I thought it was great too. I especially enjoyed “cliffhanger manor”. I don’t think the writers will tie everything together in a later episode because it feels more and more like they are intentionally leaving cliffhangers everywhere as a joke. The joke being “you can’t cancel us, you’ll never know what happens to [insert favorite cliffhanger here]”

Lol. I’m pretty sure my local police have their inbox set to auto delete all driving complaints.

A logical solution. My guess is this kid has lost keys before. OP wants a way the kid doesn’t need to be responsible.

Woah woah woah. I’m 99% certain that’s not how cars work.

My neighbor is in highway construction. He said he’s worked on the same project the 15 years he’s worked at the company and they’ve successfully improved a total of 2 miles of elevated highway in that time frame.

If the distance is short enough it wouldn’t matter.

It always comes down to city planning. Cities planned around being walkable, dense, mixed, and human centric see less driving. Cities planned around maximizing private land ownership see more driving.

I might be wrong but most people who live and work in Paris don’t drive. They have great public transit and there’s a huge walking culture. When I was in Paris the only large vehicles I saw where taxis.

Great news everyone! Hopefully the system works well and other cities will follow suit. I know in the USA (in the few places we do have public transit) the argument for keeping fares is always 1.we don’t want to pay taxes for that and 2.if we charge that’ll keep the vagrants from using it. Two arguments that make no sense at all, 1. We already pay taxes for the public transit, why pay more to actually use it? And 2.anyone who has used public transit knows the fare doesn’t keep vagrants out.

Plus you can’t leave it parked anywhere. Anyone who sees it will want to recreate the famous steel ball test. Dude will spend a fortune at the tesla dealership getting his “bulletproof” windows replaced every week.

Nothing annoys me more than car ads where the car is in the wilderness like that. I can think of the range Rover one that’s running now where they pick up hikers and drive them to the summit of the mountain. Like it ignores the entire point of being in the nature.

I partially agree with you. They need a better explanation of what they were measuring for and how they came to their conclusions. Also PM2.5 may be too large to capture all the exhaust particles, a quick Google search shows some results saying 2.5 for combustion particles and others saying 2.5-1.0. PM2.5 is generally considered to be the most harmful to human health and they stay in the air longer than larger particles so maybe that’s why they chose to only measure that?

But, just because the volume of gas a car uses far exceeded the volume of tire it uses does not mean that the burning of gas creates more pollutants. Theoretically, the only products of combustion are water and carbon dioxide. We know that we don’t get perfect combustion, there are additives that affect things, the time in the combustion cylinder isn’t ideal, and the air to gas ratios aren’t always right. If we had perfect combustion water and CO2 may not be considered pollutants. Both occur naturally and have natural processes to be reused. Generally we do think of CO2 as a pollutant because we produce it in much great quantities than it naturally would be created. They exclude CO2 from their study, we know this because CO2 is much smaller than PM2.5.

Yes but not as hard as the car has fucked North American urban design.

It’s criminally inefficient!