it less valuable to everyone, including the new commuters, but as I tried to describe in my replies to curious, the main issue is cost. 7.5 billion is $140,000 per commuter. Another issue is just time--Austin's population increased by 200,000 between 2005 and 2015 (corresponding to each of those commuters supporting a family of 4, though in reality this is generous since families aren't that big any more). Are you going to build another 4 lanes every <10 years? Constant construction, until the whole of downtown is pavement?
increasing the supply of housing and driving down rents.
The problem isn't being too far from the city, it's limitations on development. There's enormous amounts of underdeveloped land extremely close to downtown. Destroying an apartment building close to downtown so you can build more sprawling houses far away is a terrible way to reduce rents. Similarly, development opportunities far away are much less valuable. Like, this is just so backwards--let's destroy development downtown so we can build slightly more very far away? Should we just not have cities at all?
Is there anything in this section (other than time-period specific technology) that would have been out of place in the US 100 or 200 years ago? For example, the behavior of early Mormons makes it seem like skepticism and common sense literally hadn't been invented yet:
One of the key witnesses is described as:
Among other fantastic claims. There's a lot of crazy stuff in that link. And this wasn't the Borderers in Appalachia--Joseph Smith's ancestors were definitely Puritan and Mormonism began in upstate New York.
Safety is expensive. Car seats, climbing harnesses, etc. If something has to be done, and you're poor, then you'll just have to do it in the unsafe way. How many Darwin Awards went to hillbillies using guns for things they shouldn't have?
Overall I don't see a good reason to believe that these are problems inherent to a particular ethnicity of people rather than contingent on education, wealth, and possibly culture.
More options
Context Copy link