No, there is no benefit. Actually avoiding continue or break like statements makes code overly complicated.
Maybe she made a mental short circuit with constructs like set_jump and long_jump (which are evil).
I’ve 30+ years of C in my portfolio, with >1000 programs small and big, with millions of LOC, and I’d say her stand on break and continue is utterly stupid.
Nope. It already was WASD around 1980, when I got my first computer. It even had the arrows printed on the keycaps to be used with the CTRL key, as it didn’t have a numpad or cursor pad at all. You had to use WASD to move around.
That’s why they joined the GOP in the first place - to feel at home with people on the same mental level.
Which would actually a big improvement over Reddit.
I worked with Unix before Windows was a thing. I’ve worked on windows, saw what a shitshot it was (and still is), and work with Linux instead. I do have Windows PCs at the lab for some renitent software, too, but it is always a step backwards when it comes to data procession.
Designing our streets for pedestrians first, transit/bikes next and private motor vehicles last is the way it should be.
Nobody designed them the way they are, at least not with a grand design in mind. Traffic is shaped by planning for existing demand. To change planning, you need to change the demand first. Working against demand won’t get you anywhere, at least not in politics, and they are holding the purse strings.
North-american style car-dependent suburbs are an aberration that should disappear altogether.
While it is not wrong, as long as you don’t have a credible idea why millions of people should give up their homes to live in overpriced shoe boxes without a bit of green and quiet in the city, this will get you nowhere. People love living in spaceous houses they own. People love having some green around them. People love the quiet. And first of all, people love not having to deal with all the other city problems.
It is immoral that the people living sustainably in urban centers are subsidizing the people living at large in the suburbs.
Remember that those urban centers would and could simply not exist without people from the outskirts working and shopping in those urban centers. The dependency is definitely not one-sided.
Looks like you’ve never been in a town in the Netherlands. I’ve been, many times, and it’s not all roses. Yes, they are often better for bikers, but overall, they are traffic nightmares.
The low-density housing situation is an American problem that we don’t have. We, on the other side, have cities grown for thousands of years, and nobody thought of leaving space for people, bikes, and public transport. So we usually try to protect the weakest (the pedestrians) by giving them a safe space (unless violated by bikers), and the streets have to be shared, simply because there is no space. Yes, you can wish for all cars to vanish there, but it is not realistic. Just like wishing your suburbans away.
I never said it was not doable. I just made it clear that making personal cars somehow “vanish” will not really change the financial side of things.
I’m not against change. On the contrary. But I know that just wishing won’t help. One needs a realistic goal, and find an equally realistic way to get there. Anything else is just dreaming. Just saying “Cars have to vanish” won’t accomplish anything.
I wish anyone in this “FuckCars” community would actually think of a way to fix the world, and not just complain about the way it is.
Either enter politics yourself, or bribe the right people.
I was not asking about political handwaving. When you dismissed tram tracks in every street, I expected something more substantial as an alternative.
OK, tell the world your plan. at least I am listening.
Smaller trucks would mean more drivers (which are already hard to find). More drivers mean more costs. You would basically penalized logistic companies either way just for them to do their job: Bringing goods into the cities.
Someone else suggested to go by rails. Hardly feasable, as one would have to turn half the cities into railyards. And any kind of train can only operate efficiently because of sheer size. Which means: problems with small curve radiuses. Which an inner city most likely will have to have, unless you only fit the major roads, and move the goods for the last few hundred meters by whatever means.
There is a shitload of catch 22’s in this whole story - cities evolved to what they are and how they worked over a long time, and changing them will cause mega efforts.
You want to turn every other street in a town into a railyard? Good luck with that plan. And do you really want to cross rails with your bike at every corner? I can tell you, riding a bike in a tram-ridden part of town is no fun.
If the other parties get their acts together, the PVV seats will not matter.
Apart from the scheduled arrival times, they are almost never true ;-)
I would not rule it out.
Funny, though, that they don’t differentiate between “cars” and “trucks”. The big costs, e.g. for road maintenance, are due to trucks by a wide margin (The relation between vehicle weight and road damage is a x⁴ one!). And while this community would love to see all cars gone, there is no real alternative for trucks at the moment - at least as long people want a well-stocked supermarket, restaurant, or boutique within bike range. Erasing all personal cars from those cost calculations would hardly affect the overall costs. In the end, most of the costs for roads are a basically just a subsidy for the logistics industry. If they had to pay for road keepup themselves, prices everywhere would simply rise.
Only those who didn’t sleep during math.
Maybe they wanted to announce it after a successful landing?
For me it was more the video “We build this wonderful (some totally expensive wood) box for (absolutely small money)” - and the key point was that he had a large enough cutoff of said expensive wood lying around from a previous project, and all he needed to purchase was some felt and hinges.