
Hyperloop One shows off its first super fast test track in the Nevada desert - lnolte
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/7/14840322/hyperloop-one-test-track-nevada-desert
======
jen729w
The problem with Hyperloop isn't going to be technology - I'm sure smart
people will make this thing work, if they want to - it's going to be the same
problem that any new transit system encounters: land, and building on it.

How do you get [any rail-ish system] from point A to point B? You build the
infrastructure from those two places. Uh-oh. Where? Want to arrive in the
centre of point A? Whose land do you build over? How much does it cost to
acquire or license? What regulations exist? What do the locals think, do they
want a Hyperloop running past their window? What are the local unions like and
how much will it cost to get the thing built?

Ultra-fast rail lines already exist. This isn't the reason there isn't one
from downtown LA to SF (or Melbourne to Sydney or or London to Paris^ or New
York to Boston).

^Interesting because the Eurorail was largely built on existing, upgraded
track.

~~~
headcanon
That's likely why they're looking at Saudi Arabia to make the first production
track, since the Royal Family can basically do whatever they want.

~~~
meddlepal
Hooray for bootstrapping a tech company on the money of an authoritarian
regime with a human rights violations list several volumes long.

We're living in such enlightened times.

~~~
o_____________o
I've been thinking about sarcasm lately, as it relates to my own
communication. What was the value of sarcasm in this post when you can say the
same thing straightforwardly?

~~~
logicallee
The point is that it is easy to argue / disagree with:

"If it is built on the back of of an authoritarian regime with a human rights
violations list several volumes long, it is a bit harder to appreciate the
progress."

By taking the sarcastic route, you force everyone who thinks that way to agree
with you.

For example, some people like to push the better part of an operating system
over the browser to anyone who views their page, under the guise of client-
side javascript frameworks.

By pointing this out with sarcasm, you would force them to "agree" with you,
while making them realize it is absurd.

I think the parent's post wouldn't have been as powerful if they had simply
straightforwardly written what they had in mind - sarcasm can get readers to
see the absurdity of lauding something.

Sometimes adding a /s is advisable but not in this case, as the sarcastic part
includes blatantly negative language ("authoritarian regime with a human
rights violations list") and so is quite clear.

~~~
o_____________o
Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

That's my problem with how deeply pervasive sarcasm is – it employs
emotionality and absurdity cheaply, snidely, and often in place of a well
reasoned argument.

What does this lose?

"I am troubled that the company is funded by an authoritarian regime with many
human rights violations. These are modern times and we should be more
judicious about who we're supporting."

The original post said nothing controversial in this audience. It was a lazy
and juvenile kind of false cleverness. Irony is ubiquitous now, and employing
it to wield dissonance is, to me at least, as cheap as trying to appear
powerful by using hate and rage.

~~~
logicallee
Your proposed version loses a TON.

Go back upthread and you will realize that someone had written this "That's
likely why they're looking at Saudi Arabia to make the first production track,
since the Royal Family can basically do whatever they want."

Without any moral component or disagreement.

Whereas the version you just suggested sounds like a nuanced objection - the
sarcastic version shows that this reasoning is absolutely abhorrent. And the
sarcastic version is right.

I mean imagine if some kind of gene biotech company, decided to do its first
human tests in North Korea, "because the government there can do whatever it
wants". This example shows just how wrong the original reasoning is, how
outrageous it is.

The version you quoted: "I am troubled that the company is funded by an
authoritarian regime with many human rights violations. These are modern times
and we should be more judicious about who we're supporting" simply doesn't
have the outraged effect.

For my example I alluded to (but didn't quote) - if I had said, "I am troubled
that browsers are frequently downloading a megabyte or more simply to serve
what amounts to a static page" this "troubled" does not really relate the
level of objection someone might feel.

So I personally do not subscribe to your analysis.

~~~
o_____________o
Gotcha, but I think that was my poor choice of soft language rather than
losing the sarcasm. How about this:

"This company is funded by an authoritarian regime that tortures and murders
people on a regular basis. Remember that when you're staring into the banality
of their app."

Don't you think irony ends up sabotaging some of the gravity?

What do you think about "New Sincerity"?
[http://www.salon.com/2014/04/13/david_foster_wallace_was_rig...](http://www.salon.com/2014/04/13/david_foster_wallace_was_right_irony_is_ruining_our_culture/)

I enjoy our exchange, thanks again

~~~
logicallee
Your new proposed version is great. The problem is that it requires deep
thinking and research. People can't be expected to produce that on the spot.

Take something like that President Trump disallowed the BBC and CNN from his
press conferences. If I wanted to mention that as a rebuttal to someone
bringing up something about trump, I really have no other recourse than
pointing this out, with sarcasm.

So I don't know, imagine someone says trump is committed to fair coverage and
the facts, and the snide response is "yep, this is why he banned from his
conferences the organizations, like the BBC, that never wanted to be there in
the first place, since they were obviously perfectly happy to make up any old
quote without even trying to send any correspondents."

I don't have any other point to make in this hypothetical example - isn't the
sarcasm enough? How would you write it, for this hypothetical example?

------
trome
Has the Hyperloop made any significant progress recently? This article was
pretty thin on the ground when it comes to substantiative info.

Have any of the fatal flaws been fixed (sub-1000 person per hour transport
volume, rail can move 20k an hour, 1 lane road moves 2k per hour), or has Elon
revised his inaccurate estimate, where he estimated SF to LA rail without
actually crossing the bay into SF (or acquiring the right of way), or going
into LA?

I recently drove through both cities, and where Elon proposed to end the
alignment would make it absolutely useless for most potential users at peak
hours, as its a 2+hr drive across LA and out of it to get there. Combined with
where it terminates near SF, you could spend a few hours just commuting to &
from it.

Ultimately, there isn't any way to get around the topography of either city
whereby you can avoid the issues California's High Speed Rail has run into.
Your gonna end up with lots of landowners, large and small, pissed off that
your taking their parking space (which is on railroad property, and they've
been using for a few years illicitly), changing the neighborhood, or doing
anything at all. This is a costly process, but you either build it now and get
the right of way, or you leave it to happen 40 years from now at a much higher
cost.

~~~
m_mueller
You should look into how Japanese cities developed after the introduction of
high speed rail (shinkansen). Keywords: Shin-Yokohama, Shin-Osaka, Shin-Kobe.

There's really nothing special here - it should just be clear that HSR is only
part of the puzzle. A dense public transport network in the served cities is
just as important if not more so, but in a healthy landscape it should come
automatically with demand.

~~~
aanm1988
I'm sure if you explain to all the people who are angry at their parking spot
being taken they will quietly agree and move aside.

~~~
m_mueller
Not sure what you're saying. Parking spots being taken by public transport?
Lack of parking spots is usually exactly what _drives_ demand for more public
transport.

------
jimmcslim
The test track looks a little like a mass driver.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver)

~~~
wrsh07
Fascinating. Would a mass driver be easier to build to launch from Mars? (Eg
for mining applications or similar)

~~~
skykooler
Yes, at least compared to Earth; orbital speeds are about half that of Earth,
so a mass driver would only need to be a quarter of the length (because length
climbs with target speed squared). Additionally, the far thinner atmosphere
would allow vehicles to lose far less energy to aerodynamic forces.

~~~
walrus01
You could also run a mass driver up the side of Olympus Mons, which is a very
gentle slope yet is so tall its peak is above 90%+ of the martian atmosphere.

------
ballenf
Technological challenges aside, I just don't see large numbers of people
willing to travel large distances without at least the option of looking out a
_real_ window. And the proposal to use video feeds on screens is just so
incredibly bad: they'll break, degrade, or worse get hacked to roller coaster
footage and everyone inside will start vomiting.

I like the idea of the hyperloop driving technological advances, but don't see
the hyperloop itself as ever* happening.

* within the next 30 years.

~~~
shostack
I didn't think large numbers of people would suffer increasingly shrinking
seat sizes, switching previously free amenities to paid (or just removing
them), getting molested at security, etc. all to travel somewhere for
relatively little money, but here we are with our modern airline industry.

If little have their phones and signal they will be just fine.

~~~
ballenf
It would be the first mass transit system without windows. My point is simply
that solving the hard vacuum chamber safety problems might be easy compared to
fixing psychology.

Early research on airplanes and windows ran into the same issue. Nearly every
row has a window to themselves despite the incredible added cost and weight to
planes.

