• 0 Posts
  • 160 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 18th, 2023

help-circle







  • Its a bad thing for two reasons:

    1. It destroys any form of ownership people have over digital assets like games, movies, etc.
    2. No ownership destroys the second hand market. This hurts for a number of reasons:
    3. Preservation can now only be done illegally
    4. Access to gaming and other media becomes more expensive
    5. Large corporations get to decide what you can / cannot play. Removing games from storefronts and consoles is a lot easier than hunting down physical copies.

    That being said I have no issue with digital only, we just need legislation that forces some form of “ownership” beyond just a license.



  • Someone mentioned in a lower level reply, but Startrek and the Orville are great for political / social commentary.

    I think a fair amount of sitcoms have some element of educating on social norms. Seinfeld and Its Always Sunny maybe require more prior knowledge about subject matters, but covering things like abortion, immigration, racism, etc.

    Mythbusters and similar are pretty good about being “adult” science shows.

    Maybe documentaries don’t really count as “entertainment” the way you’re looking for, but Planet Earth is a great series.








  • jacksilver@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    The difference everyone always ignores is that most of Chinese infrastructure is new. For the US they’d need to buy people out of their land, build new tunnels and bridges, and disrupt so many things to implement high speed rail.

    You can’t just leverage the existing rail network because they have curves and grades that are incompatible with high speed rail (northeast corridor has 30-40mph limits on some curves).

    In addition you’re competing with airplanes which are already proven and support current travel demands. And even if you could get the rail implemented there isn’t any guarantee it’ll be any cheaper than flight (meaning low usage). As it stands today going from major hub on Amtrak can be more expensive and takes an equal amount of time (when accounting for security/etc.)


  • I feel like people forget how much infrastructure is required to keep high speed rail running. Not only do you need the stations, but the tracks (bridges, tunnels, etc.) all need to be maintained. Additionally, when doing maintenance you can’t run the line, so you either need extra capacity so you don’t disrupt service or you end up with times you have to shut lines down.

    In comparison, planes just need a strip of flat land at takeoff and landing (you technically don’t even need an airport). You’re primary bottleneck is how fast you can get planes on/off the tarmac.

    One of the other big issues in rail vs plane is that high speed rail only works at certain grade levels and turn radiuses. So for example, I believe you couldn’t convert the existing northeast corridor in the US to 300mph rail from end to end simply due to the geography. You’d need to create a new route. Looking it up there are speed limits around 30-40mph for Amtrak around Baltimore and Wilmington.