Lurker > LinkPizza

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You didn't prove anything either.

Youre the one making a claim, though So, in this case, the burden of proof lies with you

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Yeah. Younger drinkers than the ones they currently attract. And they currently attract the frat crowd. So younger than the frat crowd. And if the frat crowd already means 21, younger than 21. Which matches what I said earlier about the viewer demographic.

First, like helly said, younger drinkers refers to younger people who can drink. Meaning they still have to be 21 (in the US) And the Frat crowd ISNT the only crowd of people that drink. They are just one of the crowds. And can you show me where she said, Younger than the frat crowd? If you can show me that actual sentence, that would help Because she didnt say that. You are moving two sentences together Moving away from the Frat Crowd and Attracting young drinkers are different things you can have one without the other So, its just you making up stuff.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They said they want younger customers than the frat crowd.

She never said that. She didnt say younger than the frat crowd She said, if we do not attract young drinkers But that doesnt mean younger than the frat crowd. That just means young drinkers in general. Which would be like 21 year olds Moving away from frats doesnt mean young children. Many young drinkers that are of age arent part of the frat crowd They are young drinkers

Hoodroar posted...

This sucks but I don't see how the law can be changed to account for it. Actual predators would just lie about not knowing the girl's real age.

Solution is not to have sex with people you haven't gotten to know.

I rather just check the ID. That said, they could have a fake ID

CobraGT posted...

In which case the law needs to be changed. Be educated enough to know what needs to be changed.

I mean, we already know the law needs to be changed But theres probably not a high chance of that happening

epik_fail1 posted...

Or do they?

I rarely see them, if ever Unless the roles are reversed and an underage guy sleeps with a woman And that happens, as well In those cases, the guy gets off In more ways than one

Recently, I cant stop eating this Queso Fundido with Cilantro Cauliflower Rice

The trailer shows parts from the whole game, it seems. Where the gameplay footage was all kind of in the assume few areas. I think it makes sense. Its like the difference of watching a trailer and the first 15 minutes of a game

From what I heard, Nintendo didnt really want the timeline, but fans made it happen, anyway They just make the game and let fans make the timeline They have direct sequels and connecting games, but thats it That said, I have heard the beginning and end Theory before. And the converging timelines theory, as well

MeatiestMeatus posted...

I can have nuts in my mouth all I want

I can say that this is the truth

__starsnostars posted...

There are literally countless examples of animals eating other animals but how many examples in the Animal Kingdom are there of adult animals drinking milk, let alone the milk of another species.

Tbf, they might. But usually, the babies are drinking from a lactating mother. Some animals have different breeding seasons, so animals might not be able to drink from many other species. Also, animals are sometimes scared of other animals, so it could be hard for another animal to start feeding on a lactating mother Maybe thats why Especially an adult Maybe they would try if they could, though Maybe theyd like it

I think I saw somewhere that 10% of the world is married to a 2nd cousin Its not like its a lost thing. It still happens in todays society Just less so in the US, I believe

I got to fight side-by-side with best boy Sidon? And Riju and the other champions, as well! Well, this was already a day one buy, but now I want to raid Nintendo to get one early

Thank you!

KTG2 posted...

Are you a literal baby, cause otherwise that is some sociopath shit

A half gallon isnt that much I could go through that easily Like a bowl of cereal and a glass of milk with cookies can get through most of that, I believe

Post a link, please

ZevLoveDOOM posted...

just buy a damn cow! lol

Just beat Malons time and theyll deliver a cow to your house for free

CassandraCroft posted...

I see everyone here has failed to realize that back then when daily milk deliveries were common one of the main reasons people got it daily was because Ice Boxes and refridgerators (fridges) weren't common back then so they needed it daily.

If you have ever left milk out in the open you know how fast it can go off.

Plus lots of people didn't have any way to get to the grocery store everyday to buy milk so the mmilkman was essential to them.

I actually didnt fail to realize it

LinkPizza posted...

But the reason the milkman would bring milk was because people were in more urban areas, but still wanted milk. They delivered daily since refrigeration was still new and not common.

I was reading an article about it It has a few extra details here and there Didnt go through the hole thing, but a good chunk of it But I had to go to work

DipDipDiver posted...

It's also wild that there used to be someone who delivered ice to all the houses

Probably like milk, it had to be delivered daily if they had no where to keep it so it wouldnt melt

Different people got different amounts. So, some people got more or less based on how much milk they were getting So, it you only used certain amount daily, youd only get that amount But the reason the milkman would bring milk was because people were in more urban areas m, but still wanted milk. They delivered daily since refrigeration was still new and not common. And milk was spoil fast So, daily delivery According to some article Google showed me Gave a little milk history or whatever

MedeaLysistrata posted...

This topic has 64 posts so clearly it fucking matters

Though, it seems like a majority of the 64 posts (at the time) were saying that it didnt matter

Street Sharks for sure

bladegash posted...

She was 15 he was 19?

Does Romeo and juliet laws not apply here?

I think she was 14. And each state does that law differently, IIRC

I like average guys, anyway And sex is suppose to be fun I wouldnt mind teaching certain people, though But I dont like the word mating in this case

adjl posted...

This is exactly what I'm talking about: because you've never known how well a proper transit system can work, you've already decided that it's impossible for transit to ever work for you. You've based your opinion entirely off of personal experience and are unable to imagine that it could ever be good enough, despite countless cities elsewhere that have made it good enough and seen massive improvements for doing so.

Ive been around good transit systems. Or good enough But a good one isnt good enough. No matter how good a transit system is, its not what I want. If I want to go somewhere, I want to go straight there. Not have a bunch of stops in between. Or have to switch vehicles. Like I said, even with good transit, chances are it will take longer since it follows its own route, and has stops, which a regular car doesnt. The only time it would take longer in a car is if there is bad traffic And not just normal bad traffic, either I personally want to get where Im going and leave when Im ready. Straight there and back And I dont always feel like being around other people than the ones I have to interact with sometimes Also, I sometimes have no idea where Im going until I get there The other problem is just because its good enough for others doesnt mean it will be good enough for me. For example, public transit isnt the best in my current city, but its good enough for some people But not for everybody. So, even if it was good enough for even more people in the city, that doesnt mean it will be good enough for me

adjl posted...

Presuming you're talking about various violent/criminal activities, that tends to improve with more ubiquitous transit use. What you're experiencing now is largely a consequence of buses often being pretty empty (fewer witnesses) and being used almost exclusively by people who can't afford cars (lower SES being pretty strongly correlated with criminal activity). With more witnesses, more socioeconomic diversity, and more buses running (so not everyone gets on the same one), as well as improvements in security services that become possible with greater ridership, those problems get better. As a secondary benefit, when a city is designed such that people can get around even if they can't afford a car, overall SES tends to improve because more people can get to work without spending more than they make at work to do so, and that also improves crime rates.

It has almost nothing to do with crime (Ill get to the one crime, though) Its because theyre gross. I use to clean them for a living for the city. And the stuff that happens on them in pretty bad. So many different body fluids. And the one crime I mention is public indecency Some guys just straight up start jacking off I didnt think that was a thing until one of the bus drivers came in heated because she yell at a guy, and threw him off the bus for doing that. And this isnt super rare Ita not an everyday occurrence, but also not a one off thing Then theres the urine, poop, vomit, etc Its gross Also, I also dont really like management there Also, our buses arent very empty most of the time. People use it Its just that more people drive. But the buses do get full quite often And not even a full bus stops the jacking off, or using the bathroom on themselves

adjl posted...

Generally speaking, you won't be able to renew your insurance for less than a year at a time, and a year's insurance plus a year's registration are likely to cost at least a few hundred dollars. Past that, simply starting the car isn't enough. To keep a battery properly charged, you're going to want to drive it around for at least 10-15 minutes (30 is what's recommended after boosting a dead one), and that is also a good idea just to make sure all the moving parts maintain reasonable coverage of the various fluids and don't rust. You can't really drive around for 10-15 minutes without a valid plate or insurance (or at least you shouldn't).

I think mine was 3 or 6 months or something. That said, if you have insurance on something else (like home or boat or something), you should be able to change what you have insurance for pretty easy At least, it seemed easy to just add stuff when I used the app And my registration was like $50. If you insurance isnt high, it shouldnt be to much. Maybe like $200, and even that seems high Probably closer to $150 But it depends on your insurance cost And like I said, start it up once in a while to make sure the battery doesnt die at all And while you shouldnt drive without valid plates, you could. But getting you car going for a while might help with most parts

adjl posted...

If the person in question needed the money from the sale of the car to afford a house, then they wouldn't have been able to afford a house with a larger lot that would have a driveway anyway.

Which is why I said they might have settled for that house. But also, not true. They may have just used the extra money for a bigger down payment So, it doesnt necessarily mean they couldnt afford the house. But that is one possibility

adjl posted...

Depends how often they're being used. Like a lot of businesses, there's a feedback loop for quality of service: If the cars get used more frequently, that produces more revenue, which pays for more staff that can inspect cars pre-emptively or respond to complaints about dirt/mechanical issues more quickly, which makes cars more pleasant to use and increases their frequency of use. Naturally, there needs to be a front-end investment to keep an acceptable level of service going until that frequency of use takes off, but with lower demand for the service in the first place, that front-end investment isn't likely to pay off. In the same vein, GPS tracking cars to be able to tell people where they actually are instead of directing people to where they're supposed to be and hoping the last driver parked them there costs money, so offering that from the outset instead of after a stable revenue stream has been secured is hard.

I don't disagree that service needs to be better for the industry to succeed, but those are issues that solve themselves if the demand is there to drive usage even when the service standard isn't quite as high as perhaps it ought to be (especially once there's enough demand to stimulate competition).

Its just sucks for them, in the end. They need customers to be good. But customers wont come because theyre not good Its a never ending circle of pain for them

adjl posted...

Not really. If a train comes every five minutes, you just go to the station whenever. That's a concept that's really hard for people who come from areas without reliable public transportation to wrap their heads around, since I know I've always had to check bus schedules whenever I want to take one and few things compare to the abject misery of narrowly missing a bus and having to wait half an hour for the next one, but that's a service standard many cities have been able to very comfortably achieve, as idealistic as you might think it is.

Even if it comes every 5 minutes, you still have to build your schedule around it When you want to go somewhere 20 minutes away, you can leave 20 minutes before you want to get there With public transportation, you need to figure out which train or bus goes there, when it gets there (to get there before the time you want if it wont get you there at the exact time), and how to get to that train or bus. In some places, you may have to switch once or twice to get in the correct vehicle. So, yes, you still have to plan around public transportation So, you have to plan everything out to get there and on time Where with a car, planning is leaving your house on time And again, its not always about how often the buses/trains come, ut the routes themselves And chances are, its going to take much longer depending on where youre going Since you may have to switch vehicles, and public transportation has multiple stops, and stuff like that So, planing ahead is very much needed

adjl posted...

All of the things I listed there are objectively beneficial.

I was talking about the car, saying it was useful Not about the stuff you were talking about

adjl posted...

That's really no different from taking the risk of building a suburb in a manner that relies entirely on a major road to get in and out, then having another suburb built a mile up the same road that adds so much extra congestion that the residents of your suburb now have to spend twice as long going anywhere. No matter what you do, you're relying on infrastructure that's out of your control. At least with planned transit, you can get a contractual obligation from the city that allows you to sue them for damages if the plan falls through and the value of the development tanks as a result.

That probably depends on the contracts, lawyers, and loopholes Hopefully, itll work But the justice system is very broken Like in many places

adjl posted...

You're still looking at a paywall of several hundred dollars to wake the car up again (if it even wakes up, since if it's uninsured and unregistered it's not like you can make a habit of taking it out to charge the battery and shake off the rust), which might not be strictly inconvenient, but definitely makes the prospect less attractive.

Thats why I said to start it once a week or so. Even once a month. I can usually go home for a month and start my car up when I get back. And several hundred seems high But I guess it can change based on different areas

adjl posted...

If you sell the car, you can likely buy one in comparable condition for close to what you sold it for, or at least for less than what you'd spend on upkeep and administrative costs plus the sale price. I wouldn't expect anyone to sell a 5-year-old car that they'd finished payments on, then buy a brand new one a couple years later when they decide they need a car again (unless they'd already planned to buy a new car around then, in which case they've still come out on top by selling the old one while it was worth more and not paying to keep it).

You could maybe buy one close to the price you sold it for. But you probably dont have that money. Most probably would have used it for the house. So, you are still probably making payments for it when you could have instead kept it And depending on the price of the new one and how long you went without, it may have been cheaper to have just kept the old one

adjl posted...

It's the sort of service that kind of already needs people on board to be able to grow. If they've got NIMBYs trying to prevent them from parking in convenient places (which is a major issue) and most people already have their own cars and therefore have no interest in carshares, getting the fleet size and density needed to provide good service is really difficult. Most of America isn't at the point where carshares are going to be able to properly take hold. That point comes when people are able to get around for everyday activities (especially commuting) without a car, and therefore start questioning whether or not it's worthwhile to own and maintain a car just for occasional errands, because that's when carshare services can actually take the place of their cars by being more cost-efficient and convenient. Until then, they're going to struggle.

Maybe they need more people to get a bigger fleet, but then that means they should be able to properly clean the few cars that they do have, though And even then, they should point people to cars that they have. Its still weird to send people to an empty lot when they asked for a car

adjl posted...

And I'm not sure why you're bringing up this different hypothetical. It's just another example of what can be accomplished by moving away from car dependency (namely, getting more yard without needing to pay for a larger lot), so while it's a much more individualistic benefit than the others I'm bringing up (increased housing, more affordable housing, more construction jobs, more efficient infrastructure, more profitable land use), it's still supporting my point that suburbs that aren't designed around needing a car are beneficial.

I wouldnt say beneficial. But useful Even with good public transportation, you have to build you schedule around it

adjl posted...

You take those risks whenever you choose where to live. Things may change that make living there worse. You don't necessarily stand to lose money on your investment the way a developer might (though it may cause your property value to go down and make selling and moving more difficult), but either way none of that is unique to transit-centric developments.

Oh. Youre talking about completely different risks. I was saying I wouldnt want to take the risk of building a bunch of houses with no driveways because public transport was suppose to be good, but then the deal fell through That was the risk I was saying I wouldnt take

adjl posted...

This touches on a lot of the core issue. For many Americans, car-dependent city design is the only model they've ever known and they've never thought to question it, accepting the problems they do notice (like traffic congestion, poor roads, and life-threatening danger) as being unavoidable and believing that those deciding how to build cities have concluded that this is actually the best possible model. Recognizing that things can be so much better is entirely a hypothetical exercise for the many, many people that don't have the privilege of being able to travel to a variety of cities and experience a variety of strategies, so it's hard for them to view it through any lens other than "if I didn't have my car I'd be screwed." This is a major part of why I'm so invested in this argument, because without getting so invested it's impossible to share the details of just how profoundly flawed and objectively inferior the car-centric model is, and without getting people to understand that it's impossible to get the political will needed to effect the changes that need to happen. America (and Canada, which suffers from many of the same problems) doesn't have to be as dominated by the automobile as it is, and changing that would make things better for everyone that doesn't own a car company.

It changes based on what people want or need. Like I said before, I dont care if they want to change the city or whatever as long as it doesnt bother me (financial or physically, like making things harder for me and my car) I just wont use it as its not good enough for me And even if it was better, I absolutely wouldnt get on the buses in my city since I know what happens on them Some people may be able to get by with public transport, and some wouldnt For me, public transport, as it is, definitely wouldnt work for me. And even if it were somewhat better, itd still have problem that I dont feel like dealing with

The judge sucks for sure. Even the girl and her mom nothing should happen to him since he didnt do anything wrong

De1eted posted...

Statistically speaking, I think I saw something once that digital has grown to be the vast majority of new game purchases, so the premise of this topic isn't really even accurate

It depends. I like physical games, but some games are only sold digital. So, even though I like physical more, I have probably have more digital games for switch So, some others could be in the same boat as me

keyblader1985 posted...

For Switch, physical games save storage space since they don't have to be installed. That's not really the case with other systems.

This is my main reason for switch

hungrymike posted...

let a friend borrow it.

This is another. Some friends and I will borrow games from each other. Same with my siblings and cousins

adjl posted...

Actually, they are outright illegal to build in much of the US and Canada. They exist here and there, mostly in older neighbourhoods (many of which actually were designed around transit and later retrofitted to accommodate the emerging obsession with cars), but in a lot of areas zoning laws simply don't allow that kind of medium-density housing/commercial development. It's either massive high-rises or single-family homes, with very little middle ground, which is a huge problem for many reasons (not least of which is the fact that townhouses and other higher-density housing are a lot more affordable than detached houses, which make it much easier for prospective first-time buyers to start building equity instead of pissing their money away on somebody else's mortgage).

If theyre illegal, then that would make sense

adjl posted...

If you have to re-register and re-insure your car before taking it out, you've basically eliminated any of the convenience hanging on to the car can provide, and you're generally stuck paying for at least a year at a time when you do that. At that point, you might as well sell it, unless it's a situation like the Covid lockdown and you know your hiatus from driving is only going to be temporary.

Both of those are actually super easy. You can change the insurance in the app And registering doesnt take long. And if the registration goes out, you dont have to re-register until you are about to take it out. And I remember they were allowing to people to either call in it or go online Not sure how it works, but seemed easy enough according to co-workers So, still pretty convenient And since you wont have to pay the registration until you drive again, you can probably go a little over a year Id rather hold onto it because you never know when thing will suddenly change And it would suck to buy a new car and have payments again (if you were already done with them)

adjl posted...

Again, that's a combination of low demand due to higher car ownership and active efforts to suppress them. Without that active suppression and with lower car ownership, demand for the service will drive better service. The Not Just Bikes guy mentioned a couple times here did a video on car shares in Amsterdam, and there it's literally just a matter of opening an app, picking out a car that's almost always within a 5-minute walk (you might have to go 10-15 if you want a cargo van or other specialty vehicle), clean, and in good working order, and going on your way. There's no reason it can't be that easy everywhere, it's just a matter of demand for that level of service.

They should already have better service. Maybe if they had somewhat better service, people who use them would fight for them more Maybe If I use a device because I had to, but it sucked, Im not sure how hard Id fight for it. Because maybe a better service will come along But if I used it and it was good. Id probably fight a little harder for it

adjl posted...

Honestly, if anything, that'd probably work better on the house without the driveway, since not having a driveway will make the yard look larger. Either way, it's beside the point: developers will price the houses according to what the market will bear, and generally speaking having a larger lot isn't going to increase the sale price linearly.

Anything can look larger. But thats why theyll bring up the measurements to prove its larger People may see a larger yard, but if he wants to sell the expensive house, he may say how the driveway just makes it look smaller They do the same with the insides. Some people will mention how one house seems to have a larger kitchen, but the realtor will usually say how the island may make it look smaller, but it has more room overall

adjl posted...

I'm really not even sure why you're bringing this up. The hypothetical is comparing one lot of a given size to a lot that has the same amount of house and yard, but has to be a bigger lot because of the driveway. A larger lot but has more yard because there's no driveway is entirely irrelevant to the hypothetical.

That was for the other hypothetical. There were multiple different ones I was working with I was just saying you could have two that are the same size, with only one difference

adjl posted...

You already have. It's not something you can ever really escape.

Im not a developer, so Im not taking that risk

adjl posted...

People walk to and from transit stops (and when buses/trains show up frequently enough, you don't have to worry about being delayed by half an hour if you missed the next scheduled one by making a brief detour to shop). High-traffic thoroughfares are also a lot less pleasant to walk along than quieter streets, especially when the question of crossing to check out the other side comes up, and when streets are developed with mixed-use properties (the most common version of this most people think of is having a small shop on the ground floor and 2-5 floors of flats above it, which is a lot easier when you don't need parking somewhere nearby for all of those units) you get foot traffic from people that just live in the neighbourhood. Transit-centric planning promotes all of these things because you don't need to allocate nearly as much space to moving and storing cars.

We dont have those here, nor do people seem to want them Like houses above stores We could have had them, but nobody seems to want that Even from some of the newer people And people only walk through those areas if they need to go there Which apparently, the people riding the buses normally dont They go to areas close by, but not to the shops

adjl posted...

Leaving a car parked in your driveway isn't free. Cars need regular upkeep and use to keep them in good working order, plus you'll continue to pay for insurance and registration even if you aren't using it. If you rarely use a car, you should very strongly consider getting rid of it in favour of using a carshare or rentals for the occasional time that you do actually need one. The exact calculus there will depend on one's specific situation, but it's well worth trying to do the math to figure out just how much that car you "might need now and then" is actually costing compared to what it would cost to employ a different solution.

Turning on once a week will help And depending on the year, make, and model, some can go without a fluid change for a while Up to a year, in some cases Both registration and insurance are only needed if you are going to take it on the road They are fine if they are in your property, though That said, you should have those just incase. And tbh, they could help you bill When I added my second vehicle to my insurance, it literally went down. I guess it had to do with the bundling thing So, it could lower you home-insurance, as well Registration sucks. But is a once a year thing, anyway I would advise against rental as those are way too expensive. If anything, Id go with a UHaul van. Only $20 a day. But can be hard to get. Carshare can be great If your city has them But many places dont And the ones that do dont sound great. Id recommend keeping the vehicle you have over them

adjl posted...

Then they'd need to go somewhere else. Again, there isn't a version of this where the lot that's cheaper because it has no driveway and is therefore smaller has a driveway to accommodate people that can't afford the lot that is larger and has a driveway. Driveways take more land, and more land costs more money. That's inescapable no matter how much you want somebody car-dependent to be able to afford parking (which is actually a major part of why car-centric development is such a problem, since it means prospective home buyers need enough money to be able to afford lots large enough to accommodate driveways).

That's not to say that it couldn't be possible to put a driveway in to the smaller lot by sacrificing yard space as a post-purchase renovation, but if that's a popular enough option then the developer stands to make even more money by offering even smaller driveway-less lots, and we're back to square one. You're not going to find a way to make it "fair" to people who can't afford the extra land that a driveway requires.

Chances are if they were settling for that one, its because they couldnt find somewhere else Or maybe everything had more things that they need but didnt have And its true more land cost more Though, if you could find somewhere they had the same amount of land, and had a driveway is stead of lawn, that could also work And Im not sure he would make even smaller driveway less lots. The only reason people would buy the lots is because they could have a driveway or yard. Most people arent giving up their yard because they dont want it. They are giving it away because they need it more than grass. If he just wants to fit more houses, he might as well make townhouses But even the people who dont want the driveway probably want the yard

adjl posted...

It's still going to be a hard sell, especially when the yard doesn't look any bigger than the neighbours'. That's a lot of extra money for very little value.

And it works a lot People buy bigger because they say its bigger sometimes. Even when you can tell how much bigger it actually is Its not that hard a sell Thats why developers use it often Because it works

adjl posted...

It's the same amount of yard either way. The only difference in the lot size is that needed to include a driveway, and the driveway takes up all of that difference. This is oversimplifying the geometry somewhat for the sake of an easier hypothetical, since in practice it's not exactly easy to increase a rectangle's size by 20% just by adding an extra rectangle to one corner of it, but the core point is that not needing a driveway enables lots to be smaller while providing the same amount of house and yard. Bringing in hypothetical scenarios where there's no driveway but the lot is the same size isn't really relevant, unless you're looking to provide another benefit of not needing a driveway (that is, that people can get more yard without needing a larger lot).

You could just have the same size lot where one has a driveway, and one doesnt, though No need to make it bigger if they really want to keep the small lot One would have more yard, where the other had less or none And how much yard someone wants depends on them Having more yard isnt a benefit for everyone Some would actually like less

adjl posted...

That's true of any model, really. There are a lot of factors that go into deciding where you want to live, and those factors can often change for reasons beyond your control.

True. Im just saying not sure Id want to take that risk beforehand

I did like the path thing a bunch

faramir77 posted...

There was a fan theory that Ditto was a failed clone of Mew. It was found in the Cinnabar Mansion, which is where Mewtwo was created.

Mew can learn every move, including Transform, which Ditto also knows as its only move.

Oh, yeah I remember this. They also have the same weight, height, and cry (I think)

agesboy posted...

btw was mewtwo the only manmade unique pogey? was genesect unique (as far as we know)? my knowledge of everything from like gens 3-6 suck

I checked just for man made, and heres what Google said

https://i.imgur.com/huu7Blf.png

https://i.imgur.com/AIo91Vn.png

So, thats about as much as I can do right now

I can sort of see why for certain ones, though some of them

Pulling*

adjl posted...

And yet plenty of cities (mostly outside of North America) have pulled it off, with no greater population density than any American city.

I just dont see how I can be done Unless actively blocking cars

adjl posted...

Like what? The problem you're proposing would really only come into play if a transit route runs through something that's expected to grow into a successful commercial distract, but the commercial district actually ends up growing a few blocks over for various other reasons (like a couple well-established businesses doing particularly well and making it more attractive to open similar or complementary businesses next to them than on the transit route). In that case, shifting the transit route a few blocks over to align with the growing district would bring it closer to the higher-demand area, help that area grow even better because it would be more accessible to people outside of cars (remember that it's substantially more likely for people walking past to stop in a shop and buy something than for people driving past), but that shift shouldn't trigger any changes that would prevent the neighbourhood from growing.

Depends on how its tweaked. Most shops have people who walk by because people will park someone, and walk around If people cant park, they probably wont go. Either foot traffic diminishes or stays the same. But I dont see it growing if theres more public transit, but less area from regular That said, tweaking too much could cause issue with the current riders And it would also depend on if people needed to go to those areas to begin with

adjl posted...

If they can't go without a car, then they'll need to buy a house with a driveway. The whole idea behind this discussion, though, is the value of designing a neighbourhood around transit such that most people moving there don't actually need cars. Some will, since even the best transit system can't cover absolutely everyone's needs, but if it's billed as being a neighbourhood where cars aren't necessary (and that prospect is becoming increasingly popular with the rise of armchair urbanism and increasing anti-oil sentiment) and where most houses don't have driveways as a result, a good chunk of the people interested in moving there won't have cars (or will be looking to ditch them).

I dont think most people will be looking to ditch them, even if they didnt need them all the time, as they could still be used when needed That said, just because people want a house with a driveway doesnt mean theyd be able to get it For example, maybe the family looking at the two houses there could get approved for $400,000 for the no driveway house, but not the $500,000 for the house with one

adjl posted...

"It has more land" when the only apparent difference is a driveway isn't going to convince many people to drop an extra 20%+ on a house. That's a very sizable amount of money, such that people will want to know just where the extra cost is coming from if there's a cheaper alternative with only one apparent difference.

Just because the only apparent difference is the driveway isnt always going to dissuade people. Chances are that most people arent even going to know that the extra 20% is only the driveway. Unless youre getting a birds eye view, all you know is it has more land and a driveway And the developer most likely isnt going to say that unless they asked. Hell probably say something like, It has a driveway, and 20% more land. Which is true and sounds appealing to many Even if in the end, the driveway is the 20% more land. But they may not say that unless we directly asked about it

adjl posted...

Well, yes, but that's not the point. Having the same size of lot and just not paving 20% of it will save the paving costs for the developer and offer a bit of savings that way, but we're not talking about an identical size plot of land. We're talking about what can happen to a development if it's designed to be transit-centric instead of including parking in every lot, and that means the only change is to remove the land allocated to driveways.

Just because its transit-centric doesnt mean you would remove the land, though Many people like having yards Removing the driveway in one thing. Taking the land altogether is another

adjl posted...

Generally speaking, transit-centric development happens alongside transit development, including establishing whatever routes or other transit infrastructure is needed usually before the developer even breaks ground on any houses. Really, though, that's no less true of car-centric developments. Those developments need roads, water, power, sewer, and communication lines run to them, which happens in collaboration with the city, and there's always a non-zero risk that somewhere down the line the city will be unable to maintain any of those pieces of infrastructure or something else will change to make living there less enjoyable (the most likely of which is that another car-centric development shows up that relies on the same highways to connect it to the city core, making traffic worse than when this first development was built).

Idk. I just know things are sometimes going good, and then fall apart Or the funds end up being not enough Or it doesnt work as well as they thought Or it doesnt work as well as the buyers thought (which means the people building/developing/etc. knew how it would be, but the buyers didnt)

Clench281 posted...

If you need a car and there's a unit for sale without parking, it's not for you and <u>that's okay. Not everything has to be. </u>

People exclude homes from their search for tons of reasons. Numbers of room types, whether it's single story, location, HOA, whether it has a yard, whether it has a basement, what side of the unit windows are located, and so on.

True But not everyone gets that luxury. Some people have to settle because they cant find anything in that area in that price range Just because its not for you doesnt always mean its not your only choice. And sometimes, people realize that

Clench281 posted...

The great thing about not building parking is that it allows significantly more people to fit per unit area. Not building parking is part of the solution to the problem you're proposing.

I dont really see how its the solution. And the more buildings per unit area is only if they decide to do that. Some may just use the non-driveway as more lawn. But not building parking doesnt help is people who need cars have to move there. Or if it was going to be public friendly, but now isnt, and they need cars Not building parking doesnt solve the problem of now needing parking

Clench281 posted...

I think you're neglecting the extremely simple solution here: people who need cars wouldn't live there

Except thats not always true Some people may have to if a job toon them there. Or might need a place to live and couldnt find any others is a close enough area. Or maybe they were building the city to be public transport friendly, but after the houses were sold, something feel through And now, they need cars And plenty of other reason why people who need cars would live there

adjl posted...

Which means it's not adequate
coverage.

So, if thats the case, I dont think anywhere has adequate coverage, & I also dont see how it would be possible in the places Ive been

adjl posted...

So then you tweak the routes. For buses, that's easy. Less so for trains, but because trains are so permanent you tend not to get aberrations like that. By and large, being close to a useful transit route - regardless of where that route is - is enough to drive up the value of properties and make developing them into commercial/mixed use buildings an attractive prospect.

The thing is I dont think it will ever work that way. Kind of like how when you tweak something one way, a bunch of stuff changes. So, you try to tweak it the other way, and everything else changes Until its so messed up, no amount of tweaking will fix. Which is what they were trying to avoid when they changed the schedule a couple years ago And since then, they havent mess with the schedule, AFAIK Tweaking it again will only enrage people

adjl posted...

If you've got two houses next to each other, and one is selling for 400k without a driveway and the other is selling for 500k with one, people are going to want to make the 400k one work instead of spending and extra 100k to buy a driveway, especially if a car isn't strictly necessary. Sure, the developer might want to get more, but that's contingent on people wanting to pay it, and 100k more for just a driveway isn't exactly attractive (unless, again, that driveway is an inescapable necessity).

They would want to. But whether they could or not would be different Everybody wants cheaper But if they own multiple cars (or have work vehicles, or plan to have more cars), it doesnt mean it would actually work just because they want it to, or want to try Even if cars arent necessary Prices arent going to be exciting And most will ask about the price. And the developer isnt going to just say the driveway. Hell most likely explain how it has a lot more land Then go into percentages if they ask. But they stay vague until someone wants specifics

adjl posted...

Then they can't afford to live in that development and will need to find a place where they can afford to keep their car. There's no version of this where a property with enough space for a driveway isn't going to be more expensive than a property with an equivalent house and no driveway space. That's just a given. More land=more expensive, even if it doesn't scale perfectly linearly.

More land is more expensive. But you can also have the same amount of land where one has a driveway and one doesnt where theyd be equal That said, chances are most developers are going to make houses with driveways since they may not know if a place is going to try to make things public transport friendly. And even if they know they are going to try, making houses without driveways would be a risk if the city fails at doing so. Because now they have a bunch of houses with nowhere to parks cars that they need

Muscles posted...

It's gotta be close to 100 by now, they are over made and don't feel special anymore, also do you really expect me to believe there is that many earth shattering pokemon just chilling around and not 1 of them does any earth shattering?

Some probably want to be left alone Theyre basically Gods, and probably really tired

adjl posted...

They end up paying more per unit area, but the land that they're missing out on (and would have to pay tens of thousands more for) is literally just the driveway, which in this case they don't actually want (hence they chose not to buy it), so that's not really a problem. At the other extreme, a buyer could buy the whole 120-acre plot and have just one house built on it, and they'd end up paying much less per unit area (10.2 million for the lot, or $85k per acre), but unless they're actually planning to do something with those 120 acres that per-unit bargain isn't particularly helpful.

Think of it like buying bulk food: You could order 500 pounds of rice from a food supply company for substantially less than 250 times what you'd pay for a 2-pound bag at the grocery store, but that's more than you are likely to use any time soon, storing all of that until you did eventually use it would be a pain, and there's a solid chance that a sizable chunk of it would go bad before you could use it. Saving money per unit by buying larger quantities is only really helpful if you can actually use enough of the extra amount to justify the extra total cost. You're not being screwed over by paying more per unit unless the extra amount is useful.

They also might not have been able to afford it instead of choosing not to buy it So, it could be a problem And in the end, it still feels like getting screwed Because its not about extremes. Its about the amount they are missing out on

adjl posted...

Adequate coverage for an area (or pair of areas, really) means that somebody going from that area to the second area has an efficient route (meaning, one that's comparable to driving) available to them. it's a matter of covering as many people's needs as possible, not simply making sure *a* bus stops near as many people as possible.

The bus can get you wherever you need to go, though Its almost always going to be slower, though Because Ive never seen anywhere where a bus goes from one side of town to the other. And even if a bus ever did that, there would be stops along the way. But most buses cover an area, and to get further, you have to switch buses. If thats not a Duquesne coverage, then Ive never seen a place with adequete coverage Im not even sure how that would work I just see public transport at not as fast as personally vehicles Especially since adequate coverage for one person mean less efficient for someone else

adjl posted...

The execution is, yeah, but the core philosophy is the same. When retrofitting a city to be more transit-centric, you look for areas that are well-suited to having major lines running through them, run major lines through them, then adjust regulations to encourage development around that (tweak zoning, limit or remove through car traffic, etc.). Either way, you're going between asking "where can people get to easily and is there anything worth getting to there?", and "where are there things worth getting to and can people get there easily?", prioritizing transportation other than cars as the primary method of getting there.

The problem is what well-suited for phobic lines could change as some as you start changing stuff And trying to remove car traffic would instead just mean less people altogether go to that area in many cases Most people arent going to try to find public transport. Theyll just go somewhere else easier for them to get to With building a city, you have a good amount of design freedom. But changing a city is much harder to work with Especially when the city doesnt want to to change

adjl posted...

It's generally not a bad idea to lump errands together as much as possible even if you are using your own car to do it. You can save a substantial amount of time and gas that way. Personally, it's usually not a matter of deliberately trying to do it that way, it's just a matter of not wanting to do errands after working all day on weekdays and preferring to keep one weekend day open for relaxing, which ends up meaning most things happen on Saturdays. It just gets even more important to plan like that when you're effectively renting a car (carshares being a streamlined form of car rental at their core, though generally a much better experience than trying to work with a rental company) to do it.

Again, depends on the errands. If I can stop by somewhere in the way to work, Ill do that instead of lumping it together with other errands. Same if Im about to visit friends of my BF. If an errand ins on the way, Ill do it. Thats more efficient for me instead on lumping then together and going out of my way all over town But thats why I say it depends Much less time and gas that way As long as I own a car, at least

adjl posted...

The exact numbers are easy enough to tweak, given their colonic origins, but they're plausible enough for a hypothetical scenario and would scale up pretty evenly if you wanted to deal with bigger figures. Whatever the specifics, the larger lot is going to sell for more, but the fact that literally the only difference is a driveway means that the price difference can't be so large as to cover the entirety of the profit that could be turned from building another 1/5 of a house. Again, this is in a hypothetical scenario where cars aren't needed in the suburb in question, so it's purely a matter of personal preference whether a buyer wants to spend an extra 30, or 40, or 100k just to have a place to park instead of going for something cheaper. That's not a small amount of money, after all, and many would look at the potential savings and - predicated on a culture of recognizing the viability of transit over personal car use - make the choice to give up their car.

Now, such hypothetical suburbs generally aren't a thing in America (which is the problem), so that's a moot point in the real world of home buying. The vast majority of new developments will just automatically have the driveways for every property and place the same, higher price on everything (if anything, getting away with even higher prices because there isn't a driveway-less version that can offer savings).

Its not the figures, but the percentages Like 20% more land will at the very least sell for 20% more money. Not 9%. And tbh, would probably try to get close to 25% And I dont think cars being needed matters. There are many places well here cars arent needed already. People rather have them, though You could love here without a car (if you dont need to go to base, and dont work late, especially past midnight). Plenty do. But cars make things easier (and faster), so why not have one. Same with back home. You could take the bus and metro everywhere But cars work better for going to your destination Its like that a lot of places (thats Ive been) Many even have an old one for emergencies Or have family who visit them often, in your hypothetical I dont think anyone would want to give up their car, because thats like giving up freedom. Especially since public transport is usually only a city (local) thing. If you need to leave the city, now you have to get a rental or carshare Also, some might not want to give up the car, but cant afford the more expensive one

If the clock inside said 11, Id probably open Or say hold on for a second and move some stuff under the counter But Id probably open. I do remember one time during the summer, I worked in a store where the AC was busted for a little. So at night, wed leave the door open until we were about to leave. But had the lights in front off, and closed sign was up, and all the clothes racks were
Im front of the door But a lady still thought we were open and was trying to shove her way through the racks, and possibly crawl under. We just told her we were closed and laughed about it later

Another time, we were opening. And the door was still locked.
Someone came about 10 minutes early, and started puking on the door a bunch. And after a while, it just popped open. They said out door was stuck. But we told him we were actually closed. So, he apologized and left

Revelation34 posted...

Vehicle crafting sounds good but I feel like you'll run out of resources fast that way. I haven't really used any horses since it's a pain to get to most stables even with fast travel. They should have put fast travel points inside the actual cities and stables.

They do have that one thing you can out anywhere That said, I left mine in Tarrey Town

papercup posted...

Yeah that's true, I didn't really use horses that much in BotW. Most of the time if I wanted to go somewhere, I would just climb over whatever was in my way. If your horse was like Torrent in Elden Ring where you can just call it wherever whenever I would ride horses way more.

Thats why I was happy to get the Master Cycle

adjl posted...

For that matter, if it were like Epona in OoT, so it's not like there's no precedent for magical horse-calling in the series.

Tbf, in this game, you can most just tame any horse you found in the wild if you just want a horse, which is good Dont know all the best horse spots, though

adjl posted...

It's entirely possible. Countless cities have done exactly that with a combination of buses, trains, and streetcars. You just need routes that are designed properly and zoning that reduces the likelihood that anyone will be living somewhere with inadequate transit coverage.

The thing is we have adequate cover, as well The buses go around the whole town. The problem is just the specific routes. While some routes are going to basically work perfect for some, for most, it will be inadequate. Because people are going to different places. The buses they are on might go to where they need to go, but only after stopping at a bunch of other places they dont need to. Or another buses will go to where they need to, but that means taking this bus all the way to the station first. And then switching buses. So, the routes themselves cover the whole city. But not every buses can go everywhere And that goes for most cities. If they did, that would be a very inefficient buses as for streetcars, any cities would not work for them well As for trains, we only have the cargo trains here And the track only runs through the center of town. So, all we have are the buses to rely on

adjl posted...

It works both ways. Ideally, designing around transit from the start works a whole lot better because you then just need to tweak things here and there instead of rebuilding, but you can apply the same principles to new developments as the city grows and try to work them into any redesign opportunities you may have. The core philosophy is the same either way, it's just a difference in execution.

Its not that easy. The ways those two work would be completely different Its easier to build a city around public transit, rather than to change a city to have better public transit than it already has And depending on the businesses and people, it could be nearly impossible, in some cases Especially when working with a transit system that people already use. As it is right now, people already use the system the way it is, and the system is doing the best it can with what it has. And already reached the whole city. Even places that dont have much. Even if they build more city, the stops probably wont change much, if at all One reason is because a bus probably already goes to that area. Another is because they have limited resources to make another buses route to add one more stop, unless its between two others. But depending on how close they are, they may say walk to the closest one (which probably wouldnt appeal to most) And if they try to change stuff completely, they risk losing people again They lost a few people last time they changed the routes around Being too radical could lose then a lot more

adjl posted...

Carshares have generally struggled to get a foothold in America. Between most people already having their own cars (which drives down demand significantly and makes it harder for the model to be sustainable) and legislation preventing them from operating to their full potential (because the car lobby likes forcing everyone to own their own car), they haven't been able to take off like they have elsewhere.

Even saying that, though, consider how that cost plays out: If you're only using your car once a week to run a couple errands on the weekend (not unusual if you don't drive to work), that $10/hour turns into ~$20-30 per week, or about $80-120 per month. That's all-inclusive: Gas, maintenance, registration, insurance, and any roadside assistance needs. I spend more than that on insurance alone (part of which is because my girlfriend is still a relatively new driver and that will drop in the next year or two, but that still puts it in perspective). The cost is prohibitively high if you're considering booking one every day to commute, but not if you're just using a car occasionally, which is why it's a viable (even preferable) option for those that don't use a car to commute.

I guess Seems to high to me still But I also dont like putting stuff off for a few days just to spend less Or what the errands are, or how many errands Though, since I dont have my own car, I never have to worry about that. Or build my day around transits schedule, or anything like that

adjl posted...

I'm realizing I screwed up something with my math, because 41-30 is not 7. I thought selling 20% more homes at 17% each should be more money, but 1.2*0.83 is actually 0.996, or 0.4% less revenue, and on top of that, the profit margin has to involve looking at the cost per house. Under option A, the cost of each house and its land is $283.3k, while for option B it's $300k, which is only 6% higher than option A. Charging 17% more for something that only costs 6% more is indeed going to yield more profit. Realistically, charging an extra $60k for a driveway and no other changes isn't likely to fly, and the 5-10k to build the driveway should also probably be included in the construction costs, so let's make up some new, slightly more plausible ass-numbers:

* The developer has bought 120 acres of land for $10 million
* Regardless of the lot size, the house built will be identical and cost $200,000, or $205,000 including the cost of a driveway
* Option A: Build 1-acre properties that have no driveway and sell them for $350,000
* Option B: Build 1.2-acre properties that use those extra 0.2 acres to have a driveway and sell them for $380,000 (20% more land for 9% more money)
* We'll ignore the fact that roads will take up some of this space, under the reasoning that the space requirements and cost for roads and other infrastructure will be near-identical either way
Under option A, 120 houses will be built at a cost of $24 million, for a total cost of $34 million for homes and land. These will be sold for a total of $42 million, for a profit of $8 million.

Under option B, 100 houses will be built at a cost of $20.5 million, for a total cost of $30.5 million for homes and land. These will be sold for a total of $38 million, for a profit of $7.5 million.

Now the developer makes an extra half million, plus all those other benefits and the point about building some of each to give people more freedom to choose still stands.

Maybe its because I dont trust certain people, but I dont see the developer selling for that low Or, at least, I dont see him starting at those lower prices 20% more land would not all cost the buyer much more than 9% They would probably try to charge more than 20% at first, and maybe knock it down for people good at negotiating Plus, it that case, it goes back to the buyer being screw getting less land for the same price (or more) or house with more land My problem was that it ends up screwing someone (more than it already does, at least) In this case, the developer makes out, and the buyers are screwed

ImAMarvel posted...

Wouldn't that be more of a tablet? >_>

Probably I found it when looking for Kindles I think it still counts as one, though That said, I did say I used its basically a tablet earlier

Oh This isnt really anything special Its just 2nd, so all good I think a bunch of places in the world normally have 2nd cousins married, right? Its all good

CaptainStrong posted...

Why don't e-readers have SD card slots? The internal storage is fine for normal books, but it's too small if you're gonna read manga on it.

The one I have does Or some kind of card for extra storage I think I still used a ton of it, though But I also never got a bigger card. I just used what I had

ImAMarvel posted...

Which one is that? I'd love to have something to read my comics on.

I would have to check to make sure, but I think its the 8 HD But I got it like years ago