I am curious why you think that washing the dust off with soap and water before you come inside is such a stupid idea. What challenges are you seeing to that working?

Costs went down, yes, but they're still three orders of magnitude higher than Musk claimed they would be. That's one of the reasons people think of Musk as a snake oil salesman.

While I don't have any confidence in Musk at this point to think it would be considered, it's not really that hard to do. You either wash it off before you come inside from the airlock, or you don't bring the suit inside and leave the dust on it. Washing it off can be a simple matter of showering off with soapy water in the airlock once it is pressurized (the shower system and tank, etc. can be self contained inside he airlock). The water gets sucked up from under the grate at the bottom, the dust is filtered, the perchlorates, etc. are removed, and the water goes back into the tank for re-use. The trap for the particulates, etc. could be emptied out every time someone leaves through the airlock.

Nice selective editing and ignoring of what I was saying.

Nice selective editing and ignoring of what I was saying. Oh and, in addition, accusing me of what you are doing.

You do realize how utterly ridiculous and deranged people look when they make up a fake mental conditions to ascribe to those they are in a disagreement with, right?

Ugh. Is it poor memory, or issues with reading your own previous posts? I hate having to do this but I will do your remembering for you. You wrote:

So I have been asking you how the availability of a car could possibly make travel unavailable to anyone? Consider basic set theory Set Y is the set of all travel opportunities that are available to people without available cars. Set X is the set of all travel opportunities that are available to people with cars. Why is set X not a subset of set Y? This is what I keep asking you to clarify and you won't. In theory, it should have been simple to respond, but instead you

Maybe you meant something other than my interpretation, but you didn't answer my direct question asking or clarification. With you it's all made up mental conditions, claims that the other person is incapable of independent thought, etc., etc. You refuse to have a reasonable discussion about this.

I have read it, and I've quoted it. If there is some difference in our understanding of what you wrote, why perpetuate this silly back and forth instead of just clarifying?

I think I am done pretending that you aren't intentionally misrepresenting what people say. You know full well that I was talking about the ward in the borough you're in "on the zone2/3 border" where the " local council took action" of some unspecified kind so that "more and more people are doing the school run on a bike.". I am guessing maybe Hackney? With just about the lowest levels of car ownership in the entire country? So, yeah, that''s why I am saying that you live in what is effectively a small community. One where things are different from most other places.

It's a pretty straightforward concept. Here's an example. Let's say we define an area as "walkable" when you can walk across it in 15 minutes. You have a bunch of cells for which each is "walkable" in approximately ten minutes (at a standard walking pace), with none going over 12 or under 7. Those cells are arranged into a greater area that is 10 cells across. So, to cross that area, you have to cross 10 cells with an average walk time of 100 minutes with a minimum of 70 minutes, and a maximum of 120 minutes. That means that the property of "walkable" does not transfer to the larger area from the smaller ones making it up. Pretty simple, right? Also, don't try to claim that I am saying this is a model of London or that the definition given for "walkable" given is an official one. It is a generic model, intended to illustrate the concept. The concept does apply to London, however. It can contain many walkable cells, but not itself be walkable.

Sorry, was that a parody of some crazy gym bro?

Seriously, you have no idea of how old the poster you replied to was, or what health conditions they have, or even what kind of terrain that 5 km might be. My sister was talking about that last night. She a strong cyclist. She is also, of course, a woman and middle aged. So, she was riding and they were pretty far in the ride and the guy in front tells her smugly that it's her turn to pull, "it's only fair". It's not about fairness of course, it's about rubbing his superiority in her face. Of course this guy is twenty to thirty years younger, about 50% bigger and has the extra muscle advantage of being male. In terms of Wattage produced by unit weight, she would crush him, even with the age gap, but he clearly buys into all that "fatigue is your mind lying to you" crap. Are you that guy?

Got it, I disagree with you (although, you can't explain how, because you have not once restated my actual position instead of your own strawman version of my position), therefore I must be mentally deranged.

You don't clarify what "that" which is expected since you don't seem to understand my position or what I disagree with. I have explained myself over and over and I think I have demonstrated that I have a pretty good handle on your position (and where I need clarification, I have asked for it, but you don't seem to take such requests well for the most part), but you don't have a good handle on mine. Perhaps you should try my approach, which is to ask a series of clarifying questions of the other person to try to get a concrete idea of everyone's position.

I am talking about the paragraph I replied to, which echoes a sentiment found elsewhere in the thread.

I didn't say you said it. I said, satirically, that I thought that was what you were saying because you gave a non-answer to fluffernutter's question. This is what happens when your argument consists of a non-answer. The onus was on you to explain how your advocated car-free lifestyle would meet his needs and you effectively refused to explain.

It's not a funny think at all. Physical activity is important for recovery. Taxis and things would get expensive pretty fast. Here's the thing that confuses me though. Having gone through a multi-year medical crisis and recovery myself, I am aware of how many different visits to hospitals, clinics of various kind, etc. are involved. Your 80 year old relative presumably needed that for broken hips and follow up visits, etc. Are all of those resources within walking distance of where they live and, if they weren't, how did they get there?

Seems a bit sad. I've always thought that, of all the places I knew in the English speaking world, the US was the worst about letting employees actually take their allotted days for vacation, personal time, etc. or just take a few hours to help out a relative. I mean, I know you're in London, and that's a bit different than the rest of England or the UK in general, but has it really gotten so bad there? Or is like a "rugged individualist" family philosophy or something?

You keep saying these things, but they aren't really relevant to what I have actually been saying. I am pretty sure (I mean, the "car-brained" insults and so forth pretty much clinch it) that the slightest hint of disagreement regarding automatically slots people into some category in your mind where you apply all sorts of stereotypes and biases to them. Which means you're not even arguing with me, you're arguing with a straw man you've built up in your mind. How about actually engaging with me based on what I am actually saying?

Right, but you didn't address the case A vs. case B. You have implied that, somehow, he would have less options with a car available than without, which I find odd. The point of the exercise was for you to demonstrate how his options were limited by a car being available.

The fact that you simply tried to DARVO the observation rather than simply addressing it and affirming that you aren't ableist. It's not really a good look.

When people use the claim that someone is playing the X card - where X represents some concept like racism, sexism, ableism, agism, etc.) - it is usually quite widely recognized that the person making the claim comes off sounding like someone who actually represents X. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on that. Sometimes people just use awkward phrasing, etc. that comes out wrong. Doubling down, trying to flip it into a ridiculous accusation against me, and trying to alter what I said so that I was claiming something other than the use of language was ableist does not improve the impression.

I was safe behind the wheel. Sitting was fine. I wasn't blacking out or anything so there was no danger of that. Vomiting while driving wasn't a problem either, I would just keep driving until I could pull over safely. Most of the time, I didn't even vomit up anything. My body would keep trying for ages though which is very uncomfortable. Ditto for the lungs. Or any of the other issues. Nothing about it ever left me instantly incapacitated, at least not as far as controlling my arms, eyes, hands and feet. Carrying my whole body around was another question of course. I asked my doctors about it, and they asked questions about my condition and gave me the OK to drive. You can try pull an "AHA!" over it and demonize me, but the simple fact is I was responsible and safe.

Yes, that is about what I assumed you thought about those who disagree with you on this. Essentially taking a solipsistic view that they are just p-zombies. I have actually been trying to discuss this, but you just won't seem to actually consider anything anyone else has to say and you keep warping what they're saying to fit some narrative in your head so you can just slot them in as some generic villain. It's clear you're maybe just a bit fanatical about this. All I was doing at the start of this was providing a counterpoint to show that a statistical correlation doesn't make an absolute rule, and also that perhaps your model was a little limited. Now I am apparently a mindless non-person. Sigh.

That wasn't my claim at all. I'm not going to just repeat myself over and over. Go back in the thread and read what I actually said.

It's one that you effectively made up. I should assume accidental misinterpretation rather than intentional disinformation, but you're the one who needs to correct your understanding of what I actually wrote.

In the words of Pauli: "That is not only not right, it is not even wrong!" (I mean, I think he said it in German, originally). That's a very weird inversion of what I was saying. Something that normal logic could not come up with. You're somehow conflating the potential availability of a ride in a car with someone somehow being forced not to walk. It doesn't make the remotest bit of sense.

Stop telling me what I supposedly am. I could not care less about cars except in a pragmatic sense where they are functional system. Also, you are apparently misunderstanding what I said about you recommending that fluffernutter become an ascetic. In response to fluffernutter how they were supposed to shop, travel to the pool for competitive swim classes, get to music class, etc. in the available time, you gave no real answer. So, I commented that it appeared that you wanted fluffernutter to just give all that stuff up to be able to go car free.

No, I didn't say that at all. I said that you were advising fluffernutter to be one. Also, did you not recognize that as a satirical take.

As an aside, why would not liking alcohol make me any more of an ascetic than not liking Brussels sprouts? For that matter a heck of a lot of religious ascetics seem to brew and consume their own alcohol despite otherwise not having worldly possessions, sleeping on a slab and living a rigid lifestyle empty of leisure activities.

Well, my 80 year old mother and 79 year old father drive themselves. If your 80 year old relative doesn't then they can use some sort of rideshare/car service/taxi/shuttle bus to get around, but what I imagine they probably wish is that their younger relative had a car so that they can drive them places. If they're that sick, they certainly aren't walking or biking to the store for their groceries and loading up and lugging them back home. For that matter, why don't you tell me, what does your 80 year old relative do? I realize the relative might be hypothetical, but if not, then just tell me what they can hypothetically do in case A where there is a car available, and case B where there isn't. Is there any actual difference?

Also, on another note, talking about a supposed "'what about the disabled' card" is coming off as kind of ableist. Maybe you don't mean it that way, but it's pretty callously dismissive. Here's a related personal anecdote from when I was disabled. I was visiting the hospital (scheduled visit, not one of the emergency ones) and had to drive a considerable distance to get there because they were the only hospital who could treat me. Anyway, I parked in the parking garage and started walking to my appointment. Anyway, I made it a point to walk as much as possible at that time to try to get whatever exercise I could. I took the stairs instead of the elevator, etc. All of it was really slow with the severe anemia, nausea, atelectasis, etc., but it was important to do it. However, when I got to the lobby of the parking garage where the ticket machines and counter were, I had to make a detour to grab a plastic garbage bin so I could spend about ten minutes vomiting over and over into it. A nurse passing by stopped to help and then a police officer. Once I recovered enough, the officer gave me a ride the rest of the way across the hospital campus to the door closest to my appointment. I wanted to walk, but without the drive, I might have had to wait another ten minutes or so to recover before I can do it.

Now, at present, I am able bodied and I truly hope I will stay that way. After a lifetime of not paying much attention (although I never would have been as dismissive as you seem to be) to the struggles of the sick and elderly slowly shambling from place to place, I got to have that experience myself. I didn't have it as bad as some, but I got a clear understanding. You get to truly appreciate the mobility and other capabilities you used to have and understand how difficult it can be not to have those. It also gives me a perspective on your philosophy on "car dependence" and how, while it might be great for you (now), it is definitely somewhat exclusionary.

Sorry if I was unclear by using the word "isolated", that has connotations that I wasn't aiming for. I am drawing a blank for the best word. Calling them cells, or bubbles might be a better way to put it. The point is that, while within a larger city, they are really their own separate community. In short, you claim that you're talking about London, but the majority of London is not walkable, it's more like you have a bunch of villages packed together that are walkable. It's not a property that automatically transfers to the sum of the parts.

You missed explaining how I'm wrong. In other words, how are these people _more capable_ of travel without cars than with them?

I understand that completely. Repeating the claim that I don't doesn't make it true. If you were able to follow my rural living example at all, you should already know that I know that a place that is "car dependent" means a place where you are dependent on a car. I mean, basic English grammar alone gets me that.

Statistically, the average human is dead and has an age in the hundreds of thousands of years. What's your point? I never said anything about the statistics. My original post where I said "In my experience, this is far from true in many cases." does not actually disagree with that statement. Lets not get into some loop where I keep on restating what I wrote in my previous posts over and over again. I've had enough of that recently. There's no point in anyone disagreeing if what they're disagreeing with isn't what the other person is saying.

Continued from parent post since post was filtered out for being too long.

The example in question is a pretty poor one to ask this question for. The fact that they pulled these shenanigans is why they did poorly in court. If you want the long answer, it's because they have a legal obligation to and in general, you should want to avoid the fines, extra legal fees, court losses, criminal charges, etc. that can come along with that sort of thing. Aside from that, there's the negative press which, in the long run, can cost them sales.
Regarding:

Why do you think they were under no obligation to do so? Those customers were paying a fortune for their support contracts. Or by "no obligation", do you mean that we could have just pretended to attempt recovery, made up a fake invoice from an external recovery company for our records if an auditor ever checked, and told the customer we couldn't get the data? Is that what you're doing? Arguing for fraud and saying that there's only an "obligation" if you get caught? I mean, if your real life character is like your online one, that wouldn't surprise me all that much, I suppose.

No, I hadn't noticed. First, if you mean the data, that was in Tesla's custody on one of their servers. As for the physical SSD, the MCU and autopilot ECU _were_ in Tesla's custody at a Tesla service center and Tesla still claimed that they could not recover the data. When they got it back from Tesla and used their independent expert, they determined that not only was the data not corrupt and readable, but that the logs showed that it had been accessed while Tesla had it.

Wow. Took the words right out of my mouth. Pretty confident for someone who keeps getting things wrong so much.

Yes, I am quite aware that all matter is compressible. I have heard of objects like the sum, neutron stars, black holes, etc. as I am sure you have too. I clearly don't think water is some magical substance like adamantium or anything like that. Water gets only about 5% denser in the very deepest part of the ocean. "incompressible fluid" is a term from fluid dynamics/physics which, if you hadn't noticed, was exactly what I was talking about. This is just you playing stupid troll games again.

Wow, so spectacularly stupid. It's a sight to behold. The reason for that is because the gasbags for people falling from a great height are a lot thicker/deeper, so they slow people over a greater period of time and, therefore, produce lower g-forces. It's not because they are lower pressure, because they are not. There are different kinds, but they are usually at higher relative pressure than a car airbag at the moment of impact.

Also, a "soft" pillow in that situation will cause even more injury than an airbag. You really don't understand what's involved at all.

People can certainly be killed by the inflation of the airbag since it is designed to inflate at extremely high speed. In a collision where it works as intended, it has already inflated before the person hits it. Even then, they can be killed by a high enough speed collision with the airbag because the forces involved are just too high even though the air bag reduces them. Then, there are airbags where an unfortunate design flaw causes the explosive to fire out a piece of shrapnel and the passenger dies because the air bag shot them. However, all else being equal, hitting an already inflated airbag is a lot less likely to kill you than the same impact with no airbag.

Wow, what would that "something" be? Your abysmal observation and reasoning skills?

Not sure whether I should chalk the rest of that paragraph up to poor memory on your part or poor reading skills. You brought up airbags first in this post, and you brought up falling into water first in this post. I mentioned g-forces first, but it was pretty logical when discussing high speed impacts in response to you. All of the things you're complaining about are things that you have fixated on and commented on, demanding a response. Maybe try ginkgo biloba. Maybe that's a bit dated as a reference to a scammy memory supplement, but whatever. You clearly need something.

Then I pointed out that airbags are for fragile pieces of meat, so an airbag deployment doesn't mean remotely enough of an impact to even inconvenience the SSD. Then you fixated ridiculously on airbags.

Some irrelevant stuff about salvaging whole cars when I was talking about small components.

I know the extent of the damage to the SSD, because I bothered to look it up. That extent was: none. Tesla certainly knew that an outside expert could have recovered it because they already had a copy of the data and were able to log in on the actual device. The plaintiffs maybe didn't know for sure that an outside expert could do it except for the fact that of course they could tell Tesla was lying. Your weird, to coin a phrase, "argument from everyone else's presumed ignorance." is a bit weird. We've known that Tesla was lying from the start of this conversation, yet you somehow just don't seem to get it.

I really, really didn't. Are you hallucinating to boot?

No. Turns out these computer things can do that for you. All you need is this stuff called software. Fascinating, isn't it.

Well, I certainly have to repeat myself a lot with you because you either seem to miss a lot, or you are just ignoring things I say. As for the babbling. All the weird tangents have come from you. Starting with you branching off into irrelevant details about my anecdote pointing out that normal companies with problems accessing data on commodity parts that are integrated into their own custom hardware can reach out to outside experts. This was in response to a ridiculous excuse given by you about how Tesla and their suppliers just might not have the expertise to get the data.

Because it's from the study you posted and it's just as relevant as the rest of that study that you referenced in your post.

Confirmed. You are a moron. One with poor reading comprehension skills. Sure, some blame could accrue to me for being unclear initially, but I have clarified my meaning multiple times and you are the one who keeps doubling down, not me. To try to get it through your thick head, I will point out, once again that the point of the "That statement is true" is to set up how it's only true on the barest technicality and that the reality is that the SEC only has the barest thing to do with monopolies. I think the problem is that you don't understand how truth works. For example, take your bit about how I might as well be saying that it's true that the secret service protects against monopolies. The thing is, that statement is true. The Secret Service does protect against monopolies. It is, in fact, technically true that some of the work the Secret Service does ultimately has some small effect on preventing monopolies forming. It's just clearly not their actual function it's just a distant side effect of their other work. Consider the entire rest of what I wrote. Was I actually supporting the idea that the work of the SEC was about monopolies. No, I was not. I was pointing out what their primary function is. This is where reading comprehension and being able to understand intention through context comes into play.

If you need another example (though I doubt any number of examples will work once you have a fixed idea in place). Consider the statement "the dog catcher prevents packages from being taken from your porch". Is it true, or is it false? It's clearly technically true because stray dogs sometimes take packages off porches. While a true statement, it is a completely insufficient and misleading statement of the job of a dogcatcher.

So, one more time, and maybe, maybe it will stick this time. The point was that the original poster made a statement. It had a technical meaning. The technical meaning was true, but their intent was a different meaning. So, I addressed the technical meaning, then recognized that, whatever the technical meaning was, it was clear they actually meant something else and that actual something else was entirely off base. It was about heading off any argument about the SEC having a tangential role in antitrust by acknowledging it as remotely true, but irrelevant.

Well, so many really. It is hard to say exactly when though. You used to seem like a more genuinely honest contributor. I mean, you had your right-wing opinions, and you've never liked to be told that you're wrong, but you mostly debated reasonably. Over the years you've become more of a grumpy old man (which is odd since you're what, early to mid thirties?) and fallen into these patterns of just descending to distortion and misrepresentation of others views, jumping early into the personal attacks, and other trollish behavior. I tend to try to give people the benefit of the doubt and, to the degree I can manage, attempt a reset from conversation to conversation, but still I would say it's been about 7 years or so since I categorized you in the troll category.

I will say, I am not 100% percent sure what to make of you outright stating that you're dishonest and nothing you say should be taken seriously. I mean, there's still plenty of times it seems like you are actually trying to make a real contribution to conversations and, indeed, you sometimes do. So, this admission will require a bit of time to digest.

No, these were assertions from right before the merger.

Those possibilities had occurred to me, though I had my doubts. I am going to go out on a limb and say that the events, post layoff, where the head of the company started publicly telling advertisers to go fuck themselves and that he would sue them for not buying advertising from his company, etc., tend to indicate that, after the layoffs there were indeed problems with profitability for a platform that is almost entirely ad-supported. Not to mention that, for 10% of the price he paid for the company, he could have paid the 6000 or so workers their salary for the entire rest of their lives, strongly indicating that payroll was not a major factor. Big random layoffs only work to increase stock price in publicly traded companies. For layoffs to have any point at companies like Twitter, they have to be carefully targeted and, even then, the savings are like trying to recover space on your hard drive by going around and getting rid of unneeded text files to save a few megabytes at most when you could just delete one video file or adjust the cache settings or something. Also, a lot of those people were in marketing and ad sales roles, which also shows into sharp relief that his big public plans for increasing profits (they were supposed to have about quadrupled by now) were to de-prioritize advertising and make tons more money from subscriptions and paid vanity checkmarks. Those plans didn't work out, but he never really proposed any others. Except poop emoji. He proposed poop emoji a lot.

So, maybe I only think I know. And maybe all the experts only think they know, and somehow you know better. Maybe the extremely obvious pattern playing out right in front of us is all an illusion. However, if it's all unknown and unknowable, I think I'll go with my interpretation of the clues instead of yours.

I'm not trying to walk anything back, you're just either a functionally illiterate moron or just trolling, or both. I haven't doubled down on anything, nor have I tried to walk back anything.

Ah right, you're just a troll. You mentioned. It gets a little muddled whether your opinion is just worthless or if you just really don't even have one.

Am I supposed to ask what? Or am I supposed to tell you what? Because you're too stupid to think of it yourself and you're hoping someone more intelligent will think of it for you?

You're the moron who thinks that his views on my views matter.

Oh, I'm sorry. I keep forgetting that you're too stupid to understand basic things. Let me amend my original statement: "I'm not the SEC or any other party that would have access to any of the internal documents or could get access to them." Are you able to understand now? Would it help if I wrote it in crayon?

Ensuring accurate disclosures (such as the valuation of Twitter) is exactly what I was saying they would "step in" to do. Man, words are hard, aren't they?

The SEC can investigate for any number of reasons, it doesn't have to be claims for an auditor. For example, they might decide to get involved when the first CFO of xAI (it didn't have one at all until after the merger) who is, in fact, an accountant, leaves the company after just a few months. He was hired right after the merger, and left after three months. It was reported that he left due to problems with financial projections. This is after an abrupt merger that was basically announced as a done deal. Then, six months later xAI merges with another yet another company in an abrupt merger that goes from public announcement to done deal in a few days. All of these things and other factors I have already mentioned are red flags for a companies in financial trouble and mergers the SEC would normally investigate.

Dealing with a personal income tax bill? Doing a little investing? Some accounting courses at university? I mean, good for you, but that hardly means that a multi-billion dollar company merger applies to you any more than it applies to me.

I know when I have enough data to make a conclusion with a high degree of certainty. I have a threshold and, if it passes the threshold, what's the point of waffling around about it. When I stopped my friend's father in law from giving away his plane to someone online. The scam, if you're curious involves the scammer "buying" the plane with a check that "clears" (which is actually a meaningless term because there is basically no time limit after which the money from a "cleared" check can be pulled back) that is drawn on a foreign bank that takes months to inform the local bank that there are insufficient funds, at which point the property in question is gone. It was immediately obvious that he was being targeted in a scam, but I didn't have sufficient data to actually prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. He listened to me, but was kind of mad at me for a while because he thought I had ruined his sale. He eventually did bring it up with someone he trusted more than me who told him that yes, it 100% was a scam. It's interesting how people a guy who lives in a big mansion on a street named after his daughter, in a neighborhood with streets named after his other daughters and then whatever else he felt like because he built the entire neighborhood can run afoul of that sort of thing so easily.

The above, by the way, applies to both my conclusion about the xAI deal, and the ridiculous assertion that you just happened to notice it was me you were replying to near the end of the post. Sure, there's a possibility that you're telling the truth, but given all of the data and more, such as the fact that you're an unabashed troll and liar, there's no reason to go with the much smaller probability. People have been executed on less convincing evidence.

To make a confession, I try to philosophically be a pacifist and to, where possible, afford people dignity, etc. However, I am not necessarily those things because my base nature dictates it. When someone is being reprehensible, I can't help feeling a bit of schadenfreude when they experience misfortune. It doesn't really need to matter if they actually feel the misfortune themselves or not. I watch you with your playground taunts and lies and all that nonsense, and a part of me can't help but feel a little good that you're such an embarrassment. It's the same with the pacifism. I think that violence should not be sought out and is too often resorted to, etc. Self defense is not against my philosophy though (although it should never justify retaliatory force, just disabling force) but there is something viscerally satisfying about instantly overpowering a smug, belligerent attacker. It's not a good thing, but it's hard to help.

Ugh. Post too long. Splitting it here:
Continued in child post.

What's the "but" for? I wasn't arguing against any claims about whether Americans live in situations where they are car dependent.

So, not the City of London then, just London. In other words, in a big city that's about 50 km across.

I... what? I am a little confused. Travel is unavailable to old people and people with a variety of medical conditions because... "car dependence"? Do you somehow think that "car dependence" is some sort of disease or crippling addiction? First of all, for all the groups you mention, travel is a hell of a lot more available with cars than without them. Also, there really isn't a circumstance where having a car somehow stops other options from existing. Kid/old person/medically disabled person in a world where cars are available can, if they can walk or ride a bicycle, etc. has that option, but also can go places they would not be able to go by those methods. In the situation where there are not available cars, they can walk or ride a bicycle, etc. but that's it. They don't have any options that don't exist in the first scenario, but they do have less options.

You seem to have not parsed my sentence correctly. There is no contradiction. I did not say that one is not "car dependent" in places where having a motor vehicle is pretty much a requirement. I said that those places can be just as healthy or healthier than places where you can avoid being car dependent.

See, I can't help feeling that, since you keep saying that people have "carbrain" or that they are "carosexuals" (indirectly), etc. that indicates that it is you who is a bit weird about the whole thing. No one is attacking your preferred lifestyle. It sounds nice. The problem is that you are apparently demonizing people who are not in your situation and need cars to get around. It's a little odd.

See, that there is an example. Not everyone is like you. I don't drink. I can drive back from the places I drive too (with possible exceptions like to the garage, or certain medical appointments, etc.) Also, when I go out, sometimes I take people with me who would be incapable of walking that far. Not everyone is in your particular situation.