n2burns

joined 1 year ago
[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Highway interchanges aren't good places for pedestrians or cyclists at the best of times. Just take a look at the current intersection.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Taxis existed before Uber and Lyft. What's being touted is that AVs will be cheaper and more available than ridesharing, the same way ridingsharing was to taxis.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

As the video points out, what you're describing is very similar to what was said about Uber & Lyft. At first glance, a cheaper, more available taxi service seems like it should reduce road usage. However, that assumes car trips are replaced by rideshare trips. In actuality, when Uber & Lyft have entered a market, it has resulted in increased road usage. This is because of induced demand, and if rideshares are replacing another form of transportation, it's usually public transit, walking, or biking, not driving.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Biased. Blech.

AKA the Fraser Institute.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 week ago
[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Yeah, but it was also written at a time when the most advanced armaments available were bolt-action rifles.

Actually, according to Wikipedia, "The first bolt-action rifle was produced in 1824" so that's decades after the second amendment was ratified.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

He’s not wrong, exactly. The second amendment doesn’t say “keep and bear some kinds of arms”, it just says “keep and bear arms”.

It's kind of vague though. If a kid asks, "Can I have ice cream," and their parents say, "Yes, you can have ice cream," it doesn't mean the kid can have whatever ice cream them want and in whatever quantities they want.

As a non-American, I always find it funny how some people revere the framers as having future vision and somehow infallible.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

Sure, but that has almost no impact on Fed policies.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

I'm not sure why you're responding to my comment. What you said seems to be completely unrelated to what I said.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

As I've pointed out elsewhere, that's not inflation. That's a lack of purchasing power, not inflation which is a loss of purchasing power. We lost that purchasing power over 2022 and 2023, but the difference in price between November of 2023 and now is relatively small.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

Which is a made up target with a wide margin. Many economists think a stable inflation rate might be 3% or higher! So 2.4% might already be on target.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

That definition is literally describing a change, as rate of change.

Inflation is a loss of purchasing power

Over the past year, we haven't experienced a loss of purchasing power. We have a lack of purchasing power, but we lost it over the 2-3 years prior to the last year.

a rise in prices for goods and services over time

This is pretty much the mathematical definition of a rate of change. Like how speed is the rate of change in position over time. After a day of traveling, your position (prices for goods) may be way different than your starting point, but if you're not currently moving, your speed (inflation) is NIL.

 

Deal sets out pharmacare framework and will cover contraception, diabetes treatment

view more: next ›