yeah but it actually does more than just shave 3 minutes off the average commute. 

Of course it’s politically viable. You get the banks on board (lending money for the project), the road developers, the construction companies, and the unions because it’s 3-plus years of guaranteed steady employment. The key problem with mass transit is that “the masses” (aka the poors) will use it.

Move to Philly Drew. The people are warm, and obnoxious

It’s amazing that this could be a legitimate talking point. 

AOC wants to take 70% of our roads and give them to people who don’t want to drive.

The thing with the $11 billion is it should see an ROI, even if it takes 20-30 years to do so.

Mass transit is evil socialism but giving billions and billions to private sector leeches who will do nothing with it to actually help the problem is fine.

Excuse me, Drew’s room is on the second floor and his parents’ house doesn’t even have a basement.

It’s fucking amazing to me that spending at least $11 billion to improve commute times is more politically viable that just adding real mass transit to an area desperately in need of it. 

The takeaway here is that Drew may once again be blogging from his mother’s basement.

They took all my roads and shared them with everybody else.

Publicly owned roads are socialism. 

So what you’re saying is, 2019 has been an above average year for you?

With the laws requiring backup cameras, which then requires there to be a screen in the car, it would be illegal for the car not to come with a screen. So while you could augment some capabilities with a docked phone, it wouldn’t replace the screen needed for the backup camera.

Is anybody else seeing a future where all screens become BYOD?

If the service is free, you are the product. You pay to not see ads, not the other way around.

“I’ve heard all the stories of the navigation systems routing you to Timbuktu,”

Advertisements are designed to draw attention. I can’t wait till they get on cars, start causing accidents.

I was surprised this was in the UK and not in a non-English speaking country. In addition to being possibly offensive, they are the kinds of names people make up for products in English when they’re using google translate and get it wrong. Crispy (ok, that describes food), Fluffy (is that describing the duck or the…

“Crispy” would make sense if it had crisped rice inside like a Crunch bar, or crispy peanut butter brittle or whatever it is inside Butterfingers.