I had read a while ago, and I struggle to really argue with it, that legalizing marijuana is simply the carrot on the stick.
Many Republicans are just against it out right, and many Democrats are either indifferent or know that promising to legalize it will mobilize a subset of voters who prioritize it above else (or may just not vote at all otherwise, over 30% of Americans don't vote after all).
It'd explain why there's been so many opportunities to reschedule the drug, and why in some states even when they had the numbers to pass legalization, they still don't. Or do so with extra incentives (often the actual sale of it) to come later (vote next cycle!).
Japan's rail system has some of the best farebox ratio's across their system (many of their lines actually make money, which if you compare to other countries, is pretty much unheard of in North America). [1]
And they actually continue to expand their service.
In the US, one of the highest farebox recovery ratio transit systems has historically been BART, which is 2019 was 72%, and even today is around 50%.
Unfortunately, having a very high ratio also makes systems much more vulnerable to collapse during periods of economic downturn, which is exactly what BART has been dealing with since ridership collapsed during Covid.
I'm no expert in this topic (in other words, I just asked Claude this), but AFAICT part of the reason Japanese rail systems did better appears to be that they are owned by diversified companies that own numerous other assets, like hotels, restaurants, and office complexes.
Every major station I went to in Japan had a huge mall with restaurants connected to it owned by the rail company. Inside stations were rail company owned gift shops, convince stores, etc.
I think that connecting outlying areas (especially ones you the railroad build yourself) to department stores is what got Japanese rail companies going, but it's probably less important now than it was initially. Farebox revenue covers profitable operation of the railroad. It even appears to cover upgrades; browse around on the satellite view of Tokyo and you can see many private companies moving their above-ground infrastructure to (expensive!) subways because ... trains hitting cars interferes with their ability to earn money. It is honestly something that I have trouble wrapping my head around. The business is so good you can afford to make it better, but the business is a commuter train? Weird!
I think Japan is successful because of a less pervasive car culture than the US. People expect to walk 30 minutes to the train in the morning, that's just something you do. It would be unheard of in the US (and also dangerous in many suburbs, because they are designed to move as many giant SUVs as possible per hour, not to let pedestrians and cyclists get to the train station).
Also, a big caveat is ... all of this is Tokyo and Osaka, very large, rich, and dense cities. When you go out into the middle of nowhere in Japan (even an hour out of Tokyo, think the Hachikō line, etc.), rail service kind of sucks and is subsidized heavily.
I disagree and am working on an article arguing that Japan rail privatization represents a failure, as does its much lauded pedestrian friendliness.
The premise is basically that Tokyo is the busiest city on planet earth and so should therefore have the best public transit and pedestrian infrastructure by a huge margin, when in fact it still gives unbelievable space to cars (Shibuya crossing should have been permanently closed to cars 20 years ago).
As for trains, during rush hour trains can be so full you might be squashed against the door unable to move - incredibly unsafe, leads to daily injuries, and some argue have something to do with the heinous levels of sexual assault on trains. Not to mention even in Shinjuku station most platforms don't have guardrails to prevent accidental or purposeful death by trains, another outsized problem in Tokyo.
But the most glaring issue is around the very design of the system. Privatization results in requiring riders to sometimes exit a station of one company, go all the way up to ground level, walk a block or to two another different company station, and then ride another train. A government managed system wouldn't have this issue, it would simply combine the stations at design time.
>The premise is basically that Tokyo is the busiest city on planet earth and so should therefore have the best public transit and pedestrian infrastructure by a huge margin, when in fact it still gives unbelievable space to cars (Shibuya crossing should have been permanently closed to cars 20 years ago).
Tokyo has the top 3 busiest train stations in the world. 8 of the top 15, 9 if you count Yokohama. To argue that they're somehow failing to provide a service, and that privatization is the problem, just sounds insane. [1]
It's 'don't let perfect be the enemy of good' taken to the very extreme. I'm really not sure how to have a productive conversation with this premise.
>Privatization results in requiring riders to sometimes exit a station of one company, go all the way up to ground level, walk a block or to two another different company station, and then ride another train
Heavy emphasis on sometimes since they're often connected at a station if it's busy enough (yes you have to 'exit' a gate then enter another. There's plenty examples of lines in city subways not having tunnels between them as well, and having to walk outside.
There are problems with rail privatization but I don't think this is one.
> Privatization results in requiring riders to sometimes exit a station of one company, go all the way up to ground level, walk a block or to two another different company station, and then ride another train.
I believe this is the result of different private companies operating physically separate lines, rather than some privatization activities? For example, Shinjuku has stations of JR East (result of JNR privatization), Keio (private), Odakyu (private), Toei (public), Tokyo Metro ("private" but owned by Japan gov and tokyo metro gov). Sure, JNR privatization is controversial but without that, Shinjuku is still a mess of different operators.
Are you suggesting the government turn back time and banned private companies owning rail or they should buy out and nationalize all rails companies?
> A government managed system wouldn't have this issue
Well, if it's 2 different government levels and 2 entities, the issue still exists. For example, to transfer between Tokyo Metro and Toei Subway, you might need to tap or a transfer ticket https://www.tokyometro.jp/lang_en/ticket/types/connection/in...
It's also possible for public and private companies to cooperate. Keikyu main line (private) does through running on Toei Asakusa line that allows the subway to have connections to both airports through private rails.
Nowadays, with IC cards, transferring between systems is a breeze. For the walking distance, nothing much you can do besides moving the track itself (done sometimes) or station redesign with better walkways and tunnels (done often).
> As for trains, during rush hour trains can be so full you might be squashed against the door unable to move
I don't know why this never occurred to me before, but: is there a reason they can't run more trains or higher-passenger-capacity trains? The demand is obviously there, so the question is: do they like it super-crowded?
There's a hard limit on how frequently you can run trains, because you need to maintain safe separation distances. Try to pack too many trains into the timetable and the whole line is just one tiny error away from grinding to a complete halt, or worse. There are some tricks to pack in slightly more trains, but they generally require expensive and disruptive signalling upgrades. For commuter lines with lots of closely-spaced stations, the most effective way of increasing train throughput is to reduce dwell time at stations and ensure punctual departure, hence the often rather brisk attitudes at Japanese stations during rush hour.
There are several limits on the length of trains, but the primary one is platform length. It's no use running a 7 car train if all of your platforms are 6 cars long - anything you might gain in capacity per train is wiped out by increased dwell time. You can extend platforms, but it's expensive, disruptive and only works if you have sufficient space at all (or practically all) of the stations on the route.
Japan can't really justify major rail investment, because passenger demand has been steadily declining for decades. Peak-time trains get progressively less busy every year, simply because there are fewer commuters every year.
Length is limited by platform length and width is limited by tunnel loading gauge and platform sizes. To increase the platform length, you have to do it at most if not all stations. Crowded stations are usually in desirable areas which make it harder to dig or acquire land.
> run more trains
For lines at capacity, I believe it's usually limited by trains dwell time. Longer and bigger trains take longer for people to safely board. To improve this on the train side, you can have more doors and bigger doors. Station platforms also need to be bigger, have more stairs, bigger walkways, etc. Longer trains also make it tougher for train drivers and station staff to open and close the doors safely.
Tough but not impossible problems but many solutions contain trade offs. Only surefire way is to build another line but that costs tons of money.
It's just humans being humans. NYC has the same thing during rush hour for certain stations. A train might be 3mins away but people crush themselves into a subway car while I just wait for the next train which is pretty empty.
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted when those are legitimate problems.
I disagree that this is a failure of privatization (other than the last point) and I also disagree that Japan’s success is a vindication of privatization (although it does show that above average systems are possible through privatization) but those are reasonable discussions to have
I believe the public transit systems in most countries are so bad and underfunded that Japan's seems holy in comparison. And don't get me wrong, it's one of the best.
For transit nerds like me though, it's frustrating when all the evidence points to the same conclusion: more trains, more pedestrian throughput, no cars, and yet no city has gone this route full throated.
I was genuinely shocked on at the amount of space given to cars on my first trip to Copenhagen last month. I was promised bicyclist utopia, instead I was presented with massive lanes for cars, confusing intersections, and in a construction area being forced onto a narrow sidewalk full of pedestrians.
Frankly I don't know any city on earth getting it right. I've heard maybe Shanghai but from videos I've seen of car culture in the PRC, I doubt it.
Japan has a culture of running trains on time though. There is no MBA figuring out that they can pay themselves a bigger bonus by firing the backup train drivers needed to ensure on-time service.
And even if there was they couldn't thanks to unions and some of the strongest worker protections in the developed world. That doesn't even touch on the loss of face for proposing such a thing.
Is it really their recipe for greatness? We have very strong unions and worker protections in France, and our trains are unreliable as fuck. I'd be more inclined to think that their highly developed feelings of pride and shame are bigger drivers.
Spoken to a few ojiisans here over the years and they'll always mention the value placed in making sure everything's well maintained. If you go out past midnight in Tokyo you'll frequently see gangs of workers on the lines doing inspections and installing new equipment. Can't comment on other countries but if you're not doing enough upkeep things will turn to shit fast.
>Lucas’s son-in-law, Chris King, told the Lake and McHenry County Scanner that news of the video made his family “hold our loss tighter to our hearts”.
>“We … will continue to pray for what the driver must be going through,” King reportedly said. “We are trying to find our ways to live, without someone we cherished so much.”
Damn, I wouldn't be saying anything like praying for the driver after something like that.
or, just being empathetic to the guilt the driver must be feeling, as well as the lifelong ptsd they get to look forward to carrying the memories of taking someone's life
or, just, generally being a good human, esp when it matters, in times like these, instead of only when things are going well, then dropping that whenever something bad happens when it's more impactful and important to stay a good human.
I'd wager that the driver isn't feeling much guilt or PTSD. A lot of these kinds of blatant bad actors seem wholly disconnected from the concept of self accountability. Otherwise, they tend to get knocked down a few pegs before such a serious incident.
You have no idea what they are feeling. Regardless of if they feel anything now, things like taking a life have a habit of sneaking up on you later down the line, often when you least expect it.
We don't know the full circumstances of the accident. She may have been distracted, but it's also possible the pedestrian crossed unexpectedly right in front of the car. Hopefully the facts come out and justice is served fairly.
100ms can make a difference between life and death
If you're at the wheel of a moving car and do anything other than driving you're a piece of shit who deserves whatever comes your way (which preferably should be your sorry ass hitting a chunky tree and becoming tetraplegic)
There are 0 situation in which using a phone while driving improves your odds or the odds of other people are you.
It doesn't even matter if it's the victims fault, these people are dangerous and should not drive
if there is proof that she wasn’t looking at the road at the time of the accident, do you think she has any chance to defend herself in court even if say victim was jaywalking? with great representation - probably? this will be an interesting trial…
On the video you can see her look down briefly before the sound of impact, but right before and at the time of the impact she appears to be looking forwards.
> do you think she has any chance to defend herself in court even if say victim was jaywalking
Presumably entirely depends on how egregious the hypothetical jaywalking was and whether or not she can prove it. i.e. if it would’ve been impossible to avoid the accident regardless of her phone use, the phone use is probably irrelevant.
I read the article and watched the video. We can't tell whether the pedestrian suddenly stepped into the street or if things would've gone differently had she been fully focused. I prefer to reserve judgment.
Forgiveness only counts when you believe the crime to be unforgivable, yet forgive the criminal anyway. "Forgiveable crimes" are just crimes you merely tolerate.
“There is a limit to human charity," said Lady Outram, trembling all over.
"There is," said Father Brown dryly, "and that is the real difference between human charity and Christian charity. You must forgive me if I was not altogether crushed by your contempt for my uncharitableness today; or by the lectures you read me about pardon for every sinner. For it seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. So you tolerate a conventional duel, just as you tolerate a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.”
Surely there must be some conception of forgiveness outside those of sin and charity. I'm not even sure what it really means for forgiveness to "count".
I think you’re reading too literally into the words sin and charity. Sin in this case just means a transgression or wrong to you or your community. Charity here is used in the philosophical sense, meaning an openness to tolerating transgressions.
For forgiveness to mean anything at all you need to forgive an actual injury. “Forgiving” someone for doing what you don’t mind them doing anyway is not forgiveness, it’s tolerance.
There's no "must" here. Forgiveness is hard. That's why it's a virtue.
It's not without its benefits though. Forgiving someone who grievously hurt you or your family is the first step to letting go and moving on with your life.
> Same reason people here are taking "let's jump on a call" as some personal attack.
Some people just like drama.
No, some of us can see into the future, because it flows from the past. When management shits on 20 years of work and breaks everything after not listening to your warnings, they don't suddenly start listening and understanding out of nowhere.
The market fit of your words matter and the non apology "sorry you feel that way" doesn't help. It's one of those gnarly phrases that only get used if you feel the need to act but in reality don't want to. Maybe the person is sincere his words are tainted by the overuse in shady corp responses. If you are engaging with your community you need to know this otherwise you'll always look like a clown.
Or maybe it was just a poorly thought out piece of software that will get rolled back?
Saying "the entire power structure is wrong from the get go" is a huge conclusion to draw here. People write internal tools and make mistakes. Mistakes can be fixed.
I wonder if you and the person who replied really understands how you feel when you have been part of something over 20 years and see it destroyed by tone deaf changes to text. I have no idea how Sumobot works, but it is easy to see how Mozilla or an organization with top down "ship-it-fast" incentives can trample a community led project. This is really not a question of AI, the same thing happens with professional translators.
They're making the right move since everyone just blames orange man bad, as you see in the comments here.
The budget filibuster has been a weird rule for a while that has really just relied on the honor system that the majority party will throw a small bone to the minority to pass the budget. It was only a matter of time until people figured out it doesn't have to be a small bone.
Correct, and anyone that points out that the Democrats could pass this tomorrow are downvoted, and the conversation shifts to some other topic. It's crazy how neither side wants to give in.
Yeah, it's crazy how one side doesn't want to give in because they're unwilling to countenance a loss of healthcare for millions of Americans, while the other side doesn't want to give in because they're unwilling to give up on massive tax breaks for the wealthiest of the wealthy!
A quick Google says it takes 4 years to get a license to be an HVAC technician in my state.
I understand large installs at businesses are a different problem, and granted I've only ever installed a mini split, but that was hardly rocket science. And home installs are likely what most people are thinking of here.
In Japan you can get minisplit's installed for $1k a unit, here you regularly find quotes over $10k. Something's gone wrong somewhere.
In Australia the going rate last time I got one installed when I was supplying the unit (this was back in 2019) was AU$540 (US$350) for a simple install (exterior wall of house etc.), because electricians just get an extra qualification and there’s a lot of competition.
I bought the 3.5KW unit online for $1080 including delivery (USD$702) so it was $1620 (US$1050) all up. I expect with the recent inflation it might cost more like $2000 (US$1300) installed for one that size and maybe $3500 (US$2275) for a bigger unit (8kW).
The splits themselves are mostly all Japanese brands that we have here (Mitsubishi Electric, Daiken, Panasonic, etc.) as well as some Korean (LG, Samsung), but Chinese ones are starting to appear in the market too. But they all seem very cheap compared to buying one in the US, before the installation there which just seems astronomically expensive to us.
> A quick Google says it takes 4 years to get a license to be an HVAC technician in my state.
A flat time mandate for HVAC tech certification seems really out of place. And a 4 year path of any sort seems excessive for a technician. I couldn't find anything like that. Most results I found were in the 6-12 mos range - which is often spent employed.
WV was an outlier with a 2000hr requirement. How I have seen (non-hvac) 2k requirements get satisfied are thru a HS VoTech (my son) or 18-24mos doing paid tech work toward the official certification (electrician techs do this).
I can't find a state that requires anything a like a 4yr college degree, where life is put on hold to focus on that. And then 4yrs of living and school expenses are investments that need to be earned back. Not for any trade tech.
Why would those be dramatically different anywhere? It's the same few choices of mini-splits from the same few Japanese/whatever conglomerates across the world, with known cooling abilites (measured in the same units, BTUs) and with known energy consumption (kwh) (and power in watts). The hotter the place you live in, the more power it's gonna draw, and the more BTUs you'll need. Also the bigger the room, the more BTU you'll need.
Fujitsu and Mitsubishi both have popular units that are basically the same the whole world over, with minor regional changes. There really isn't that much variation though. There are obvious differences, a mini-split in a hot part of the world is going to be working harder than a mini-split in a cooler part of the world. Humidity will differ as well.
It's a large home appliance. You need a pair of strong people to drive over to the customer's house, bring it in their house, locate the right place to install it, unbox it, support it, wire/pipe it up correctly, and then give it power. The Big Mac index gives the difference in price between Japan in the US to be $5.79 vs $3.11 in JP (in 2025), and meanwhile $1k vs $10 is, well, 10x.
There's something at work here, but it's not due to variations in the difficulty of unboxing a large metal thing, drilling holes, running some tubing and then powering it on.
Notably, it’s probably also not very efficient, and eventually they’ll likely upgrade with some of the improvements from these types of motors to save on fuel.
They admit in their update blurb azure front door is having issues but still report azure front door as having no issues on their status page.
And it's very clear from these updates that they're more focused on the portal than the product, their updates haven't even mentioned fixing it yet, just moving off of it, as if it's some third party service that's down.
Unsubstantiated idea: So the support contract likely says there is a window between each reporting step and the status page is the last one and the one in the legal documents giving them several more hours before the clauses trigger.
>I see so many people push AWS setups not because it's the best thing - it can be if you're not cost sensitive - but because it is what they know and they push what they know instead of evaluating the actual requirements.
I kinda feel like this argument could be used against programming in essentially any language. Your company, or you yourself, likely chose to develop using (whatever language it is) because that's what you knew and what your developers knew. Maybe it would have been some percentage more efficient to use another language, but then you and everyone else has to learn it.
It's the same with the cloud vs bare metal, though at least in the cloud, if your using the right services, if someone asked you tomorrow to scale 100x you likely could during the workday.
And generally speaking if your problem is at a scale where baremetal is trivial to implement, its likely we're only taking about a few hundred dollars a month being 'wasted' in AWS. Which is nothing to most companies, especially when they'd have to consider developer/devops time.
> if someone asked you tomorrow to scale 100x you likely could during the workday.
I've never seen a cloud setup where that was true.
For starters: Most cloud providers will impose limits on you that often means going 100x would involve pleading with account managers to have limits lifted and/or scrounding a new, previously untested, combination of instance sizes.
But secondly, you'll tend to run into unknown bottlenecks long before that.
And so, in fact, if that is a thing you actually want to be able to do, you need to actually test it.
But it's also generally not a real problem. I more often come across the opposite: Customers who've gotten hit with a crazy bill because of a problem rather than real use.
But it's also easy enough to set up a hybrid setup that will spin up cloud instances if/when you have a genuine need to be able to scale up faster than you can provision new bare metal instances. You'll typically run an orchestrator and run everything in containers on a bare metal setup too, so typically it only requires having an auto-scaling group scaled down to 0, and warm it up if load nears critical level on your bare metal environment, and then flip a switch in your load balancer to start directing traffic there. It's not a complicated thing to do.
Now, incidentally, your bare metal setup is even cheaper because you can get away with a higher load factor when you can scale into cloud to take spikes.
> And generally speaking if your problem is at a scale where baremetal is trivial to implement, its likely we're only taking about a few hundred dollars a month being 'wasted' in AWS. Which is nothing to most companies, especially when they'd have to consider developer/devops time.
Generally speaking, I only relatively rarely work on systems that cost less than in the tens of thousands per month and up, and what I consistently see with my customers is that the higher the cost, the bigger the bare-metal advantage tends to be as it allows you to readily amortise initial setup costs of more streamlined/advanced setups. The few places where cloud wins on cost is the very smallest systems, typically <$5k/month.
> if your using the right services, if someone asked you tomorrow to scale 100x you likely could during the workday.
"The right services" is I think doing a lot of work here. Which services specifically are you thinking of?
- S3? sure, 100x, 1000x, whatever, it doesn't care about your scale at all (your bill is another matter).
- Lambdas? On their own sure you can scale arbitrarily, but they don't really do anything unless they're connected to other stuff both upstream and downstream. Can those services manage 100x the load?
- Managed K8s? Managed DBs? EC2 instances? Really anything where you need to think about networking? Nope, you are not scaling this 100x without a LOT of planning and prep work.
> Nope, you are not scaling this 100x without a LOT of planning and prep work.
You're note getting 100x increase in instances without justifying it to your account manager, anyway, long before you figure out how to get it to work.
EC2 has limits on the number of instances you can request, and it certainly won't let you 100x unless you've done it before and already gone through the hassle to get them to raise your limits.
On top of that, it is not unusual to hit availability issues with less common instance types. Been there, done that, had to provision several different instance types to get enough.
I hit it quite frequently with a particularly popular eks node instance type in us-east-1 (of course). I’m talking requesting like 5-6 instances, nothing crazy. Honestly, I wonder if ecs or fargate have the same issue.
So, I was around back then and am around now as a principal and this comment doesn't really pass the reality sniff test.
Its a lot worse than this in terms of AWS cost for apps that often barely any people use. They're often incorrectly provisioned and the AWS bill ends up in the hundreds of thousands or millions and could have been a few thousand in bare metal on Hetzner with a competent sysadmnin team. No, its not harder to administer bare metal. No, its not less reliable. No, its not substantially harder to scale for most companies to do bare metal(large fortune 50 excluded).
I've been seeling a cost-reduction service for a while, and the hardest aspect of selling it is that so many people on the tech side doesn't care because they don't seem to be held to account to the drain they cause.
I can go in and guarantee that my fees are capped at a few months worth of their savings, and still it's a hard sell with a lot of teams who are perfectly happy to keep burning cash.
And I'll note, as much as I love to get people off AWS, most of the times people can massively reduce their bill just by using AWS properly as well, so even if bare metal was bad for their specific circumstances they're still figuratively setting fire to piles of cash.
Many Republicans are just against it out right, and many Democrats are either indifferent or know that promising to legalize it will mobilize a subset of voters who prioritize it above else (or may just not vote at all otherwise, over 30% of Americans don't vote after all).
It'd explain why there's been so many opportunities to reschedule the drug, and why in some states even when they had the numbers to pass legalization, they still don't. Or do so with extra incentives (often the actual sale of it) to come later (vote next cycle!).