this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
91 points (92.5% liked)

Technology

60082 readers
3332 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] qooqie 103 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Housing for everyone and in a way that mega-cities are walkable

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Billionaires did not like that

[–] clearedtoland 9 points 1 year ago

Pfft with all that tax-subsidized rent to be made? They love it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 70 points 1 year ago (5 children)

High-speed rail connecting every North American city.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Coast to Coast? Sure, but every city in North America? Nah, that isn't practical at all.

For instance France apparently builds high speed rail for 25 Million per kilometer so lets use their cost number. The straightline distance, shortest possible, from Denver to Omaha is 483 kilometers so the line from Omaha to Denver alone would cost 12 BILLION dollars.

Denver to Salt Lake is 590 Kilometers, again straight line, so there goes another 14.7 Billion dollars. (This is also absolutely impossible to do at this price) SLC to Los Angeles is 930 kilometers, another 23.2 Billion.

We've now spent 49.9 Billion to connect just FOUR cities and only have a single rail line that goes from Omaha to LA. If you want coast to coast then a single least possible distance link from D.C. to San Francisco would cost right at $100 Billion.

All of those calculations assume the 25 Million per kilometer can be done in the United States too. For example the High Speed rail being built in California is costing four times as much.

So no, trying to connect every city in North America with High Speed rail not only isn't practical it isn't economically possible on any reasonable timeline as it would require a major percentage of the US's entire GDP to be spent on it every single year for the next century. The US is fucking huge and we have a lot of cities.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In 2020 the US state and local governments spent $116 billion for the construction of roads and highways and $94 billion of operating costs.

If you just cancel half of the road construction projects of the year you get more than enough money to fund the connection of the 4 cities you described.

Source:Highway and Road Expenditures

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure the interstate highway system isn't terribly practical either, but with enough funding it can be done. Maybe saying every major city would make it seem more practical.

[–] GoofSchmoofer 7 points 1 year ago

The total cost for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was $8 Trillion over 20 years This country has the money it just doesn't the leadership that wants to change. And why would they want to change? The way this country runs work$ well for them.

[–] Mr_Blott 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

France's public infrastructure construction industry is one of the most corrupt and wasteful systems on earth 😂

Drive past any road or rail project, astonishingly, every single excavator or dump truck is brand spanking new, every year

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

In 2020 the US state and local governments spent $116 billion for the construction of roads and highways and $94 billion of operating costs.

If you just cancel half of the road construction projects by a year you get enough money to fund the connection of the 4 cities you described.

[–] meco03211 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The problem then is transport inside the city. Couple this idea with the (currently) top comment to make cities walkable and this is pure fire.

[–] captainlezbian 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah light rail, bike lanes, and walking roads. We can build a constructed environment designed around human beings. A world that’s good for our health, both physical and mental, and for our planet. All we need to do is accept a reality that cars aren’t a good use of resources and that walking and biking are really good for us.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Trains you can park cars on. Would be great for camping weekends where I need all of my gear but don't want to drive for hours.

[–] Fondots 3 points 1 year ago

Not that there isn't a lot of room for improvement, but while I can't say I've been to every major city in the US, I've never had a major issue getting around once I'm inside the city. Even if things are spread out a bit, there's sidewalks and crosswalks, which is all I personally need to consider an area walkable. And public transportation will usually get you to different areas of the city even if you may still have to walk a bit when you get off.

Admittedly I'm probably more willing to walk around than the average person, and not everyone is capable of walking that much, so like I said, still lots of room for improvement.

My biggest issue tends to be getting into the city in the first place, or getting from one city to another. From my home in the suburbs I can drive to pretty much anywhere in my nearest city in about an hour or less as long as I can avoid any major traffic jams. If I try to take public transportation though, im looking at an hour walk before I get to somewhere I can catch a bus (which only comes a handful of times a day,) and then a couple more hours before I get where I'm going, probably having to transfer to a different bus or train at least once along the way. If I drive a half hour or so to a train station then I can get right to downtown pretty easily, but the train only comes about every hour so if I don't time it right and miss the train it's significantly faster for me to just drive the rest of the way than wait for another train. Then they mostly stop coming at about 11pm, which means if I'm going into the city for a concert or something, I'm cutting it close and may not be able to get back home on public transit.

And if I'm trying to get to another city, I'm pretty much SOL. I'm basically at the halfway point between that major city and 2 smaller cities, and there is no transit options to get to those 2 other cities from where I am.

[–] uis 2 points 1 year ago

E-scooters, e-bikes or regular bikes if you want to go cheap.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] rtxn 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

A massive high speed railway network across North America, coast to coast. Russia did it, China did it, most of Europe did it. Canada and the USA have no excuse.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Canada’s excuse is “we’re roughly as big as the US but have a way smaller population and GDP. I really don’t think it’d be financially justifiable for them to build a rail equivalent to the trans-Canadian highway. It’d be a non-starter in a political sense.

The US, on the other hand… yeah. We genuinely have no excuse.

[–] rtxn 9 points 1 year ago

A majority of Canada's population lives in a straight line from Toronto to Québec, but they can't even manage that.

[–] count_dongulus 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Property acquisition costs and legal fees are immensely more expensive in the US. Have to obtain those thousands of miles of land for rail development from somebody.

[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are ways. Maybe bring our number of aircraft carriers down to only 3x the rest of the world combined instead of 5x, just as an example.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Maybe bring our number of aircraft carriers down to only 3x the rest of the world combined instead of 5x, just as an example.

I did the math on what a single coast to coast least possible distance link from D.C. to San Francisco would cost and it came out to 100 Billion dollars. It would connect no cities other than SF and DC unless they happen to fall directly on the rail line.

US Aircraft carriers cost around 10 Billion each (I'm averaging a bit here) and we only have 11 so we'd have to get rid of ALL of them to pay for a single coast to coast high speed rail link. Trying to connect "Every City in North America" would require cutting the entire military budget in half and spending it all on rail construction for the next 50 to 100 years.

The US is fucking HUGE and has a lot of cities.

[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce 3 points 1 year ago

You're only counting the build cost though, they cost anywhere from $1-2 billion a year to operate depending on which article you read. Considering an aircraft carrier's service life is usually around 40 years, that's quite a savings just from removing a single carrier group from the fleet. That would pay for anywhere from 50-80% of your estimate right there. I'm not discounting the 40-50 years of rail maintenance, but you would hope rail service could at least come close to breaking even by selling tickets. There's no profit coming out of an aircraft carrier group, unless you're the one selling them the supplies.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Property acquisition in the US more expensive than in Europe? I think not, at least for the immense swaths of land that make up most of the US' land mass.

The legal fees I see, but that's why most developed nations have legislature for disowning property owners of land necessary for infrastructure at a set compensation. Whether that's fair or just is up for ideological debate, I'm sure.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Car-independent livable cities.

[–] jeroentbt 14 points 1 year ago

We've even been doing that for thousands of years!

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Housing for everyone, food for everyone, clean energy (nuclear power, though we would do well to advance the tech a little is immanently practical).

Those are all easy mode stuff that would dramatically improve the world for a lot of people, but we could do more.

Hard mode: Orbital rings.

We would have to develop some tech, but not nearly as much as you might think.

[–] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't even need nuclear, renewable energy at its current pace will get us to 100% renewable by 2050, which is about as far away as any nuclear plants you started constructing today for way, way less money and zero waste storage issues.

There's basically no point building any other kind of energy at this stage. Giant, expensive power plants that require huge amounts of expensive fuel and large expensive workforces simply can't compete with panels pumped out by factories you can install anywhere that generate free energy for decades with little to no maintenance.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

The problem with only panels and wind is the fluctuation. We need at least a small "baseline" power supply that works when there is no wind at night. Storing large amounts of energy is the missing piece here to get rid of conventional power plants altogether. We'll get there eventually.

[–] uis 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Universal healthcare, public transit, communism. Or at lease food for everyone, housing for everyone and communication for everyone.

[–] c0mbatbag3l 6 points 1 year ago

Economic communism won't be achievable until we fully automate the economy and institute some kind of technocracy or lottery style political system.

A truly "stateless" society is a joke, but separating the economy from the state is only possible if we are all out of jobs.

[–] johnlobo 2 points 1 year ago
[–] Speculater 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Nuclear bomb fueled rockets to space. Look up project Orion.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Olap 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just want a space elevator, surely we can't be that far

[–] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We can't make long enough pieces of anything strong enough to handle that level of strain.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] qevlarr 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Pinging acollierastro

[–] Buddahriffic 4 points 1 year ago

We've recently figured out beaming power to another location. We might be able to start a Dyson swarm, which is just a collection of solar panel satellites that beam their energy back to earth.

I'd like to also see the start of space resource extraction/refinement. The more of that Dyson swarm we can build without having to lift it off earth, the better.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

What part of that is practical?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] morriscox 2 points 1 year ago

They could keep people from entering/leaving and suicide/(murder?) becomes much easier. Mass surveillance could also be built in.

load more comments
view more: next ›