$2.5 billion per mile of tunnel, not track, on the SAS project[1].
(This is an outrageous number, but it's not a "true" benchmark for what a mile of subway construction costs in the city: similar crosstown construction in Brooklyn or Queens, which badly need new lines, would be significantly cheaper due to both lower density and the possibility of cut-and-cover instead of tunneling. Plus, no steam pipes in the way.)
Edit: for comparison, the IBX is expected to cost around $400M per mile[2]. Which is also obscenely expensive given how much of the right-of-way exists, but demonstrates that there's no clean apples-to-apples comparison here.
This seems like a silly solution to a silly problem. If you're tracking your employees' performance based on actual business metrics, who cares how many times their mouse jiggles in a given day?
And the third. I'm a UChicago alum and my premed friends were always complaining about having to compete against beneficiaries of Ivy League grade inflation.
I used zoom in browser before using the apps.. and the annoying dark patterns basically pushed me to avoid zoom whenever I can at this point.
A lot of these kinds of dark patterns sacrifice long term user satisfaction and brand reputation for short-term gains in questionable internal metrics (metrics that are often tied to bonuses for people who couldn't care less about the long-term success of the company or its customers).
I do not understand why people think Zoom is so good, and why companies pay money to use it. The app is so annoying. (At least on MacOS) it splits everything into many different windows that end up on different screens and it's so annoying having to scan all my screens to find the piece of the UI that lets me start screen sharing. Whenever I join a Zoom meeting from the Calendar, it first pops open a browser tab, and then that opens the Zoom app. In the year 2024, why can't it open the Zoom app directly? Surely one app can start a process to run another app?
I suspect it's two factors. The first is that it's not produced by a major and statistically we like an underdog. The second is that they made a video client that actually worked when all the majors under invested and produced clients with serious issues. From there, the market is sticky. It has worn a bit though, hasn't it?
It's amazing that this solution has not been considered more openly and widely until now. It's cheaper, more effective, and doesn't require draconian regulations or near-impossible expectations on human behavior.
It's also something that could be tested for a year. It's not irreversible. It would allow the undeveloped world a chance to achieve a piece of the global wealth pie.
Why are so many people (especially environmentalists and climate scientists) so opposed to this solution?
> Why are so many people (especially environmentalists and climate scientists) so opposed to this solution?
Because it's just kicking the can down the road. This will cost Trillions which you might as well invest in a transition to clean energy now because you have to do it eventually anyway.
If the impact of climate chains looks like it's posing a risk to us as a species then perhaps blocking the sun temporarily is something that should be considered. Right now it sounds like there's still a chance that we could avoid the worst if we continue acting faster and faster. Pointing to a hypothetical sun shield decades in the future, now, is similar to pointing to practically unlimited CCS capacity sometime in the future just so we don't have to do anything drastic now.
pure fantasy that the world will ultimately do the "might as well" there though. The world is moving on but we're running out of time to prevent things that are a lot worse than having to deal with acid rain and simply keep pushing sulhpur into the atmosphere and then slowly taper off the sulphur.
> Crucially, the biggest problems with SRM are probably not yet known. The side effects of putting sulfur into the stratosphere could be some of the most consequential unknowns in human history.
Since when has that stopped companies and countries acting in their own best interests?
SpaceX has launched thousands of satellites, and plans to launch many thousands more, polluting sky and space observation for everyone on Earth. This happened relatively quickly, and doesn't require approval from every country, unless they intend to offer service there.
Similarly, it's not far-fetched to imagine a scenario where a "benevolent" billionaire, as the article puts it, or a single country, could decide that SRM is a good idea, and just go with it. Countries still pump excessive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and historically can't align on a single policy. Why would something like SRM be handled differently?
I assumed OP was talking about seeing crimes as a percentage of crime opportunities, whereas overall crime counts on a per capita basis might mask that people spend less time outdoors because of the risk of crime.
