Yes, that's called research on frontier science, on the very bounds of our understanding of the universe.
If it wasn't like that, we wouldn't be referring to dark energy as one of the great unsolved problems in cosmology.
but those seem to be limited to modelling weather similar to that within the collection period
What are you even talking about? They're not Markov models.
It might be unknowable, but we also might, through future study of ultra-dense states, end up with agreement on a cosmology model that explains the Big Bang and does not have it at some invariant t=0 of the universe.
There is zero accounting for the value of time saved in commutes,
Compared to WHAT? Londoner here, and I'm a bit mystified as to what you're trying to say, frankly.
You're from an anti-car city and you're complaining about the state of driving in it? Yeah, that's what happens when you're in an anti-car city. Even in London, I just picked two random locations. By car 30 minutes, by bike 40, by public transit 68 minutes, and by walking, 2 hours. I'll do this as many times as you'd like, it'll almost always come up that way.
Your average European city's public transit commute times are worse than Los Angeles's, a city whose transit is famous for traffic.
Yes, cars are faster. And it's not remotely shocking that they are.
zero value of the healthcare advantage of being able to reach a hospital quickly at arbitrary times from arbitrary locations,
We're talking cities here, not arbitrary locations.
You think everyone in a city lives at a hospital? *eyeroll*
zero consideration of equivalent externalities for alternative modes of transport (for example, even independent of cars, cycling has very high injury rates per unit distance traveled,
Certainly in London, the majority of serious injuries to cyclists are caused by cars
Per kilometer, cycling injury rates are much higher than car rates even if you take bike-car collisions out of the equation (also, injuries are disproportionally among the inebriated, just like car accidents). Cycling is a hazardous hobby, per unit distance, period. Furthermore, you're not going to get rid of all vehicles anyway - not everything is commuters.
Trains, tubes, buses and walking are all safer than driving
I don't have tube data (most of it I suspect will be walking to/from the tube), but while trains have significantly lower injury rates than cars (buses only slightly), cycling and walking definitely don't. Cars have ~15 serious injuries per billion km, walking 300-400, and cycling 520-650. Per unit *time* the numbers are closer (cars are still safer), but per unit distance, walking and cycling are much more dangerous, and even when you take out the fraction that are from cars, they're still much more dangerous.
the environmental impacts of powering transit with calories (which is also huge - comparable to cars on a typical western diet),
That's absolute complete and utter unmitigated garbage
zero accounting for infection mitigation
You're claiming cars make people healthier here?
Topic change duly noted and read as concession of the point. And FYI, there is zero correlation in the G20 between rates of cycling and lifespan. None.
emergency response times
Motorists aren't emergency responders.
You do realize that they drive on the exact same infrastructure, right?
the new infrastructure restricting cars in many routes on response times
Yes, if you build a bunch of car infrastructure and then force the cars off, that works great for first responders! But that's not actually what you want in city design, now is it?
taming urban rents
People commute all the way into central London from places like Guildford. They ain't doing that by car.
Ooh, a new route to check! Car 51 minutes, rail 93 minutes, cycling 3h 13 minutes, walking 11 hours. I'm sorry, you were saying?
Look, cars created the suburbs. Trains and buses and bikes and feet existed before then, why didn't suburbs? Suburban living was not practical before the car. The lower the population density, the less effective public transportation becomes.
lower consumer prices on goods and services via freight and trade mobility,
Also lorries aren't cars. No one's shipping serious of quantities of freight by car.
First off beyond continuously returning to your restrictive definition of cars, it's all the same infrastructure that they use. The lower the utilization rate, the more expensive construction and mainetance becomes per unit traffic. And secondly, much commercial traffic is in passenger vehicles. Taxis, employer shuttles, meal delivery, package couriers, grocery delivery, medical specimen transport, automotive part "hotshot" delivery, pharmaceutical delivery, florist services, legal couriers, visiting nurses, real estate agents, sales reps, claims adjusters, home appraisers and inspectors, notaries, private investigators, reporters, repairmen, locksmiths, private security, parking enforcement... my god, I could fill the maximum characters in this comment section 20 times over just off the top of my head listing commercial traffic that's done by passenger vehicle.
eased transit for many classes of the elderly and disabled (depends on the specifics)
Driving is underrepresented in the disabled
False. Driving is about as represented in the disabled as the general population (60-80% of trips), but is essential to large classes.
The largest disabled demographic has trouble walking or standing. A bus trip (let alone a walk) requires walking to the stop, waiting outdoors in variable weather (sometimes without a bench or shelter), boarding and getting seated, and walking from the final stop to the destination. A trip is full of uncertainty - broken bus ramps, full wheelchair bays (most city buses only fit 2 at a time), uneven curbs, sudden braking (for someone not buckled in), etc. For neurodivergent people or those with traumatic brain injury or PTSD, buses are about the worst environment they could be forced into. Cars deliver door-to-door, with climate control, carry medical equipment or mobility aids, and offer an immediate place to rest.
And that's for the bus. Bikes are flat out for the vast majority of the disabled.
The biggest difference with the disabled is the driver/passenger split. In the US, for example, 84% of car trips are as the driver. For disabled adults, it's just over 60% - double the odds of being a passenger.
I came here with a simple dream: a dream of killing all humans. And this is how it must end?
"killing mankind" - there's a thought!
Oh, just because a robot wants to kill humans, that makes him a 'radical'?
Wh-uh? I was having the most wonderful dream! I think you were in it.
Indeed. But you have to actually pay for it. Currently, cars in the US don't even come close to paying their own way, let alone subsidizing cycling / pedestrian infrastructure.
Details bore me. Describing a person's outfit in detail is filled with information I could not care any less about. Its not that I can't visualize, because I can and do.
I do understand why people DO like that kind of stuff, it's just not me.
Don't need a search warrant to dig though the trash can. People spew their data all over the place, and they just vacuum it all up.
I never really enjoyed reading long fiction. I read a lot, just not fiction.
I was made to read fiction in school (a long time ago), and it always bored me to read stories that had nothing I wanted. I don't find it entertaining or even relaxing.
I've read plenty of books, and in my younger years, used to read those thick IT tomes on Windows and Linux and
I hate how the debate is "try to force people who drive to stop driving" vs. "no changes at all". I wish people would instead focus on the middle ground: recognizing both that (A) cars cause externalities* and should pay for those externalities, and (B) in the US don't pay their share**but also C) most people want to have a car, and it's a major quality of life factor for them. And from that, trying to build cities that are friendly to all users. The bargain is:
* If you have a car, you'll pay more (welcome to European prices), but you'll get quick delay-free commutes without the other side trying to make life miserable for you. You'll get the lanes, parking spaces, and interchanges you need rather than spending your life stuck in traffic.
* If you're not a car person, the cars will be funding excellent bike / pedestrian infrastructure, parking garages / underground parking instead of streetside / surface lots everywhere, and even in key locations highway caps / deck parks, shunting the traffic underground and restoring green space to the surface.
** Caveats:
(A) * Sometimes you see lists that blame cars for everything under the sun and come up with nonsensically huge externality bills, but these always leave off every single externality that cars *reduce*, e.g. only half of the equation. There is zero accounting for the value of time saved in commutes, zero value of the healthcare advantage of being able to reach a hospital quickly at arbitrary times from arbitrary locations, zero consideration of equivalent externalities for alternative modes of transport (for example, even independent of cars, cycling has very high injury rates per unit distance traveled, while things like scooters are just awful), the environmental impacts of powering transit with calories (which is also huge - comparable to cars on a typical western diet), zero accounting for infection mitigation, emergency response times, disaster impacts, taming urban rents, improving labor mobility between jobs (not as tied to local+where mass transit goes), lower consumer prices on goods and services via freight and trade mobility, eased transit for many classes of the elderly and disabled (depends on the specifics), etc. Considering externalities is good and essential - cars definitely have them - but needs to be balanced, not just one side's talking points.
(B) Sometimes you see assertions for this in Europe but in most cases you have to play fast and loose with the numbers to arrive at that, usually cars are net subsidizers of non-car transit in Europe. But in the US, cars only pay on average about 60% of transport costs in terms of direct fees on car owners. You only get "cheap gas" because you're not paying your share of what the infrastructure you're using actually costs. If we're going to be fair, you do need to pay European levels of fees, fuel taxes, distance taxes, etc.
The lie (you've done nothing wrong) is revealed, by the factoid* that the average person commits several crimes every day, unwittingly.
*factoid: Assumed but never really provable
C for yourself.
