Scheduling trains is a complex problem involving many parameters, but the public see only one facet of it: is my train delayed or not?
Of course delays depend on budget and investments, and bureaucracy.
But not only.
For instance, comparing high speed trains in Germany and France can give the impression that German trains are ineficient and slow, but Germany being a much less centralized country, which is good, trains have to make many more stops, oftentimes leading to more complex scheduling and not being able to reach the top speed between stops, and thus less time to catch up on small delays.
Similarly, there are different policies regarding international trains vs national trains, or freight vs passenger, and also different variables they can optimize for: number of delays, total duration of delays, availability of emergency paths, etc, and various policies will yield different sentiment regarding "is my train on time".
You are trying to add a lot of nuance to a topic which is just not very nuanced. Trains in germany are a nightmare because of decades of mismanagement. All the rest is copium, as the kids say.
Maybe, but there are some things that, when they do not work, easily give the impression that someone somewhere hasn't done his job properly, because it looks simple and easy from the point of view of the user but in reality are quite complex. Having met a few people working in this field in the past, I have the impression train networks are like that.
Same as buggy front-end dev for non-technical people, for instance. :)
Or maybe they didn't do their job properly. I remember a few years ago when new train cars were introduced in Hamburg the new models broke down constantly because of problems with software and broken springs. Supposedly because the designers forgot to account for the weight of passengers.
I can’t speak for the author, but I attended a science conference earlier this year that was almost half science, half healing/meditation workshops. I’m not going to name names, but there were some
pretty big academic names there who also have clearly woken up to modern science being more than a bit cult like. Research a couple of areas of science that are currently verboten and see who & what you find there maybe?
It’s just quiet whispers in small conferences at the moment, but this is how the breaking of all spells begins. The momentum is & will continue to build, and probably quicker than many imagine (or will like!).
Both the most vulgar and selfish interest, and the most principled passions, seems to play a role in history at different times. The most important contributing factor, though, is selfish interest of large groups of people, because the sun of it's many little influences do not cancel out, unlike the actions of principled actors. In exceptional times, good intends are allowed to take the front seat just as long as necessary, by the many behind the scene who will silently weight toward the prompt reestablishment of "business as usual".
I do not disagree with that assessment, but maybe one can hope that at some point we evolve past this "us versus them" mentality that we inherited from the savannah? If so, it's worth pushing for it.
Your comment sounded how an instance of copilot would complain to its coleagues and for a moment I pictured OpenAI being just a large scam based on an army of mechanical turks :)
I've seen similar behavior. I can understand that the relief that comes with having finaly a label put on the box one feels trapped into; But then the goal should be to climb out of that box. A diagnosis is only good if it helps fight the condition, after all.
I believe the issue is more broad than that though. I believe the issue comes from the very strong belief in our modern world that our behavior, our ideas and moods are what we are, what we have always been and always will be. That comes with our global theory of mind that one's character is given once and for all, from birth to death. I insist that this is a belief that is not universal, for some other cultures ideas and moods are transient external inhabitants of our minds. And indeed, people do change along their lifetime, and sometimes immensely; once you have witnessed these changes a few times you start to realize how even conditions that are usually considered impossible to cure, can actually be fixed.
the issue comes from the very strong belief in our modern world that our behavior, our ideas and moods are what we are, what we have always been and always will be. That comes with our global theory of mind that one's character is given once and for all, from birth to death. I insist that this is a belief that is not universal
i would go a step further and argue that this belief is simply false or bad. it traps us, and makes us unable to grow. we should aim to reject this idea with a much effort as we can.
this last one is particularly concerning when it comes to an ADHD diagnosis. not that the diagnosis is wrong, but the diagnosis combined with the belief that we can't change. we need to change our attitude and trust that even a person with ADHD can improve. it's just harder. and ADHD diagnosis should guide us in how to best help that person. it should not be used as an excuse to give up.
I wholeheartedly agree; But I also understand why, to those failing to change (or to change as fast as they would want), it can sound patronizing to hear that "it's all about your mindset". It's important to start by acknowledging the circumstances that can make it hard to improve before encouraging someone to fight them.
It's not only about personality disorders by the way, as you said it also applies to behavior. I've seen people who were total sociopaths when young (incl jail time) turn into good members of society much later in life. And I don't want to advocate for leniency here, at the contrary I believe it's important to set the expectations straight otherwise it's easy to learn how to game the system.
I wish there were more movies/books showing how much people can change and what can shape those changes. There are a few, but that really goes against the flow of good vs evil in our tradtional story-telling.
Funny how the choice of an analogy can set bounds to the set of accepted solutions.
Instead of trudging through the desert, or escaping a sinking ship, or surviving in a dog eat dog jungle, I prefer to compare modern society with a large boarding house, where every one has to cooperate a bit to make it work reasonably well.
A poltical philosopher from the XXth century once wrote: "At the end of the day, all we are trying to achieve is a basic level of decency, for which all that's required from citizens is the simple politeness commonly found in any boarding house."
I think we are too quick to believe this move is motivated by the threat of Russia suddenly unleashing hordes of tanks over Europe, so here is some data. Let's compare Russia's forces with that of Germany+Poland+UK+France+Italy+Spain (EU countries with a large population):
Total population: RU=140M, EU=370M
Population available for mil: RU=70M, EU=170M
Present active mil: RU=1.3M, EU=1M
Reserve: RU=2M, EU=1.4M
Paramil: RU=250k, EU=380k
Combat Aircrafts: RU=4k, EU=4k
Tanks: RU=5.7k, EU=2k
Armored Vhc: RU=130k, EU=340k
Artillery: RU=16k, EU=2k
Large combat vessels: RU=100, EU=80
Subs: RU=60, EU=40
The economics is more hairy to compare directly because there are so many parameters. The most stringent ones seems to be that RU has a lot of fiul, gaz and coal and an industrial network spread accross a vast land that's not easy to target, and of course a seemingly good relationship with China. Apart from that, I don't think the EU is partcularly weak as far as finance and manufacturing are concerned.
Looking at those numbers, I do not believe that the sentiment that "Russia is going to invade the EU unless massive expenses in weaponry" holds a lot of water.
The tremendous amount of efforts and finance that's been thrown at the military during the cold war was not aimed at invading the other side.
I would even add that spending that much on the military is probably what the strategists in the Kremlin are hopping EU will do. After all, if they know the history of their own country, they must know what caused the fatal financial crisis that brought down the USSR in the 80s.
> The most stringent ones seems to be that RU has a lot of fiul, gaz and coal and an industrial network spread accross a vast land that's not easy to target,
Very recent Ukrainian drone self-defences prove otherwise - far away russian refineries are not so far away anymore.
And, are very difficult to defend.
Throw in an additional few partisans to mess up the railway system (russian lifeline) and I rather suspect a coup to happen soon.
To add to what nicbou said, I would like to question the idea that the best way to defend a country is to enlist and fight a war. At the contrary, many are of the opinion that to defend Europe we have to oppose this recent trend of spending billions into the unproductive war machine.
When was the last time germans lined up to enlist in the army? How much good was it for their country?
>At the contrary, many are of the opinion that to defend Europe we have to oppose this recent trend of spending billions into the unproductive war machine.
We've tried that after the end of the cold war, now there is an active war in Europe. You can not unilaterally stop military spending if there are other countries ready to take advantage of it.
>When was the last time germans lined up to enlist in the army?
That would have been during the height of the Cold War, the resulting Reunification does have its drawbacks, but certainly beats getting overrun by the Soviet Union.
Of course delays depend on budget and investments, and bureaucracy.
But not only. For instance, comparing high speed trains in Germany and France can give the impression that German trains are ineficient and slow, but Germany being a much less centralized country, which is good, trains have to make many more stops, oftentimes leading to more complex scheduling and not being able to reach the top speed between stops, and thus less time to catch up on small delays.
Similarly, there are different policies regarding international trains vs national trains, or freight vs passenger, and also different variables they can optimize for: number of delays, total duration of delays, availability of emergency paths, etc, and various policies will yield different sentiment regarding "is my train on time".
A document that gives an overview of the variety of policies across Europe: https://rne.eu/wp-content/uploads/RNE_OverviewOfthePriorityR...
reply