That's an entirely separate issue, isn't it? In my country (New Zealand) there are no requirements to have auto insurance. If you don't have insurance and you hit a million-dollar car you're gonna be in an awkward situation, but that's a risk you're allowed to take.
Note that you _are_ legally required to pay your annual ACC levies, which fund no-fault cover for injuries. However that doesn't cover property damage.
Credit scores are universally hated but they make it possible to offer lower interest rates to more people. Without credit scores, fewer people would have access to credit.
Similarly, people often don't like it when insurers track and score their driving. However, this allows insurers to offer lower insurance fees to more people by _not_ offering lower insurance fees (or instead charging higher fees) to people that are driving in a risky manner. This does of course assume a competitive market for insurance but I think in most countries that's a reasonable assumption.
There's nothing fairer than user-pays, especially when users can choose to pay less by changing their behavior.
Mostly it's a consequence of population density. There's just not enough large cities close together.
I think it's probably also correct to say that New Zealand could sustain a larger passenger rail network if made the right investments. For example, Auckland <-> Hamilton <-> Tauranga could profitably support at least a few trains per day in each direction... _if_ it was electrified, with passing loops where needed, and with well-sited stations, and with the ability for trains to run into Britomart or at least Newmarket (both being stations close to central Auckland). However, there's a chicken and egg problem: unless you make investments like that, the service you can offer will be pretty crap and no one will want to ride your slow trains.
If each human body needs 0.2 acre of land to grow the food necessary for subsistence, what happens when the price of intelligence keeps dropping and one person's intelligence (even when directed towards the highest-value use!) is not enough to afford the use of that land? In other words, what happens when humans are no longer economically viable?
Jevon's Paradox means that the demand for intelligence will keep rising as the cost drops, so I can't help but expect a steady increase in the economic value of land _when used for AI_. It'll take a long time before it exceeds the economic value of land when used for human subsistence, but the growth curves are not pointing in encouraging directions.
I grew up in rural New Zealand, on a dairy farm. I agree that the needs of suburban and rural communities are very different from the needs of urban communities, but what confuses me is why Americans (and increasingly, Kiwis) need a vehicle the size of a Dodge Ram rather than one the size of a 1990 HiLux ute [1].
San Francisco owes its growth as a city to the fact that the Bay provides a connection between the Sierras (and their goldfields) and the Pacific Ocean.
Regarding Boston, the interesting thing is that it used to be connected to the Merrimack via the Middlesex Canal. My understanding is that this is silted up now (which you presumably already know) but it shows how many more connections we used to have.
I've watched this being built and it's been really cool seeing how well SolidJS works. I was initially dubious ("No one gets fired for picking React", right?) but it seems like it made for really easy development.
How hard would it be to add a choropleth view showing metrics such as 1-year 24-hour depth across the globe?
This was written by Alon Levy, who is deep in the weeds of transport infrastructure and was writing for a technical audience. The habitual readers of their blog will easily interpret this as "Why commuters prefer transfers at the origin rather than transfers at the destination". This is the same conclusion that will be reached by readers who have never read Alon's blog before but do in fact read the first sentence of the post.
Clearly, Alon's title uses wonkish terminology and would have benefited from a title that was more easily understood by people unfamiliar with the field. I think it's fair to say that you're not the target audience.
I recently changed jobs in Melbourne (senior frontend developer). I was told by multiple different people that the average market salary has dropped by about 5-10k since this time last year, but I didn't struggle to get interviews and I was able to accept an offer for what was apparently last year's market salary. Some of the larger companies weren't hiring but in general the market seemed pretty steady.
You're missing the fact that most courses (i.e. the ones that aren't wildly successful) have a large upfront cost. The marginal cost might be a tiny fraction of the price, but that doesn't necessarily translate to a profitable enterprise overall.
You can see the same effect with railways and aeroplanes. There's definitely plenty of operational costs, but the capital costs are relatively high so you want to keep your capital goods (the railways/trains/planes) active all the time even if you only make a tiny profit on each service. However, these businesses often only pan out if they can attract high-margin customers (e.g. business class flyers).
Why isn't it fair for the author to be the one who receives the marginal value that they created? They were the ones who created the course, and that course would not have existed for anyone if they put the effort in to build it. Anyone else can do it, but they are the ones who did.
To my eyes it seems very fair to offer a product at (appromimately) the same real price for everyone in the world, and let people choose whether or not to buy it.
And for what it's worth, commodities are also priced at what the market can bear, not at their marginal cost of production. It's just that competition pushes those prices down very close to the marginal cost. This course has competition too, in the form of all the other articles and tutorials that are available free on the internet. It's not like this course is the only gate to otherwise-inaccessible knowledge.
I disagree. I'm not trying to be inflammatory but it seems like your statement is similar to saying "rape is so harmful specifically because of our society's attitudes to sex". Yeah, social stigma can make the consequences of rape a lot worse, but that's not at all the only reason why rape is bad. I think the same logic applies to involuntary porn.
Among other things, involuntary porn is a massive violation of privacy. Maybe some individuals don't feel that this area needs to be private, but what matters is whether the _victim_ wants it to be private. If your solution is "the victims shouldn't make such a big deal of this", that's wishful thinking not a solution.
My rule of thumb is that for decision-making roles, you want financial compensation to at least match the 'status compensation' (respect, status, etc). When the vast majority of the role's compensation comes via the _prestige_ of being a member of congress, you're bound to get weird results.
While you're absolutely correct that Australia hasn't had a recession in that time, this hides the fact that there have been periods when GDP _per-capita_ has declined. Or to put it another way: Australia's recessions have been hidden by immigration-driven growth.
Of course, immigration-driven growth is great! But for people on the ground, what matters is GDP per capita, not total GDP.
#/media/File:1990-1997_Toyota_Hilux_(LN106R)_DX_4-door_utility_(2007-09-28).jpg){kind=link}
Note that you _are_ legally required to pay your annual ACC levies, which fund no-fault cover for injuries. However that doesn't cover property damage.