They read the room as instructed to by right-wing media, which has been sympathetic or apathetic to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Because these particular truckers are fucking idiots.

“I’d say they’ve earned the right to have an opinion. You? Not so clear.”

“Also recall that Honda is hard up for software development. Sony would presumably fill in those knowledge gaps.”

Not necessarily specifically. But definitely especially.

Think you’re onto something but it’s hard to really conceptualize because I can’t even remember the last time I thought about buying a Sony anything. Last thing I can recall thinking about was buying a Sony camera.

Again, from what I’ve seen, there isn’t much focus on the width of streets being an issue, and more focus on how the width of streets is allocated for use.

There are many very wide thoroughfares that are wider in order to accommodate more cars, and would not be so wide, or wouldn’t even exist, if not for predominance of cars.

But in any case, car-centric urban planning goes far beyond the width of streets. Width is not the issue. The issue is how that width is allocated.…

Sincerely, not rhetorically, trying to understand what your point is. Seems like you are saying that the design of our cities pre-dates the advent of the auto age and so it’s erroneous to blame accommodation of automobiles for issues of urban planning? Something like that? What is the end conclusion with regard to the…

The shift in urban planning to prioritize automobile travel is obviously much more evident in areas that were developed later. In the American West, in particular, it’s undeniable.

I’m not sure exactly what your end conclusion is, but it seems like you’re saying that going 100% car free in an entire city is basically not done and not feasible outside of very limited outlier examples.

The natural assumption to make in this conversation is that there are workarounds and compromises to account for basic logistical realities and exigencies.

What the fuck is this? Someone who thinks discussion of auto bans in the densest parts of the biggest cities is about Hartford?

So many snidely outraged comments either disingenuously or ignorantly perplexed at minimizing auto presence in dense parts of big cities without accounting for basic logistics.

Nobody is talking about banning cars from cities with 100K populations or even entire cities with multiples of that.

Kind of amazed this is first time I’ve seen analogy to shopping malls. It’s a good one for people to contemplate when they cannot conceptualize the idea of a “car free” downtown zone.

There are a bunch of major metro cities around the world that have done varying levels of restrictions on automobiles in city centers.

What’s the deal with Miami municipal government not using .gov or .org addresses and, instead, using .com addresses?

I don’t imagine ratings for passengers mean much. I assume drivers don’t care about a passenger’s rating and unless they’re horrific people, and maybe even if they are, they pre-emptively rate passengers five stars in case that might make a difference in their tip.

Can make the point about common good without being so dismissive of genuine distress.