my_hat_stinks

I’d argue the exact opposite. It’s a fun game to play with new players or in a private lobby with a bunch of friends, but at the highest levels it’s absolutely horrible. You don’t really get more options to make the game more fun as you progress, instead the most effective options are to actively ruin the experience for the other side.

There was an item in the game that survivors could use to instantly complete an objective. If all four brought one it instantly completed 4 of 5 objectives. It was eventually nerfed shortly before I stopped playing, but it’s a perfect example of the kind of game-ruining mechanics the game is for some reason built around. You don’t level up to have more fun, you level up to screw over the other person.

A keyboard without tactile feedback is objectively worse than a keyboard with tactile feedback, excluding other factors.

I’ve never had a physical keyboard lag out then send an entirely different keystroke because it thought I held a button, or send a single keystroke because I was typing too quickly.

I’ve never had to wait a moment for a physical keyboard to show up after selecting a text box.

I’ve never had the entire layout of a page shift to make room for a physical keyboard whenever I select or deselect a text box.

I’ve never had a physical keyboard prevent me from using the number pad and force me to use the full keyboard (or worse, vice versa) because of an improperly configured input box.

The way I see it there are exactly two real benefits to integrating a software keyboard into a touchscreen: reduced physical complexity (the entire device is essentially just one screen), and easier access to emoji. A touchscreen keyboard performs far worse as a keyboard. It’s a valid trade-off for a small mobile device, but it’s not objectively better.

That’s kind of a strange argument. Cellulose isn’t necessarily wood but wood is cellulose. Your sandwich is made with bread.

In theory, yes. In practice, probably not? I don’t run an instance so I don’t know what resources you need but I suspect a pi isn’t going to be powerful enough. You’d definitely have to hook up some extra storage space at least.

You’d also still be at risk of losing your account if your hardware fails, you’d need a backup solution there too.

Doing something isn’t the same as studying it, though. If I were to eat a few litres of ice-cream that’s not a study on the effects of excessive ice-cream consumption, that’s just someone eating an unhealthy amount of ice-cream. People do stupid things all the time with the excuse that that’s how it’s always been done.

I guess, if you don’t like raisins and currants? It’s just a fruit pie, I don’t really see what’s so horrible about that. It’d be more understandable if we were talking about a fly cemetery, a similar pastry with a much more interesting name.

You get gender-neutral names in English-speaking countries too, eg Alex, Jordan, and Dylan. It’s just not possible to reliably guess everyone’s gender from their name alone.

The numbers do matter because the numbers are literally your entire argument. You’re arguing building for cars is more effective, you cannot make arguments about effectiveness without numbers. Alternative transport methods can be done with current tech since alternative transport methods literally existed before cars. There are plenty of examples of places that aren’t car-centric, and most major car-centric cities weren’t originally built around cars. I honestly have no idea how you could have thought that’s a remotely reasonable argument? It’s utter nonsense.

Even if your massive infrastructure overhaul argument was valid¹, we’re literally talking about a hypothetical scenario where you can pump absurd amounts of money into a project.

^{1. It’s not, just build other infrastructure instead of more roads. From a strictly capitalist perspective it pays for itself when more space can be used for taxable business instead of the dead weight of parking, and those businesses are more accessible to foot traffic making them more profitable and therefore generating more taxes. Not to mention the maintenance costs.}

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make and the metrics you’re using don’t really make sense. If one million people are driving with an average commute of 1 hour (personally I find it insane that that’s considered “normal” in some places, it should be an upper bound) and switch to a train which saves only 5 minutes each way they’d still save that same 10 minutes. Depending on what you mean by your “cars not driving” metric, that’s anywhere between 1 million cars (no more cars driving) and 255k cars (carbon emissions of 1m electric car commuters vs 1m national rail commuters, using this data).

That’s not even accounting for the induced demand previously mentioned, making driving more appealing only creates more drivers which makes driving worse.

And all of that is still only considering the traffic itself and not the effect of the infrastructure. Take a satellite shot of any random North American city and chances are a significant portion of it is just places to park a car. It’s a bit less common to see a city center dedicate half of its land to bike, bus, or train parking; that land is better used for people or business instead.

That won’t work because you’re approaching the problem from the wrong angle; you’re trying to “fix” traffic by encouraging more traffic. If you want to improve car traffic the only possible solution is to make other forms of transport more appealing. It doesn’t really matter which form of transport you focus on, it could be trains, busses, bikes, walkability, etc; just as long as you ensure it’s as or more efficient than a car for the majority of journeys.

The only way to fix traffic is for there to be less traffic.

How does one safely repair a lithium-ion battery without just swapping it for a working one?