If its a optical image satellite, it probably doesnt take much to burn on the camera if it’s shutter is open.

I imagine the precision needed for that is lacking in a solar mirror motor.

Small satellite that’s at least 100km away

Yes but that’s socialist.

And goes against my donors paycheck.

/s but many people in charge are willfully ignorant that society can be built in a way that doesn’t rely on cars.

Eventually yes, but I personally think that recycling solar panels and so on could slow collapse much more than the author suggests.

Also batteries, lithium is expensive so a lot of companies are trying to come up with cheaper, but also more sustainable alternatives. And they already have with lithium iron phosphate that requires less lithium. And as prices for a substance rise, so will the desire for alternatives and recycling.

They will be safe to eat indefinitely, but may not be palatable, depending on how it’s stored.

That would ne ideal, but sadly city planning in the United states is too political.

We’ll never get anything done relying on city planning, so the only thing that seems possible is to improve the city organically, through markets.

I don’t disagree, but where I live zoning is a large part of the problem

The zoning in my area perpetuates unwalkable, uncyclable, parking lot infested sprawl, because single family houses take up 84% of the available land.

I don’t want industry to move into neighborhoodseither , but I wouldn’t mind commercial or retail, currently prohibited.

Parking lots waste a lot of area that could be green space too.

But yes overdevelpment could be a problem , but is easily fixed by adding a green space rule to development. Like we have now for minimum parking and such.

Also high speed roads destroy a lot of green space too, with nothing in the median or a good chunk on either side, and huge empty areas in dead zones of interchanges.

Lets not think cuurent car use is good for green space.

deleted by creator

I dont mean throw out zoning entirely, but reducing the way they promote single family housing only. I live in a county with a million people and 84% of the land is single family zoning only, I want to throw that bit out.

Also if done right you dont need to zoning for all those things. Transit development will drive denser, walkable areas all on its own if its legal to build those kinds of areas. All the city has to do it manage transit as these areas develop.

I agree, it seems like it should be easy to convince libertarians and conservatives with deregulations, but exactly how to frame that argument is tricky.

He talks about the intersection a lot, but the main problem with this intersection has nothing to do with the intersection itself. It’s the surrounding area that backs up into and causes it to fail.

Driving requires courtesy and attention, but overreliance on cars make people the opposite.

People get frustrated driving in traffic, causing them to be rude and agressive.

Meanwhile if driving is the only way to get around, even for easily distracted people or busy or whatever, they are not going to pay proper attention. Safety features like blind spot detection and automatic crash avoidance just make people pay even less attention.

You say the problem isn’t cars, but it is because in america cars are the only way to get around for most trips.

If you make other options more conpelling or faster, than these problems are less severe for those left on the road.

You can always count on people to be irresponsible, selfish, and reckless. So yeah its bad road design to count on people to be safe, when they just aren’t.

Drivers don’t t have to look left on right in green, so should naturally look in the direction they’re going, and thus see pedestrians and cyclists.

They also have time to spot them while waiting.

Because lemmy search sucks. Its very specific, and usually the most relavant stuff is buried by tangetially related things.

In the Netherlands they use bike lanes.

A two way bike lane is wide enough for emergency vehicles like an ambulance, and bikers get out of the way.

Ah I understand, let me be more specific, and answer some questions.

When it comes to farming, we don’t put farmland in cities, in rural areas cars do make sense.

Energy generation doesn’t have to be done in cities either.

As for sewage, yeah it takes up space in cities because you can’t tranport it out, but it’s small compared to the entire city.

The parts that are unsustainable are the vast swaths of single family homes.

The maintenance costs for these areas, in the form of electcity, water, sewage, roads, are higher than the tax revenues generated by property taxes.

It takes a long time for this tax deficit to show, about 30ish years, and it can be delayed by builidng and developing new suburbs. The taxes from the sales and other newness generate some new income. The federal government will also subsidizie a lot a building a new road, but notably not maintaing them. Which after 30 years can be more than the road would cost to build new!

But after a while the maintenance comes due, roads fill with potholes and need replacing, sewer and water pipes start leaking due to wear, or even the ground moving. Electricity lines blow over, knocked by trees, or hit by drivers need to be fixed.

The cost of roads and car dependency is not cheap. A study came out that it costs Americans an average of $20k a year for car dependency. About half that is owning a car, and the other half is taxes spent on road infrastructure.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/01/massachusetts-car-economy-costs-64-billion-study-finds/

In just slightly denser areas, where the government hadn’t regulated things like setbacks, minimum parking requirements, and soley single family housing, there is enough revenue.

So what ends up happening is these denser areas subsidizie car dependent suburbs.

And all the while suburbs with car only transportation have tons of traffic, because when you get down to it, a single lane of cars just can’t move that many people.

Now there are some exceptions to this. I live in an area with astonishingpy high property values, nearing 1 million for a normal house. This generates a lot of revenue, but it creates an housing affordability problem. This problem would be alleviated if there was increased density if the local government didn’t zone 84% of the land into single family housing only.

And it would still increase tax revenues in my area.

Cars are fucking terrible for the economy.

Possible productive hours are wasted with long commutes, because driving takes effort and work.

They caused us to build urban areas spread out in a density that is not self sustaining.

Its horrible for the environment, and climate change is gonna be absolutely great for the economy in the next decades. /s

Not too mention all the money and engineerimg that went into the technology of ICE cars that’s now obsolete.