I have no clue if it’s still true, but Wal-Mart back in the day used to go to the manufacturers of some products and request that same product at a lower price. The idea was “get it to us at that cost, no matter what you have to do” - so you would see name brand products meant to be very similar to ones you would see, but with inferior build quality, and the only distinguishing mark is that it has a different product ID from the manufacturer.
Point being: it doesn’t matter if Walmart does this, because it’s already an empty promise from them, too.
This actually makes a lot of sense to me. My wife is disabled, so I’m probably one of those customers he would lose along with his parking, but there are probably 1.5x as many homes in my neighborhood (of condos) than there are vehicles actively parking here. It would likely be a huge boon for the places I frequent now. It might even have an effect of slightly countering market downturns as people in trouble sell/lose cars and move to public transit temporarily
One extremely promising change I’ve been seeing a lot of lately: the most undesirable parking spaces in large lots are being ripped up and replaced with small businesses. I’ve seen a new coffee shop and gas station with 4 pumps go up in my town so far. Love it!
I think I’m up to like 8 canvas bags, significantly thicker yet still significantly plastic, which I continue to forget at home.
These laws have absolutely increased my carbon emissions, and I think o saw it’s like 10,000 visits to offset the carbon difference? AKA it’s more intensive initially to build things that last longer, idea being that you offset it over time
I’d be surprised if I got 80k grocery store trips left in my LIFE!
HN likes to equate all environmental issues with carbon. It’s one dimension but not the sole dimension. Bags were a huge litter, wildlife and quality of life issue.
My wife was a finance commissioner for a water utility. Guess what the most common clogger of storm drains was? Shopping bags. They did hundreds of service calls annually doing service that ranged from fishing them out to using a hydro-jet to clear a pipe.
Within 18 months of the bag fee, those calls dropped 60%. That’s easily $800k in wasted labor and dollars in this small city.
Great example. FWIW I don't think this is just an HN issue. It's hard for most people to have a systemic view of policy. I'm pretty dialed in on these issues and I never even thought of the drainage impacts of the bags.
That would’ve been a fantastic way to advertise this initiative to voters. Unfortunately, there were no mentions of clogged pipes, clean watersheds, or any other benefit, so I’m meeting them where they chose to meet us.
New Delhi’s has gotten more polluted over the last decades, to the point that it’s almost comical. (400+ AQI being normalised.) Post pandemic, it’s done a decent job in some parts at reducing the amount of trash on the roads. On the balance, I find it more pleasant now than before.
I’d also guess that most people would prefer trading emissions for e.g. not living next to a carcinogenic or toxic-waste dump.
Sufficiently high CO2 levels, such as existed at the end of the Permian period, can raise temperatures above that which would be survivable. Sure, people could huddle in air conditioned survival pods. This doesn't seem to be a sufficient rebuttal of the claim.
If you think an analogy with the P/T extinction is invalid, note that CO2 levels are rising now much faster than they did over that event.
> people could huddle in air conditioned survival pods. This doesn't seem to be a sufficient rebuttal of the claim
I kind of think it does, particularly when we’re talking about temperatures that humans choose to live in (almost precisely as you describe) today.
CO2 is not going to render our inland cities uninhabitable. It will make them more deadly, more expensive and less comfortable. It will cause a continuation of the current extinction event, which is already comparable with (if not equivalent to) P/T.
This is why environmental activism is ineffective and counterproductive.
Where I live, the campaign against natural gas and an arbitrary timeline for decarbonization, combined with accelerating the shutdown of a major nuclear plant, just triggered a 30% increase in electrical delivery cost this year and is driving migration due to cost. (to places with dirtier electric and gas production, btw)
Back when this was new, there were studies showing that the typical canvas bags sold at grocers are also breeding grounds for all sorts of nasty things that you don't want to be transporting your food in.
So it's just purely all downsides. Like security theater, but for the environment.
Tell that to the Anacostia river in DC! They great at reducing watershed pollution. It's really noticeable how much better things have gotten since the bag fee.
As a side effect, DC's water authority has also been able to cut maintenance budgets because clumps of bags were our main source of sewer clogs.
Billboards are still among the most effective forms of advertising in terms of efficiency. You don’t need to be very close. I see myself popping up probably 10 miles from where I’m actually at, but the businesses aren’t that inaccessible.
It’s actually probably pretty benign psychology in my opinion.
Nobody on your own team is really gonna notice if you’re cheating unless it’s speed hacks or something. So your own team is hyping you up for being a god, and it feels good.
Plus a lot of people like you - trying it out for the novelty. Most people aren’t doing it, but seeing it once ever 20 games would probably be enough to drive you insane.
This feels so much like a totally obvious question, I was surprised this was even the actual topic of discussion rather than a lead-in to another, actually questionable idea.
This is a major part of why I cannot stand software devs (I am loathe to call them “engineers”). Of COURSE YOU SHOULD design for an iffy internet. It’s never perfect. Thank the LORD code monkeys don’t build anything important like bridges or airplanes.
Yes I know, they also handle the entire planet’s banking system. It’s a travesty that they even seem to be smug about the fact that most of the field is absolutely terrible at making software and simply don’t seem to realize why that’s bad.
This is kinda surprising to read. I’ve never known anyone who isn’t incredibly excited at least at the prospect of wireless energy transfers. If you can do 800 watts over 8 km, surely we can do 150 watts across 3 feet in the household, and MANY of our most important discoveries come from DARPA essentially being a black budget skunkworks team.
But much of the stuff DARPA does seems weird. It’s not about ideas with solid foundation and thorough engineering, it’s about crapshoots that might work and would pay off in some way - often any financially feasible way.
They once put “cats” on guns in hopes it would surprise opponents even just for a quarter second, giving your spec ops dudes the advantage. They tried to create angled guns that could shoot around corners like 20 years ago. All kinds of crazy stuff! It would be a lot of fun to work there, I think.
The germans tried the curved gun with an attachment called Krummlauf during ww2. It would break after just a couple of magazines being fired. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krummlauf
Not sure how you would build one of those without the stress of the bullet during firing would not damage the barrel.
I'm amazed that worked for even one shot. Presumably gp was referring to cornershot or something similar, which seems like a much more reasonable approach.
Yeah, every gun person on youtube capable of getting one has demonstrated it. Unsurprisingly, you cannot aim for shit on these things, and their intended use can be fully replaced by a hand-mirror with a much better rifle (aka, most rifles), without fucking up your barrel trying to curve bullets.
I meant a 90° angled gun. You pull at one end, but all firing happens at the other, out of a straight barrel. Idea being that you can then collapse it to a flat rifle.
The problem with wireless energy is that the efficiency losses are mostly because of physics, not because of technology just needing to scale up a bit more.
A future with having wireless energy transfer everywhere is one where energy is so abundant that we don't mind throwing out 80% of it powering wireless things.
Ignoring efficiency, you can deal with "physics" by just eliminating matter in the way, like air, via a strong enough laser. I'm not sure I'd suggest this as a consumer product, though.
Threatening someone for being a complete asshole is always okay, and even cool.
I really do not care how uncomfortable it makes the driver to move a family a few extra blocks to somewhere vaguely safe. I’d similarly threaten him if he tried to drop my family off in a forest, or on the side of a highway, even if that’s what the GPS, God’s Position System, tells them to do.
If your job ends in a way that someone who was your customer is now in danger, you absolutely deserve to be threatened.
> Threatening someone for being a complete asshole is always okay, and even cool.
"Being an asshole" is in the eye of the beholder. Plenty of people thing CEOs are assholes, you are saying that it is "always ok, and even cool" to threaten them? Some people think that religious folks are assholes. Some people think blue haired lefty folks are assholes.
I think you need better criteria for violence than "I think this person is an asshole". Even if you had a standard definition for asshole, threatening violence is an escalation. Someone flips you the bird, sure, they are an asshole, doesn't mean you can move to threatening to punch them.
The driver doesn't know these people, doesn't have any protection against them should they do something unpredictable or make a mess of his car outside of the Uber ride. The driver is also making a threat assessment here -- "why did they have me drive to this place and then insist I drive somewhere else? Is this a scam somehow? Is this a precursor to a violent crime?"
lol, three innocent people begging to be taken somewhere safe sure are scamming you. Stop pontificating on situations you’ve never experienced anything within a thousand miles of.
You are disagreeing with the concept, and then saying you only heard one side of… what story?
I just do not care if my customer service agent has a bad time after putting me in a dangerous situation.
Do people not realize that this is how the world works? If you are serving customers, putting them IN DANGER, yes EVEN if it was at their own request, is what is actually wrong.
You don’t let someone ride a roller coaster unrestrained. You don’t let someone eat room temperature meat. You don’t drop a family off in an extremely dangerous neighborhood. Any employee would be right to be ridiculed for allowing any of these things - ESPECIALLY when a child is concerned.
Well, there were no children. It was three adults, but two were women.
I don’t think that it would be OK to threaten any customer service person with physical harm (but it happens all the time, nonetheless. Check out notalwaysright.com), but I also know that customer service people have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their patrons. Kicking folks out in a bad neighborhood could have cost Uber quite a bit, and it’s surprising that there seemed to be no recourse. It’s entirely possible the driver was ignorant of company policy.
I've lived in urban areas my whole life. Including some of the largest cities in North America. While there's places I consider higher risk, and routes I wouldn't typically take, simply existing in some neighborhood in Milwaukee isn't some existential threat to life and limb.
Keep your head down and walk a few blocks to somewhere safer and get a cab/uber/lyft out of there if needed.
Heck, book another Uber, you know at least one driver is in the neighborhood.
I lived in Baltimore. There’s some truly scary spots, there.
As for booking another Uber, anyone that has lived in less-than-pristine areas, knows that these neighborhoods can be “blacklisted.” You can’t get Ubers or cabs to come in.
Sure, and you know what? If we were talking about Baltimore I might concede some ground here. But unless I'm WAY off base, Milwaukee isn't anywhere close to parts of Baltimore when it comes to "existential danger from walking in the streets".
Once you spend time in an actually dangerous neighborhood - one where people can spot your out-of-place-ness before you even get out of the car - one where the good guys are the ones telling you to get the hell out before you find yourself in a real bad situation - ones where the gas station attendants are hard as hell - you’ll understand that your experience of walking through vaguely poor neighborhoods is not akin to dangerous neighborhoods.
Nobody who has ever been in a dangerous neighborhood would have this opinion unless they’re truly callous
Point being: it doesn’t matter if Walmart does this, because it’s already an empty promise from them, too.
Just stop shopping at these behemoths.
reply