If you want to live in a uni-polar world, you should support companies like Palantir which bolster American hegemony over global security. If you would prefer to live in a multi-polar world, with multiple superpowers vying for supremacy, then you should support Chinese espionage operations and invest in Indian oil refineries.
If you think wanting to live in a unipolar world is "evil", then there's no helping you.
this is a wild mindset. either the US rules the world with an iron fist or there's complete anarchy? how much do you have to hate humanity to believe this?
Your unipolar world is devoid of any meaning. Your democracy is an opiate for the masses with no meaningful choice. Your neo liberalism has destroyed any sense of togetherness and has robbed us of our sovereign resources. And your only answer to descent is to kill millions and bomb countries and people into the stone age.
Sorry if your moralising is now falling on death ears.
The environmental story about AI is extremely boring and I wish it would stop being brought up.
Every technological development since the industrial revolution has increased human demand for energy in some way. It's only the environmental movement, which actively shut down nuclear power plants, which wants human energy consumption to be reduced for cultish reasons.
If we'd ignored anti-nuclear activists in the 70s none of this would be a problem.
The pro-nuclear cult is certainly irritating. Still stuck on a technology which can't help us much in the current climate predicament (too slow to build, too expensive) and which we repeatedly failed to manage.
The environmental movement isn't in charge. The world community (through mostly democratic elected governments) has decided to reduce emmissions to Net Zero, not energy usage.
> The pro-nuclear cult is certainly irritating. Still stuck on a technology which can't help us much in the current climate predicament (too slow to build, too expensive) and which we repeatedly failed to manage.
An important point is that while we can and should maximize renewable sources as dominating energy sources, we still need stable backup for fluctuations - for days where there is little wind and little sun. We don't yet have practical energy storage technologies that would allow us to eliminate this problem.
Nuclear is so expensive to build that it has to run 24/7. If you decide to only run it a couple hours a week lighting stacks of cash on fire would be more efficient economically.
It doesn't at all fit into a renewable model where you only sometimes need extra energy. If you want to get a way from gas peaker plants then you have to "over-provision" renewable.
The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. What is your solution then, burn coal and oil? Nuclear has a great role to fill the gap reliably.
You know, those that lately achieved the milestone in California of being the largest producer from sundown to midnight in terms of GWh.
What is it with the nuclear cult and this false dichotomy?
Is it because you need to justify spending 10x as much money on new built nuclear power coming online in the 2040s, which is too late to solve anything relevant?
Nuclear power is the worst ”peaker” imaginable.
Lets calculate running Vogtle at a 10-15% capacity factor like a traditional fossil gas peaker.
The electricity now costs $1-1.5/kWh. That is Texas grid meltdown prices. That is what you are yearning for.
Real question, because I'm not an expert on this. Both solar panels and batteries don't last forever. Has anyone done the calculation on the environmental impact of solar panels and batteries, both production and recycling, vs nuclear power plants.
What is the environment impact for each, per watt?
They can be recycled. Nuclear fuel requires a continuous input of uranium.
Generally these questions are centered around people trying to justify nuclear power by relying on the "long life". Thinking they will still be useful on the market in 100 years time.
For both batteries and solar panels if lifetime is the most central issue you can optimize for that. There are solar panels with 40 year warranties available and more costly batteries optimized for longer cycle life.
But the market is already choosing what to invest in. Good enough beats imaginary perfect every single time.
…and the green movement don’t realise they’re being the useful idiots of the fossil fuel industries, who have been using this attack line for decades because they didn’t want the competition.
If you keep putting off building because it’s “too slow to build”, then guess what - it never gets built.
Would you care to try to reconcile “too expensive” with “you can’t put a price on the planet”?
And nice try with the democratic angle, but the truth more like we have a growing world population with a growing need for abundant, reliable, affordable energy. And yet we’re held hostage by the luxury beliefs of a tiny minority who feel they have a right to govern and want to bask in their perceived virtue.
Too slow to build when you extrapolate growth and cost reductions in solar, wind and batteries which seems very reasonable. As in by the time it’s built it won’t be worth running.
Tldr nuclear is not worth building anymore. In fact they recommended no other power sources are worth building at this point given solar and winds cost effectiveness and the cost of batteries right now. This doesn't come from a climate angle. It’s pure economics.
Yeah, but the nuclear waste would be a problem. The cost would be a problem too.
I don't get why some people won't get that nuclear is not the solution to the energy problem. Nuclear is one of the most expensive energy sources, and that's without the cost of long term storage of burnt fuel. Without the cost of health issues in mining areas.
The call for energy consumption reduction is not "for cultish reasons", it's because of climate change that's already screwing us.
Many environmentalists revert back to criticizing nuclear based on cost but if they really put the environment first that should logically not be a big deal for them.
Efficiently solving the climate crisis is the biggest challenge for humanity right now. Even though it is projected to just cost 4% of GDP for the next 30 years, it is still very challenging for market economies to achieve (I think primarily because the negative impacts are global not local).
It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough. They're great in many ways, but they alone won't provide enough power and stability.
So you're left with water power (which is only applicable in few areas and they destroy the nature), coal/oil/gas (which are much worse for the environment) and nuclear energy.
Nuclear might not solve everything itself either, but it's definitely part of the solution.
Which is a myth. Renewables can in fact supply most requirements if they are coupled with battery storage. Then the price would be cheaper than nuclear still.
Also, natural gas is much much better than coal for the environment. And more responsive too so dark and calm times can be handled as well.
So, why are we not doing it? Lobbyism, lock in, politics, nimby.
Batteries are the most expensive parts on EVs, they're heavy, require rare-earth metals and they wear out. So not an ideal solution.
Would be pretty cool to have the EV batteries on cars hooked up to the electric infrastructure and handle the offset and also charging them when there is too much power in the grid.
I always liked the idea of rapidly swappable batteries, like pulling into a gas station. Then they could be charged / stored in centralized locations which act as very large batteries for the grid. Keep batteries at 90% or even less and use that amount to absorb or push energy to the grid.
> It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough
Often repeated but untrue. There have been studies that compare the total cost including all storage and transmission requirements and found that nuclear is still much more expensive.
I agree with you on the technical part. We would likely be in better shape if we advanced more in this area and built more power plants.
But to dismiss environmentalists like this is a bit simplistic.
Remember how long it took for climate change issues to establish in the mainstream?
Corporations and political groups have been fighting and suppressing these issues since the start.
We still don’t have serious discussions about this in large portions of society.
In a more ideal world, nuclear would have been continously integrated and improved to a larger degree. But that would have required for serious discussion in the first place.
Using the environmental impact of AI as an argument against AI is ridiculous because AI currently consumes at least an order of magnitude less energy than, say, the computer games industry, which is of no concern apparently.
At least some of the anti-nuclear movement back then was directed against old and unsafe nuclear plants, and for good reason. These activists achieved their goal, as modern plants are very safe.
AFAICT, modern day anti-nuclear movement is a bit different to that.
It's a cost-benefit discussion, should we really boil the oceans so you can show yourself as a Ghibli cartoon to your friends and be relevant for 3 minutes?
I have some experience with accounting software and its use in various types of business (not just startups).
Xero (rather than Quickbooks) is dominant in the UK and it has a lot of problems. However, I think you are addressing a fundamentally different market. Quickbooks and Xero are both targeted at the long-tail of small businesses - think tradesmen, cafes, hairdressers, etc. The main thing they accomplish for those customers is basic book keeping and business functions (like invoicing, payroll, etc)
Your software seems much more aimed at small companies which want sophisticated tools to generate financial insight. This is not a criticism, just a comment that this is a different and potentially smaller market.
However, one way you could capture the "long tail" of small businesses is by winning over the high-street accountant. If you could let them prepare annual accounts with 10x less work - even if the customer book keeping is a mess - then every accountant will recommend your software to their clients.
Anyway - great to see something new in this space. Feel free to reach out if you'd like to discuss further.
thanks - we are indeed working with high-street accountants. I also think there is a driver as you said from founders and smaller business owners who want financial insights. Those same businesses have budgets for reporting/budgeting and planning software, so having it as close to accounting data as possible in one product we can increase the value prop.
Quite amazingly - I never realised how good photo quality was in the 1930s (and presumably earlier too). Look at these examples which were immediately digitised (one of a WWII reenactment scene which enhances the effect) - they don't look anything like how we expect a 1930s-era photo to appear.
By the 1930s, photography as a field had already existed for a century or so, so I'm not sure why you'd expect it to look terrible in any meaning of the word. For comparison, here's a photograph taken almost a hundred years earlier in 1845 [0], aside form lacking colors, it too is already high quality.
Well, I’m not surprised they’re surprised. The two main factors in image quality are optics (which has been a solved problem for a long time), and imaging surface area.
Even what is considered “full frame” today is ridiculously small from a historical point of view, when 8x10 plates were common (that’s 60x the surface area!) and not even the largest format in use.
Cell phone photography has made us used to imaging surface areas that are not even a centimeter on each side - it’s a miracle of engineering we can get decent pictures out of those constraints, but image quality is as low as it gets, even though the marketing tells us those are the most advanced cameras ever.
Optics were not a solved problem in the 30s they wouldn’t be until the 80s at least for camera lenses. 30s camera lenses were optimized for black and white and very poorly corrected for chromatic aberrations. Well corrected color lenses wouldn’t become common until the 50s. Optics bigger apertures than f4 were expensive and often had severe aberrations. Coatings which prevent internal reflections didn’t mature until the late 60s/early 70s. Up to this point lenses had concentrated on a few well known good optical formulas. In particular high quality zoom and ultra wides were tremendously expensive r&d efforts with bespoke manufacturing[1]. This local maxima wouldn’t be breached until computer aided design and manufacturing processes became the norm leading to aspherical, extra dispersion elements and much higher element counts becoming common. By this point camera lens development has become much more iterative many lenses from the 90s and 2000s are 70s/80s optics with slight coating updates with a plastic auto focus housing.
1: see the achromatic Takumar with quartz elements that was produced in a very limited run for scientific laboratories. And aspherical low aperture lenses like the leica noctilux which required hand grinding the aspherical element.
I'm going to dispute that. Given some constraints in both the subject and the use of the image, certain cell phones can really take pretty good pictures. I have a bunch of bigger gear and I mostly don't find it worth taking on trips any longer. Yes, it's older gear but I doubt I'd find it worth spending thousands of dollars to upgrade. I know other serious photographers who feel similarly.
I agree with you only so long as you want to look at those images on those same small devices. The moment you want to print something, the difference is night and day. That being said, I'm a very big believer of the best camera being the one you have with you, so.
I'm not sure I completely agree with respect to small prints. I probably do for 11x14s and beyond. (Which I basically never do any longer as I'm well out of wall space.) But, yeah, it's almost always display on computer and I just don't have a lot of interest in lugging a medium/large camera everywhere like I used to.
1930s films were slower (lower ASA/ISO) than "modern" films. Focusing mechanisms were worse: the SLR was developed in the 1930s; most cameras used in that era were rangefinders (or 'point-and-shoot').
Cameras and lenses were technically capable of high-quality images, but actually making such a photograph required skill or luck; the results were otherwise blurry and poorly-focused. Studio portraits in those days used extremely bright lights to compensate.
In general, the ISO capabilities of modern digital (especially larger sensor cameras but even good phone cameras) is a remarkable advance over film even relatively latterly.
With digital, ISO of 3200 or 6400 is nothing (probably better today with full frame). B&W film really topped out at about 400 in normal use and couldn't really be pushed past 1600 and even that required chemistry tricks and resulted in noticeably lower quality.
I get pretty decent, if high-contrast results pushing 320TX and 400TX to 3200.
Pushing does increase grain; but using a larger format (6x7 or 4x5) reduces the apparent grain in resultant prints.
I can't say enough good things about HC-110 as a developer: pushes well just by increasing development time, shelf-stable for years as a concentrate, and not particularly toxic compared to other developers.
Approximately never used anything larger than 35mm. I don't remember all the developers I used over the years (though I used D-76 for a lot of standard Kodak Tri-X ISO 400 stuff). May have used some HC-110 (forget when that came in), definitely Diafine/Acufine, probably something from Ilford after I largely switched to HP-5 film, some homebrewed stuff...
But it's been decades since I have done film processing. After I graduated, did a brief stint using an apartment half bathroom and drove me crazy after good school darkrooms.
[ADDED: I've never used B&W film emulsions from the past 40 years or so; they're presumably at least a bit faster than what I used. 1600 was pretty much the practical limit when I was shooting B&W on film.]
I did this for years. I tended to use different chemistries for pushing Tri-X or HP5 to 1600+. Don't remember the details, but didn't tend to use D-76 for pushed film as I recall.
I love shooting BW film but Tri-X looks so newspapery or silver to me - I tend to prefer the newer Kentmere films. I've found you can still push them pretty far and not pay a large price. The film is just so forgiving compared to digital (at least to the best of 2014 sensors)
> most cameras used in that era were rangefinders (or 'point-and-shoot')
Rangefinders from that era are not point-and-shoot. They have two separated windows allowing light into the viewfinder and you turn the focusing mechanism until the two views of the subject merge perfectly. They use parallax to find the distance to the subject with a mechanism linked to the lens focus, hence the name rangefinder.
Point-and-shoot cameras from that era were fixed focus.
I have digitized family photos from a tintype in 1880 or so all the way to Polaroids from the 1960's and it is clear to me that peak consumer-photography was late-stage B&W photography.
I shouldn't have mentioned the tintype above (I just wanted to indicate the temporal range here) because I would exclude professional "portrait" photos. And my relatives were blue-collar farmers and factory workers in the Midwaste, so their "gear" was modest for the times.
The oldest "home photos" look poor and likely came from a Brownie or similar. But then a decade or so on and the photos take on a whole new level of clarity and sharpness. That level of quality persists until the arrival of color, Polaroids....
It seems we traded color for quality sometime mid-Century.
> It seems we traded color for quality sometime mid-Century.
Absolutely. My parents have crisp B&W snapshots from their baby years in the early 60ies. They even have old B&W party snapshots from my grandparents in the 50ies, all of which look still great. Then around 1965, the snapshots become colored (not Polaroids), and the quality is... not as good. I wonder of the photographs just aged badly, or if they already looked like that 60 years ago. I also suspect that color film was much more expensive back then than B&W film, and the average consumer just bought the cheapest color films they could get.
With old color prints (or slides, non-Kodachrome in particular) there's a lot of fading relative to B&W of the equivalent era.
There was definitely a period, when there were really crappy cameras (e.g. Instamatics) for the mass market which were far crappier than any random smartphone these days. And there were really good, often (West) German-made, cameras. I'd have to look up exactly when the good Japanese cameras came along.
I'd say they started getting into their swing in the 1950s, if my father's Yashica-A twin-lens reflex is any indication. That camera produced absolutely gorgeous shots in square format on 120 roll film.
The square format TLRs were an interesting format, My high school had an ancient one and I think I shot a roll of film once for fun and giggles. Never owned one. As I recall, Rolleiflex were the kings in that category.
Rollies are ok (I have one :) but for TLRs, the thing to have is the Mamiya 330C. Great viewfinder, optional prism, and interchangeable lenses. I have one and have used it quite a lot. Lovely photos, but heavy camera. OTOH, completely indestructable. You could pound nails with the thing.
I own a Yashica, and bought a 330C to supplement it, but decided the weight was just unmanageable. Very cool camera, and if I ever worked in a studio I'm sure I would have appreciated it, but too much for me in the field.
I seem to recall that ergonomically it was a bit iffy too, but that may have just been the fact that I was more familiar with the Yashica.
Crappy cameras; smaller format films (e.g. Kodak Disc); weird hues from color photos taken in fluorescent and other non-natural light; inconsistent dyes among manufacturers (compare Fuji film to Kodachrome); an inherently lower resolution in color film. These all combine to make color photos of that era tend to look worse than b/w.
I'd also speculate that because color film on average is less sensitive to light than b/w film, it led to more blurry photos at the time, especially when taken by the many amateur photographers with their cheap cameras.
Yeah, there was a period when color photography was enabled for the plebes with really crappy cameras and film formats--I had even forgotten about the Kodak Disc. So a lot of stuff that survives from that general era in shoeboxes looks almost uniquely horrible. There were Brownies and the like before but they were still a lot less widespread.
Even a decade later, I as a high school student really into photography wasn't getting a Nikon. Started with my dad's Pony and then Retina and then used a Konica system through university and beyond until it was stolen in a break-in.
I understand they were either the first, or at least very early, to take standard cinema film (35mm) and run with it. Were the press some of the early adopters? (Tired of lugging their monstrous Graflex cameras around.)
No, that was Leitz (Leica). Nikon didn’t start making cameras at all until 1948. Their first cameras were rangefinders, sort of a cross between a Contax and a Leica. They were very good (some of my very favorite cameras), but not super popular.
Their first SLR, the Nikon F, came out in 1959 and quickly became a sensation with professionals. They’re built like tanks, and still very usable.
Don't forget Kodachrome, especially Kodachrome 25.
But, yes, even Leicas aside, Kodak Retinas among others where pretty darn good. I got my dad's Retina IIIc which I used until it just wore out eventually. And both the Nikon and Canon SLRs in particular were great once they came on the scene though some of the rangefinders from Olympus, Pentax, Canon, etc. weren't half-bad either.
APS had a lot of cool features mixed with smaller frame sizes and higher prices right when digital was taking off. I feel like they could almost bring it back - the ability to roll a half shot film back up and swap it is neat but there is no way it's going to happen and is arguably useful.
There are lots of high quality photos from the 1930s. Look at studio portraits of movie stars, for example. I’m not sure where the expectation of low quality would come from.
I think there is a conjunction of factors at play. Only slower film available means no clear images of action. No digital copies means that most pictures have had LOTS of time to deteriorate before being digitised and reproduced. Most people see images from the 30s as a one copy of a picture the great great grandpa had in a shoebox kept in a moist cellar and no negatives to recover.
I think most people would have had contact with old pictures from newspaper and books that did not prized image quality so you mostly see bad quality pictures with low dynamic range.
The most important pictures of the olden eras, in an artistic setting, would also be experimental photography which is not necessarily concerned with sharpness and traditional qualities, so you see weird stuff.
And, the main culprit, as for most of society misconceptions. Movies and tv shows, you have to age and crap out a picture to look old. I am certainly that the screwed up videotape effect will skew a lot of the expectation of old footage from the 80s-90s.
Put all of that together, there is where I think the expectation comes from.
I have the book Great War, Photographic Narrative. With images from the first world war, the quality of some of the images is outstanding. Those same images would've look terrible on old mass produced books and newspapers.
Medium to some extent and large format can produce some exceptional image quality (Sharpness, details and contrast). Cliché at this point but Ansel Adams work still look very modern today.
They where however slow, heavy ,difficult to work with and extremely expensive so most people stuck to small format when they became available .
In fact I would bet that most pictures taken before small format took over look better technically than after it took over
Photo quality could be really good with lots of light, the right exposure, and fine grained film.
Age can also be unkind to old photo's. Especially color I swear the dyes fade causing the colors to be muted and muddy. And tend to slowly bleed making them blurry.
Film grain resolutions for high quality emulsions can result in nearly perfect image representations, even under pretty high magnifications. Digital imaging is limited to the pixels on the sensor and/or the display.
I mean, sure, but it depends a lot along which dimension you make the comparison. There, you are looking at a shot in broad daylight, on modern film, printed at a small size. To make it more obvious, here's a comparison: The daylight shot printed at small size[1] appears fairly detailed. The same film, same photographer, same camera, etc. only at night and presented as an ostensibly high-resolution picture[2] starts to reveal the problems with the older tech.
Usually the cameras themselves are fine – we perfected optics enough to not be a problem on 35 mm film in the 1800s – it's the medium on which the image is recorded that is more finicky. However, if we put the old optics onto modern sensors, we would start to notice its problems too. I don't have an example at hand, but there's noticeable chromatic aberration (no problem on black and white film!) among other things.
Nit pick: chromatic aberration is a significant problem on panchromatic black and white film. (You don’t get color banding, for obvious reasons, but you do lose sharpness.) This is why the development of achromatic lenses long predates the widespread use of color photography.
Indeed, it is surprising that you would be able to pull this stunt on such a huge buyer as McDonalds.
Here's an alternative theory that will disappoint the readers of Jacobian - potatoes are a commodity and commodity prices drive inflation. A bad crop, expensive fertiliser, a ground war in one of the largest potato-exporting countries in the world (Ukraine) - all these things would cause suppliers to increase prices in lockstep.
Inflation can be good cover for price collusion, sure, but the reason why it's such good cover is that its effects are almost indistinguishable without a smoking gun. Lets see what the FTC investigation brings up.
(Another note - inflation inflates profits as well as prices.)
Just to augment what you are saying... all potatoes aren't created equally either... size, starches, variety, organic... there are places around North America where certain kinds of potatoes are grown that are completely unsuitable for french fries but might be fine for retail. Even among Russets, for example - you see smaller ones bagged up for retail, but larger ones are often sold loose as "bakers." And sometimes those same big beautiful Russets are undesirable for fries because they are inconsistent sizes, which can be problematic for processing.
My understanding of GDPR law is that the fine is up to EUR 20M per breach. I have some experience with the data protection culture in Germany and it's frankly excessive at times. It's incredible that this was able to happen at this scale. In theory the company could be bankrupted by fines if the letter of the law is followed, never mind the reputational implications for a company only just getting over the emissions scandal.
Modelica is is in wide use in many industries, just not yours apparently. This is kinda like linking to Java or C++ and then being surprised it doesn’t have a top level intro explaining how to use it.
That doesn't mean anything to somone who doesn't already know what Modelica is. It would be hard to be more vague. C++ technically satisfies that definition.
This is a back door channel to illegal immigration, nothing more.
The students never turn up to courses and go to live with relatives in cities miles away.
The bloated UK university sector (your experience of a UK university, if you have it, is not typical of the vast shadow educational establishment which rakes in billions per year and delivers almost nothing in return) obviously has no interest in stopping this.
This has been spoken about for years now among people who work or have worked in these third-rate unis. As immigration filters up the political agenda I expect we'll start to see a mass decimation of these pseudo-educational establishments.
Do you have anything you can cite that supports your point about this being a back channel immigration method?
I live in a city that has a huge number Chinese students, who I regularly see coming and going from the campuses. Not all top universities, either. It does seem to me like these foreign student communities can be overly insular but I've never seen any evidence that they're illegally overstaying at any scale. As they generally come from wealthy backgrounds and societies that heavily emphasise family values, I am skeptical that they'd get higher quality of life in the UK than their home countries.
the goal is legal residency, not illegal overstaying. the universities offer the path of: pay money, get a visa. by not teaching anything, the "students" are free to go work and earn back the outrageous tuition fees, or if they're rich enough, just go enjoy life around europe.
free (long term) movement/immigration for the people to anywhere desirable is dead in the modern world, you generally need to pay (golden visas, "education") or be paid (work visas).
The vast majority of Chinese students do not plan on migrating to the UK. They usually do it so they can complete a Masters in 1 year instead of the 2 years required by Chinese universities. Having an international degree also holds weight in the domestic job market.
The visa is (a) not permanent and (b) only valid for the UK, which was never in Schengen; if you are a non-EU national you need to get a visa for each European country you plan to visit, separately, according to their rules.
And with Labour there will be no justice here. Tax payers just have to keep paying more while the burden is just increased daily and the actual tax payers get less. Hopefully this will be the end of Labour for good.
I don't know that accusing the current ruling party (I'm not familiar with UK politics so I'm not for or against this party) of irrational policy that results in the hard-working natives to pay more and more tax money to support all those freeloading foreigners, without including any substantial argument to support that claim, or alternatively linking a source, is a good fit for an HN discussion
And the status quo is in no way the responsibility of the previous government which continuously spewed anti-migrant rhetoric while doing basically nothing to reduce total immigration?
The Tories are definitely also responsible, and I hope this is the end of the Tory party. They are even worse than Labour in that they have been basically defrauded the voters by claiming to be conservative but being anything but. Labour at least made it clear to their voters they plan to run the country off a cliff at max speed, which is why they won by default and have no mandate.
Don't give in to the temptation to write this off as a trite statistic. If the aviation industry never existed and all those miles were done by road, that's more than 170,000 additional deaths in the US since 2009 [1].
You may argue that not all aviation traffic would convert to road, and I'd agree - so to look at it another way, aviation has created a huge uplift in human potential by enabling more travel than ever with zero (or negative) direct human cost.
Those miles would have never been done all on road so that comparison falls really short. People wouldn't drive coast to coast multiple times a year on business trips, just as they do the same with flying.
But an analogy with hours travelled via plane/car/train/bus would be interesting
If you look at per-trip statistics, trains are six times safer than flying. Per-mile, planes always do much better. Cars just honestly suck for safety, cost, and externalities.
-FranceLeMoulin-Rouge-boulevarddeClichy_A7462-edit-double.jpg?fit=max&w=1200&h=850&auto=format,compress){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
If you think wanting to live in a unipolar world is "evil", then there's no helping you.
reply