BubbleMonkey

That is very likely already the case, let’s be serious here. Our companies, especially the ones with really firm mono- or duopolies, give absolutely no fucks about protecting citizen data, they just have insurance to cover the damages.

Personally I also hate driving, so I’m sort of with you on that (tho for me, unless it was a trip where stops are the point, I couldn’t see adding almost an entire day to a trip that’s barely over a day to begin with, but I also wouldn’t be doing that sort of trip solo, and driver swapping helps a ton), but I find people have 2 modes typically and neither one of them does all that well with the current rail infrastructure.

First mode is “get there as fast as we can so we can enjoy the accommodations/ locations we are traveling for”, which most people fly for, but many will drive for if they need to move a lot of people or equipment. You can do that on a train, assuming one stops anywhere near where you intend to go, but when you have multiple people to switch off driving and don’t stop, that extra time matters.

The other mode is the “journey is the destination” with frequent stops to get out of the car and do stuff… but then we typically just call those road trips. I’ve done several of those where most of the trip is traveling between stops. Trains don’t do well for that currently since they have so few stops and run so infrequently, so the journey isn’t particularly exciting. Busses are better for this sort of travel, with the present infrastructure, but not a very comfortable trip. Busses would also very likely take about the same time as a train, since they make a lot of extended stops.

Very few people seem to fall into the grey area between these two things, where they both don’t care to stop anywhere, and don’t care how fast they get there. And I think this is largely because most people don’t have time for leisurely travel. Most people get extended-weekend trips and maybe one week-long vacation a year, so 4 days round trip of just traveling but not being able to stop anywhere would ruin most plans for people, unless they just want to ride the train.

But if we invested in high-speed rail, you could both get there faster than driving -and- have a better experience than driving, which would get many people to switch right quick. It shouldn’t have to be a “pick one or the other” situation, when literally the only barrier is infrastructure spending which would be great for the economy, and it would be better for literally everyone to have it. Amtrak is a private entity, technically, but the US government is the majority shareholder, the board of directors is appointed mostly by the president of the US, they get a lot of funding from state and fed government, and thus govt has considerable power to make that happen.

It just really sucks that the only significant passenger rail options we have now are designed to be slow scenic trips, a gimmick where the whole point of them is the leisurely trip. They aren’t really meant for actual commute use, and that’s just super short-sighted and wasteful. And I think until they get faster, with more routes and stops along the routes, we aren’t going to see people adopting them in the numbers we need them to.

If we had high speed rail, I’d absolutely love to take a train to just go places, but cross country trains in the US take absolutely forever. If you aren’t in a hurry, sure, great option, cheap, but doesn’t really work well for vacations or emergencies or whatever when you have very limited time.

For example, Chicago to Seattle takes 46 hours by train but 30 hours by car. Even with stops for food, gas, and bathroom, even staying somewhere for the night, you aren’t adding 16 hours on.

https://www.amtrak.com/empire-builder-train

We really need to invest more in high speed rail.. like everywhere here. Until then, unfortunately, I doubt people will shift that way overall.

Congrats on the new home!! and best of luck with that bill. Surprise bills (especially when they aren’t actually yours to pay) are the absolute worst.

Do you think freshwater merfolk have some sort of echolocation like the pink river dolphins in the Amazon? So they can see through the silt? Apparently normal humans can do it so why not merfolk?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_river_dolphin

Like sure, marine merfolk probably don’t need that, what with sand and all, but it would be helpful!

The building next to mine is being bought by a new person who claims to want to release the easement the current owner has over my property, which was never filed with the city and thus never disclosed during purchase.. wouldn’t have bought the place if I’d known, didn’t find out until I’d been here several years, and the only thing the current owner uses it for is to dictate what I can do with my yard and destroy my tiny lot lawn with his too-short industrial mower.

A surveyor hired by the soon-to-be owner came by today to get the exact info needed, so my property got a free survey, of which he is giving me a copy.

And it’s amazing timing because I signed the purchase agreement exactly 10 years ago, as of the day he came by to let me know.

Not much else recently. How about you?

if you haven’t seen it, I think you might like the animated series Pantheon.

Your comment made me think of it, very much.

I think a better option might be to leave the meat industry alone entirely, and subsidize or otherwise drive down the prices of the plant based alternatives. Then it doesn’t hurt poor people, they can still buy it, and may even help them if they choose to switch.

If I could buy plant stuff for the same price as or less than meat, I absolutely would. But I simply can’t afford to pay the premium for plant products.

(I still don’t eat much meat, don’t get me wrong, maybe once a week on average. My stomach doesn’t like it. If I could replace it entirely I would, but sometimes you just need something that fits the meat texture/flavor profile)

Edit: I legitimately don’t understand why this is being downvoted when I literally said in my first comment that it’s helpful in some situations, but not worth the hassle for daily use for me specifically. This is elaboration on that as the person I replied to misquoted me in a way that is fundamentally incorrect, and said “pick one” indicating I was being inconsistent, which they have since edited out.

I don’t “feel the need to keep them just in case”, I just have them from when I was getting the prescription filled but not taking them regularly, which was literally last year.. I was taking them sporadically enough, because I didn’t find them particularly helpful for daily use, that I just stopped getting them filled due to having plenty for the way I use them, because again from 13-35 I wasn’t on anything. I do use them for when I want to get something specific done maybe once a month, they are prescribed for a reason, but only because I have them because I don’t feel the need to use them regularly..? Sort of circular, but that’s adhd for ya.

The hassle is going to the doc every month, getting a new prescription written, getting drug tested, remembering to take them, dealing with the sleep disruptions, etc. that’s not worth it for me for regular use, when I don’t find them to be all that helpful in everyday situations.

I don’t strictly need it because I’ve figured out ways to work with, rather than against, myself (I graduated with honors from university without meds, it just took longer), and certainly don’t want to take them daily, but for a one-off thing when I already have them? sure. Idk why you think that’s inconsistent..?

It is definitely difficult to get rid of when it’s generated in the middle of intricate detail, which it often is.

I’m not saying it’s the same thing as actually poisoning, but it does negatively impact the resulting generations.

Right, what I mean is the Texas model of pre-surveying for places they would be a good fit with minor pushback, and then having the projects paid by everyone, rather than some investor who can just flake out.

Their grid is an absolute disaster, so I’m certainly not idolizing most of what they are doing, but the method they follow to get them at least done.. that part is good.

I’m aware. She chose not to go that route, and I can’t say I blame her really. She cared for both of her parents when they died of cancer, and having done that as well, yeah. I still wouldn’t go for highly toxic treatment either, even if it does have a better chance caught early. Screw that; I’m already full of medical issues, don’t need to feel worse.

I’ve already undergone genetic testing due to family cancer history. I’m clean for maladaptive genes, as far as they know for now (I have several unknown mutations, I get letters in the mail every few years when they figure one of them out). But the world is a lot more polluted than it used to be, and I haven’t always made the healthiest choices in life, so.. meh.

Like I said, if treatments change maybe, but I’m not injecting a toxic cocktail. And a lot of early-detection cancers they find and treat aren't ever going to kill a persons anyway because they are too slow growing. So even that early screening isn’t without risk.