No, it's like trains which are actually good.

So you object to dedicated rights of way or not. Really hard to follow your arguments.

We've seen what utilization looks like on the BRT lanes in the UK... very low.

Oh come now we both know you haven't been on a BRT in the UK. I live here and I've never been on one. There are barely a handful. Apparently 3 routes in London, so under 0.5% of the total routes. In other words, completely irrelevant.

This is, of course, bullshit. There are vans which hold 14 passengers. You could also use minibuses, which have the same benefit... but frankly they are just prettier vans.

What on earth are you talking about? Ok firstly minibuses won't have room for 14 if they have the same disabled access as a proper full size bus. I have no idea what your obsession with Baba in particular is, do you not know that minibuses and vans are often built from the same chassis

But back to your bullshit. A good bus will home around 90 passengers, so 6x as many as vans, and approximately in a sixth of the road usage. When you have bus after bus after full bus feeding a 36,000 passenger per hour tube line, vans ain't going to cut it.

Do you realise that TfL has a variety of buses from very big all the way down to minibuses? It's almost like the operator the world's most extensive bus network knows a bit more about operating bus networks than an internet rando who doesn't take the bus anywhere.

Buses perturb traffic

Ah yes cars are the most important thing ever invented.

No! Care are not the majority in my part of London Buses and bikes are the traffic, which are perturbed by cars.

they can't bypass without their own special lanes

Um so? That's like trains which are also very good. It's a way more efficient use of space than cars, especially as buses make better use of space and the drivers are trained those lanes can also be shared by bikes.

compared to enough vans to transport the same number of passengers,

We've had this conversation before. You have no conception of what a large, high capacity bus network looks like. If you did you would not keep spewing the crap about vans. They are simply too small and too inefficient is road space compared to buses.

It doesn't matter how many times you make this claim it simply isn't true.

London even has minibuses, which are used for transporting the less mobile in

And the thing to do when you have too many buses isn't too nice to a less efficient scheme it's too move to a more efficient one like trams.

I do love people who don't live somewhere with good public transport, and who don't use it speaking authoritatively about it.

$100 billion sent to Ukraine by a fucking autopen machine

TDS brain wormed idiot repeats Trump bullshit with no thought.

Hey bucko, autopens are valid that's why your Lord, Saviour and Messiah Trump uses one.

My experience with public transit via train (SunRail) has certainly given me some insight into why most Americans aren't fans

That's not really why Americans aren't fans per-se, so much as you've got bad public transport. I mean yeah I love trains but I'm not a fan of bad public transport either. I had a look at the SunRail map, and... well, why are almost none of the stops near anything?! It looks like it's been designed entirely around driving.

There are a variety of reasons.

HSR in the UK isn't never going to be super cheap because it's small and densely populated which makes land horrendously expensive.

Labour is also more expensive.

But we also don't commit, doing infrastructure in small batches and stopping so we don't have economies of scale, and lose the expertise.

It's also way to politicised: rather than making a plan and sticking to it, it's treated as a political football an fucked with continuously, so the specs are ever changing which bloats the cost. And who could forget Sunak's final Tory "fuck you" to the country of selling off a bunch of the compulsory land jus before the election to stymie any chance of the next lot being able to make the best of a bad job. Compare to the Lizzie Line in London. Started by an independent (then rejoined Labour) mayor who got the plan and money in place, construction started under a Tory mayor, finished under a Labour mayor. Within norms for a project of that scale, and works well. It was not a political football.

We also have bad environmental regs, in that they're not especially effective at protecting the environment but incredibly onerous to stick to. They're also very incoherent with many bodies given the power to say "no" independently which is particularly tricky for coordinating large projects. Starmer's only idea is to "rip them up" because he doesn't understand why we have environmental regs, why we want them or what's flawed about the current ones. His plan of simply insulting people who don't want the environment shredded for private profit didn't work well.

Speaking of, we also insist that building companies turn really big profits. If someone isn't massively making bank, then we won't do it.

Buses are shit. We use them literally only because they allow one expensive driver to convey many people by road. Everything else about them is terrible.

No, your buses are shit. That's your fault, not the fault of buses.

* It is not not solvable

phew- storing 2 images in different directories is a bridge too far for me.

Certainly by now, everyone must realize that the era of detectability is going to be short. Anyone thinking otherwise is delusional.

Oh, that's the line for theft in the world of copyright infringement? lol.
All you've done is moved the line so that you're on a new side of it- that's not clever.

What a profoundly stupid statement, lol.

Eh, you're right, of course.
Just like jumping from an airplane doesn't mean you will die.

It does, however, have a predictable effect on the statistical outcome.

Pretending otherwise is worse than idiotic snobbery- it's self-delusion, and you should know better.

That's completely false.

The halting problem is unsolvable for an arbitrary program.
It is not solvable for the following:
10: GOTO 10
i.e., the halting problem is unsolvable in the general case- but in constrained cases, it's perfectly solvable.

Compared to what? Compared to other places? Ya.
Compared to what we need, it's almost nothing. A literal drop of water in a lake.
If the world installed 65GW of solar a year, it'd be 200 years before it replaced current installed capacity.

This isn't knocking China for making the shit, but at this point, in 200 years, solar isn't going to be the answer for anything other than powering our underground habitats.

Does the impotent punching up make you feel better?