Discriminated unions is probably the last "must have" feature I've been waiting for in C#. Better pattern matching would be nice to have but honestly not as much of a gamechanger.
The C# team for several reasons decided "rock solid" pattern matching was a higher priority than discriminated unions because good discriminated union code needs good pattern matching. In the last few versions of C# I think pattern matching has gotten really good. List Patterns finally exist now, and that influenced the new iterable collection initializers, which are also pretty good now. Last I checked, the C# team was still debating Dictionary/Hash key lookup Patterns and Dictionary/Key-Value initializers, and that's maybe my last big request in pattern matching other than native discriminated unions, of course.
And if you got that JSON back in Python, how would you do anything with it? This API is essentially useless. You can deserisalise it, sure, but then what?
Right, the system is self correcting but even so it can take literally decades sometimes for the corrections to happen, and in the meantime someone may have tried to build a career on what turned out to be a lie. There really needs to be at least one organization out there putting as much effort as possible into verifying high impact papers. I've had the thought before that if I was a Billionaire this would be my pet project.
I guess the question is do we think twice as many tornadoes a year and billions of dollars in coastal property lost is a fair trade off for a small percentage of people getting to live in the sticks.
Seems easy if you're not the one paying for the cleanup I guess, except if you're a taxpayer then ultimately you will be.
Automobiles, especially if they’re electric contribute relatively little to overall climate change (6-9% currently for ICE vehicles). Your proposed justification is a ridiculous reason to force people to live in coops.
A walkable city and a coop are not the same thing, but anyway here are some more justifications.
Even if you discount CO2, cars still produce a lot of plastic waste in the form of tyre wear, estimated as about 9% of that currently produced (https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Breaki...). EVs actually produce _more_ of this because of their weight.
Cars are also the primary source of noise pollution (again, even EVs) and are responsible for a considerably number of deaths (number 1 cause of deaths outside of disease). Road maintainance is also one of the highest financial burdens on towns, to the extent that towns actually are unable to pay for their own road maintainance at all and taxes from people living in cities needs to make up the shortfall. A massive reduction in driving would constitute an enormous cost reduction for the federal government, allowing taxes to be allocated to other sectors.
Maybe none of these seem particularly compelling by itself, but taken together it adds up to a lot of reasons to reduce car reliance to whatever extent we can.
The ecological impact of the transitive hull of car infrastructure is far greater. Consider sand and lithium extraction, noise and particulate pollution.
That's not really realistic though, you shouldn't need to use "mechanical movement" _every day_ but that's a far cry from never needing it at all. At the very least if you ever want to go somewhere else you're going to need a way to get to an airport (or I guess in this ideal utopia a train station).
Why is it not realistic? If you feel the need to leave, is it really the ideal city? It seems that you're hung up on imagining the shitty cities of today, except without cars, not anything resembling an ideal city.
Technically. What would be the point of said exception, though? If personal vehicle use is exchanged for taxis, you will still have more or less the same number of cars on the road, doing nothing to solve the apparent problem.
I mean, you could grant taxi use only under certain circumstances (e.g. medical need), but then the taxi isn't really an option for general use. And in that case, you could apply the same restrictions on personal vehicles, rendering the exception for taxis alone to be rather pointless (unless you are trying to subsidize your taxi operator friends, I suppose).
Let's actually approach this from good faith, shall we?
The point is to try to remove car travel as much as is possible, even if that isn't 100%. You can build a city where everything you need on a day to day basis is within walking or cycling distance, and nearly everything else can be got to easily with public transport. There will almost certainly be some edge cases though. Replacing everyones commute with walking or cycling or public transport gets rid of something like 50% of cars on the road. Doing the same with shopping trips is probably another 80% of what remains, so just doing that is already a significant improvement (numbers pulled out of my ass but they seem realistic). If you only need to use a car once a _month_ then suddenly the economy of owning one yourself becomes very questionable next to just getting a taxi on those rare occasions, or hiring one if you need to drive somewhere not so ideal.
So there would still be cars on the road, but it would be very far from the same number of cars.
None of this explains the car ban. Yeah, make cites more walkable. That's just logical. These wannabe rural areas we call cities today are hilariously nonsensical. But you don't need to ban cars to get there. And if we hypothetically assume for the sake of discussion that you do need to ban cars to get there, then exempting taxis won't help as people will simply replace their personal vehicle use with taxis, negating the hypothetical pressure to change.
If someone wants to own a car for their once a month trip, who cares? It is not cars in a garage that is bothersome with respect to the topic at hand.
So there are two solutions to the noise problem, better sound isolation or putting dwellings further apart. Why have you decided that one solution is an obvious winner over the other? I really think you need to inspect your own assumptions.
The examples they gave really can't be mitigated with insulation, unless you want to turn all these apartments into isolated bubbles, completely cut off from the environment. I mean you could probably do that, no balconies, no windows.
I think you would be surprised at how far sound can travel through steel and concrete.
As for putting dwelling further apart, that's why we have the suburbs.
You are conveniently ignoring the parts of my post that have no solution in sound insulation at all: fresh air in both window and balcony and smell (which in my example isn't just fish smell like in sibling posts but actually carcinogenic as well).
Look I don't mind if you want to live with those things. No issues at all. If you love it, go for it.
Just don't make me do it.
And yes I've lived in properly built concrete apartments where I did not hear my neighbors at all and I had no balcony and I was able to open my windows without issue. Not in NA and I had one of the very luckily located apartments out of like 100 in that building.
I've also lived in concrete apartments with a balcony and all the problems I described earlier. Never again as long as I can help it.
Why have you decided that the other is the winner?
When Boeing or Airbus announce a new airplane, they come up with all sorts of luxurious concepts that would make air travel less miserable if not enjoyable. We all know damn well that the airlines aren't going to do any of that except maybe for first class. Housing is the same. Cheap out on everything, pack 'em in, profit. Then when there's a big fire or it all falls down, close up and start again under a different name.
They might not be strictly necessary but they tend to solve more issues than they cause. Many languages which don't come with a centralized repository built in will tend to spontaneously gain one because they are in fact useful.
"Drunk driving may kill a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so it's impossible to say if it's bad or not." - Internet person
This is exhausting.
Arguments like this don't persuade anyone—in fact, they do the opposite. They just highlight that you don't have any reasonable points to make, and are left relying on unfalsifiable and absurd claims.
What's exhausting is your analogy, drunk driving does in fact cause more problems than it solves. Make a reasonable point yourself first before saying I don't have one.
This is so common I think it could just about be a lemma:
Any tool that that helps you to get up and running quicker by abstracting away boilerplate will eventually get in the way as your projects complexity increases.
reply