Yes and no. Some people think that the zipper merge would improve traffic flow, and eliminate backup at a merge point. I say that it’s not failure to zipper-merge that causes backups, but it’s backups the provide the conditions in which people fail to zipper-merge.

We can divide traffic at a 2-lane-to-1-lane merge into three conditions: Traffic volume that 1 lane can handle; traffic volume that’s too much for 1 lane, but 2 lanes can handle; and traffic volume that’s too much for 2 lanes. Obviously, too much traffic for 2 lanes, in 2 lanes, is already a traffic jam, and a zipper merge cannot fix it. Traffic volume appropriate for 1 lane, but that’s spread out over 2 lanes can easily coalesce into 1 lane. The zipper merge is good and appropriate in this scenario, and this is where I’ve seen it work the way some people think it should. But that’s not zipper-merge magic. Merging early works, too, because a volume of traffic that fits in 1 lane, well, fits in 1 lane.

It’s the scenario in which there’s traffic that fits in 2 lanes has to merge into 1 lane that’s the problem. Just like how you can’t fit a water buffalo in your carry-on bag, no matter what clever packing technique you employ, there are just too many cars for 1 lane, and there’s going to be a backup. It’s only after there’s a backup that the conflict between the merge-early and zipper-merge people arises, so picking one or the other can’t change the basic fact of the traffic backup. At best, the zipper merge reduces the spatial length of the queue of cars waiting to merge, but does not improve the throughput of vehicles at the merge point.

What does that have to do with what I said?

Hey, thanks for the follow-up. I figured it was just the result of a bad day. Hope all is well!

I have met plenty of people who can phrase a counter-argument without sounding like an asshole.

The OP said nothing at about reducing the use of cars, and what’s more, people make the same objection about rural people needing a car to get to town even in discussions explicitly about creating walkable cities. Even if we read into the question an implication that we should ditch cars, where does the idea come from that it must happen everywhere, all at once? The argument feels disingenuous.

Doing “pretty much nothing for the climate” is hyperbole, I think. It’s hard to say what the net climate benefit EVs might have, because our system is so complex. The numbers I found show that electricity and heating accounted for the highest, single category of CO₂ emissions, at around 15 billion tons annually in 2020. Transportation came in second at around 7 billion tons. If we could wave a magic wand, and instantly do a 1:1 replacement of ICE cars with EVs, it would put a big dent in that category’s emissions. It would also spike the electricity and heating category. Would the increase be less than the savings in the transportation category? LIkely, and the benefit would increase as more renewable electricity sources come online.

But even if we further used that magic wand to instantly get all of that new electricity for EVs from renewable sources, that still wouldn’t touch the vast majority of emissions, in which car-centric lifestyles play a large role, e.g. manufacturing, construction, land use, even electricity and heating. So saying that EVs will do pretty much nothing for the climate is inaccurate, but so is saying that they’re a big part of the solution. They’re just incrementally better, and the size of the increment is arguable.

I think the push-back is mainly directed at that line of magical thinking that says that all we need to do is switch to EVs to drive to the grocery store, bring re-usable bags, and get Starbucks coffee in compostable cups, and the environment will be saved.

So the implication here is that we can’t get rid of cars everywhere, so we shouldn’t reduce the use of cars anywhere?

Gasoline is only part of the picture, however. For one, the chemical reaction by which concrete cures releases CO₂, and concrete is responsible for 4-8% of emissions globally. Unless we’re going to drive those new-fangled EVs on old-fashioned dirt roads, they account for significant greenhouse gases.

But it’s also really dumb to go the other way and focus so much on EVs, isn’t it? Why replace our cars with slightly-different cars, build a whole new charging infrastructure for them, and then phase them out, say, another 40-50 years down the line? It’s not just tailpipe CO₂ emissions at issue, it’s poor land-use causing a major housing crisis, it’s the cost of cars skyrocketing out of financial reach of many people, it’s habitat destruction causing populations of wild animals to crash and many to go extinct, it’s particulate matter from tires causing human maladies like dementia and cardiovascular disease, it’s an epidemic of social isolation and loneliness, it’s traffic violence killing over a million people a year, it’s sedentary lifestyles leading to diabetes and cardiovascular problems, it’s CO₂ emissions from manufacturing cars and building the infrastructure that they need, it’s the large-scale use of fresh water for manufacturing, it’s the loss of autonomy for children, it’s municipalities going broke trying to maintain car-centric infrastructure, it’s the burden on people in poverty needing to buy and maintain a car, etc. etc.

I mean, the ultimate solution is to have cities and towns that don’t force us to get in the car to drive everywhere, for every little thing, every day. There’s little meaningful difference between transitioning cities away from ICE cars and transitioning cities away from electric cars. We could just start now, and maybe Millennials might be able to see some benefit before they retire. EVs are fine as a stop-gap measure while we work on that, but I see them being treated as the main event.

What’s interesting is that language is flexible enough that phrases like “law and order” mean different things to different people. We hear it and think, law = rules of conduct, and order = civil peace. Plenty of other Americans think, law = agents of authority, and order = hierarchy. To put it another way, police brutality isn’t a bug in the system, it’s a feature.

What the actual fuck is up with that is exactly that these cowards are still employed. Why rush into a dangerous situation if you still get paid if you don’t?

As one who has studied weather and climate somewhat, this makes total sense. Fucking climate change…

Dr. Strangelove has one of the all-time most-iconic nihilistic movie endings.

I don’t know if there’s a name for it as a literary technique, but it’s an example of Implied Subject in grammar. In English, we almost always used an implied subject in imperative sentences, but that page offers examples of many other situations we use it, too.

Am I to understand that this video shows infants, children, journalists, doctors, rescue workers, UN relief workers, and the like perpetrating violence against Israeli civilians? No? Then how the fuck does this justify the genocidal actions of the IDF and settlers, except in the minds of psychopaths?

That kid is a future Self-Made Man™, working harder and intelligently taking advantage of opportunities that those poors are too stupid and lazy to jump on.

That sounds about right. It was over 25 years ago, so I’m not entirely certain of the details, but a trip down memory lane, to be sure! Anyway, it looks like they’re still at it as a NewTek re-seller.

Bloomington, or was there another Indiana town with an improbably-located Amiga dealer? I remember checking out one there that I was shocked to find. (I was in town to visit a woman studying at IU.)

Technically speaking, it wasn’t replaced by IP-based utilities, since they have different functions. Zmodem is intended for sending binary files over an ASCII-based (7-bit) serial line, whereas the Internet-based protocols send files over IP, which is a packet-based networking protocol. That’s where the performance difference comes in, since TCP/IP has significant overhead in the form of TCP and IP headers in each 1500-byte packet, plus extra processing costs on each end. That overhead brings with it far more flexibility in connecting to any arbitrary host on the network to transfer files, not just the two on either end of a serial line.

(It wasn’t even replaced, since it’s still available on my computer right now, installed as a dependency of something or other. I think the last time I used it was to transfer a file to an embedded device.)

I think I still have a couple versions of Rhapsody on CD somewhere. It was a really wild mashup of OPENSTEP with MacOS 8 styling. I’m not sure if I have the x86 version, but if so, it might be fun to see if it’ll run in a modern virtual machine. I’m also not sure if I kept media for a “Yellow Box” install, when part of Apple’s strategy was to have its APIs run on Windows NT to allow for cross-platform apps.