> Ask the Dutch. How do they do it? Or do you assume they do not have young kids or grandmas?
They do it the dutch way.
Things you wouldn't do anywhere else, like leaving babies in their strollers in the streets outside shops when they go shopping.
Denmark is really a big village.
Source: my girlfriend family is Danish and I had saw them last time 4 days ago.
> * Trains to rural areas
It's more easily said than done.
Rural areas are also resistant to things that would make the area less rural, like high speed train.
Look at the fights happening in northern Italy against the TAV (the Italian version of the TGV)
> * Park-and-ride garages for people to drive in, and park next to transportation hubs
Many cities in old Europe cannot do that. Think about the central areas of Paris, Rome, Milan, Madrid.
And those that could are reluctant to do it, because it would immediately lower the value of the buildings around.
Imagine you bought a house for 100 and its value drops to 70 because they made a giant parking lot just below your window.
> * Underground parking garages at the edges of pedestrian zones, or even underneath them, coming up directly above them
In most cities in old Europe digging is very costly and sometimes impossible (most Italian cities for example)
> * Ubiquitous bike storage and bike attachments such that yes,
That would steal space to pedestrian transit
> a mom with 3 young kids can tow them from a single bike - moms in Amsterdam and Berlin do it all the time.
Compare the average street in Berlin[1] or Amsterdam[2] with those of Milan[3]
You will immediately notice a few things: in Milan trams railways are in the middle of the street, they are very slippery and dangerous for bikers; Berlin sidewalks are much larger on average; much of the transport in Amsterdam happens along canals, where cars are usually not allowed.
Things are in a certain way not because people are simply stupid or ignorant, but because the surrounding environment poses a lot of limits.
The movie's finale (both) is not what happen in the book.
In the book Kelvin accepts that he's standing in front of a godlike creature that the human mind will never understand, he surrender, lands on the planet's surface hoping that "time of cruel miracles was not past".
The acceptance is not of the illusion itself, but of the fact that we would never understand the whys, the rational thinking and scientific positivism have become the real illusion, all is lost, Solaris won, there is only the hope that Solaris will keep making "cruel miracles".
Is there a VM that does not crash in case of a catastrophic event?
For example: what happens if I run this code?
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Object[] o = null;
while (true) {
o = new Object[] {o};
}
}
}
What happens if there is a bug in some JNI code that cause a segfault?
What Erlang programming style tries to teach is not to avoid crashes by being very defensive and trying to prevent every possible error condition (it's impossible), but to detect them by being fault tolerant and restart the process from a good state.
Actually, that's not exactly what Joe Armstrong envisioned when he created Erlang, the system.
If you read his 2003[1] thesis, at page 36 he quotes a paper from Jim Gray (who worked at Tandem computers and was a Turing award winner)
Although compiler checking and exception handling provided by programming languages are real assets, history seems to have favored the run-time checks plus the process approach to fault-containment. It has the virtue of simplicity—if a process or its processor misbehaves, stop it
and the on page 37
The idea of “fail-fast” modules is mirrored in our guidelines for programming where we say that processes should only do when they are supposed to do according to the specification, otherwise they should crash.
and then on page 40
Error handling is non-local.
When we make a fault-tolerant system we need at least two physically separated computers. Using a single computer will not work, if it crashes, all is lost. The simplest fault-tolerant system we can imagine has exactly two computers, if one computer crashes, then the other computer should take over what the first computer was doing. In this simple situation even the software for fault-recovery must be non-local; the error occurs on the first machine, but is corrected by software running on the second machine.
So actually the VM crash is a signal: something's gone really bad, don't even try to recover, just let it die and let some other non-local process take over (the OS, some `forever` like script, a process on another machine...).
Without an UBI they would be starving and start street protests.
Much like what happened during French revolution.
UBI removes that risk.
I'm in favour of an UBI, but one that's really universal (rich and poor get the same amount of money, forever) and one that goes together with a real public system including public universal healthcare, public schools, public infrastructures - roads, railroads - and trasnportation, similar to the ones we have in many European countries, but improved.
UBIs have to be universal (most proposals are not Universal, they are just Basic Incomes, Italy just created a fake one called "reddito di cittadinanza" literally translated as "citizen's income")
We may have public healthcare and schools, but most parts of the world, including the US, don't.
We also have universal public welfare, unemployment benefits, public housing, public transports, in Italy we also have mandatory car insurance, it means everybody has to pay for it, it also means that the prices are heavily regulated and must be affordable and - most of all - non discriminatory (you can't set a price based on personal data and background of the single client and there's an authority reviewing the methodology).
These are all things that in US don't exist or are seen as "socialist", hence bad.
If you add an UBI but don't fundamentally change the way the system works it won't make a difference, companies will just adjust the prices accordingly because more money will be in consumer's pockets (the market is always right! right?).
The only real point I can make is improving on the things that already work, just throwing money at problems won't solve problems.
> If you add an UBI but don't fundamentally change the way the system works it won't make a difference, companies will just adjust the prices accordingly because more money will be in consumer's pockets (the market is always right! right?).
If you assume prices work according to supply and demand, incorrect. The reason for this is that people also earn money from sources other than UBI.
To give an example, let's say I give every single person in the US, including children, $5. Will companies raise their prices accordingly? Maybe, but the difference in GDP is tiny. The difference in the purchasing power of the average 10 year old with no pocket money though, is vast, since they previously had $0 and now they have $5.
Similarly, UBI will probably result in price increases, but those will be less than the increase in purchasing power of those most in need of UBI.
Amazon will want those UBI money, they'll want you to spend money on their website instead of going to the dentist and we know they are good at it (too much if you ask me).
If the dentist is already paid by taxes, you could have both.
They do it the dutch way.
Things you wouldn't do anywhere else, like leaving babies in their strollers in the streets outside shops when they go shopping.
Denmark is really a big village.
Source: my girlfriend family is Danish and I had saw them last time 4 days ago.
> * Trains to rural areas
It's more easily said than done.
Rural areas are also resistant to things that would make the area less rural, like high speed train.
Look at the fights happening in northern Italy against the TAV (the Italian version of the TGV)
> * Park-and-ride garages for people to drive in, and park next to transportation hubs
Many cities in old Europe cannot do that. Think about the central areas of Paris, Rome, Milan, Madrid.
And those that could are reluctant to do it, because it would immediately lower the value of the buildings around.
Imagine you bought a house for 100 and its value drops to 70 because they made a giant parking lot just below your window.
> * Underground parking garages at the edges of pedestrian zones, or even underneath them, coming up directly above them
In most cities in old Europe digging is very costly and sometimes impossible (most Italian cities for example)
> * Ubiquitous bike storage and bike attachments such that yes,
That would steal space to pedestrian transit
> a mom with 3 young kids can tow them from a single bike - moms in Amsterdam and Berlin do it all the time.
Compare the average street in Berlin[1] or Amsterdam[2] with those of Milan[3]
You will immediately notice a few things: in Milan trams railways are in the middle of the street, they are very slippery and dangerous for bikers; Berlin sidewalks are much larger on average; much of the transport in Amsterdam happens along canals, where cars are usually not allowed.
Things are in a certain way not because people are simply stupid or ignorant, but because the surrounding environment poses a lot of limits.
[1] https://lets-travel-more.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Ryke...
[2] https://i2.wp.com/www.amsterdamredlightdistricttour.com/wp-c...
[3] https://live.staticflickr.com/205/495030650_6d7bf355b8_b.jpg