jokteur

I am aware that the country is extremly small.

Here is the thing: the DFW metro area (from Wikipedia) has > 8.3M residents, Switzerland has 9.1M residents. The DFW metro density sits at 339.9/km2 (I took the conurbation number which has a lower number), and Switzerland sits at 207/km2.

So, in your example, Switzerland has less density than the metro area you mentionned, and yet it has much better public transit. Half of swiss population lives in tiny villages with no more than 5'000 residents. The last mile problem is also a problem for Switzerland. And yes, our summers are also hot, and winters even worse with lots of rain and snow. Not counting the mountainnous terrain, for example the city of Lausanne has difference in elevation of 400m, which is challenging to do by bike.

My point here is: you don't need a lot of density to create transit. It does not depend on the absolute size of the country. Yes, changing a city is hard (especially politically and culturally). But you need repave streets every 20 to 30 years anyways. You could make the city better by just changing how you decide to allocate the space every time you need to redesign a street.

Fun fact: you can do Zürich Madrid with 3 transfers and 14 hours. The car will take 16 hours. Obviously, nobody is going to do that, and the plane is a better alternative. Your example does not get solved by autonomous cars, I am quite certain nobody is going to do this in a rideshare either.

Most people commute to the nearest city, move within a city, or go see friends in a neighboring city. Yes, US is much bigger, but I am quite certain that most people don't do more than 75km on a daily basis. The US still has plenty of medium and high density, where good public transit would make a lot of sense, but it is seriously lacking. It is a political decision, not a inevitable fact of life that the US has poor transit compared to other countries.

The correct question to answer would be: how do you move people efficiently in a 75km radius? Are there trips that could be solved with a good train, tram or bus? Do you provide streets with bike lanes such that people feel safe riding the bike? What about pedestrians? Are autonomous cars really solving the congestion problem? Most of these cars still need to be parked during the night when demand is lower, exactly like a railyard. However, the space taken by one person in one car is much higher than any other forms of transit.

My point here is: autonomous rideshares may displace taxi services and Uber. But most importantly, good street and city design, which is hard but not impossible, matters much more than solving the autonomous car problem.

I live in Switzerland. Public transit goes _everywhere_, even remote villages and mountains. This is by design, such that one can only use public transit to go almost everywhere in the country.

Is public transit always more convenient than the individual car ? No, but you can make the conscious choice of not owning a car, even if you need to raise a family. Switzerland has a high rate of car ownership, because we have a lot of money to spend. But many people, even if they own a car, will sometimes use public transit, because it is convenient, safe and comfortable.

There are places in Switzerland where if you need to take a taxi or an Uber, you will have to wait more than 30 minutes before one gets there. At this point, it is more convenient to take the regional bus that goes every 30 minutes. Even if the public transit frequency is every hour, I can plan my journey to arrive on the correct time (also, public transit is synchronised in the whole country to avoid waiting times).

I can see autonomous rideshares displacing taxi service and such. I think automonous rideshares still need density to be profitable. So if you need to subsidise rideshare to cover the whole country, why not properly invest in public transit?

Yes, but Spotify increasly does nothing against AI generated music that gets inserted into playlists, auto recommendation feature, ...

So now, artists are competing against AI generated music, that is often manipulated to take listening spots away from actual artists.

Many of the dams in Switzerland have been built before the fifties and sixties, when environmental concerns were much lower. While most of the dams have been built high up in the mountains, a few villages have been buried by the dams.

Today, it would be infeasible creating new dams. The only thing we can do, is raise the height of some existing dams, adds pumping stations and optimise water flow between the dams.

We have national media (German: srf, French/Italian: rts, Romanche: rtr), people consume that, and a few medias that have multiple language versions like 20minutes.

We also have a few language specific medias (German: NZZ, Tagesanzeiger, Blick, ..., French: Le Temps, 24 heures, La Liberté, ...), but I think most people consume Swiss media, especially when Swiss politics and local afairs are absolutely not covered by French and German medias.

French part of Switzerland is much more left leaning, so I can expect more anti-nuclear sentiment on this side. But the sentiment of nuclear depends purely on which party you vote for, I don't think the language itself has an impact.

But, Germany's decision after Fukushima to close down all nuclear reactors has had a strong impact on the 2017 votation that banned nuclear in Switzerland. So I guess the influence is there.

This still has to pass with the people in a referendum.

The discourse on nuclear is still quite chaotic in politics in Switzerland. All left leaning parties and greens parties are strongly against nuclear. I am not expecting informed and civil discussions about this topic.

Switzerland has a summer/winter energy problem. We have lots of potential of producing energy in the spring and summer (when our dams are full from the melting of snow and the sun is shining), and much less so in the winter. We can still improve 10 to 20% our hydro production, but that's it. All the water sheds are already well used and rely on our glaciers to replenish, which will become less predictable with climate change.

We shouldn't completely closing the doors to all forms of nuclear technology. Obviously, we can't build blindy without any considerations. But we may need it on the second half of the century, especially if we are going to electrify all forms of transport. We can't be buying France's nuclear energy all the time.

High speed travel in Europe is quite affordable. A 3h train trip (~360 miles, like the distance between Toronto and Montreal) costs about 40€ in Italy or in France if you buy in advance.

Yes, a 1MW solar plant point has about half the radius as a 1000MW hydroelectric plant point.

I would love to be able to use Rust in my professional project. Unfortunately, I am doing high performance scientific computing. Rust doesn't even come close to offer any good alternative to cross-plateform, cross-device (CPU/GPU) libraries such as OpenMP Target, Kokkos, SYCL, ... I believe we need Nvidia/AMD to take Rust seriously (I'm not sure it is even possible without unsafe everywhere) to be able to offer good libraries.

In my world, using C++ is the modern language, because most project are stuck with Fortran.

I'm getting symmetric 10 Gbps for 49CHF (~54$) per month in Switzerland, and this is one of the most expensive countries in the world.

Mathematica is still unparalleled in computer algebra. Yes, you can do computer algebra with Matlab or sympy, but I know a few theoreticians who use Mathematica to derive complicated equations.

I agree with you.

The thing is, compared to some of the scientific codes out there, GPU are quite recent. Sometimes, slapping OpenMP pragma on the code is not sufficient to take advantage of accelerators, and thus you would need a significant rewrite.

But rewriting a scientific code is a daunting task. Often you have a code where there have been two decades of PhD and Postdocs fine tuning the scientific code, and the numerical schemes in the code do not correspond to the original article anymore. Nobody knows anymore exactly how the code works, and rewriting the code would require that the rewrite matches all the features of the original code (and reproduces the same results). It is basically an impossible task, especially when the labs don't have the resources to hire software engineers.

In practice, nobody wants to rewrite scientific codes for GPU (and sometimes, the problem is fundamentally incompatible with GPU architecture). So as a compensation, they slap some OpenMP pragmas on some parts of the code, hope for the best, and anyways Nvidia clusters are more common than AMD (at least in the scientific world), so OpenMP barely compiling for AMD is not a problem.

This means that legacy scientific codes are pretty much stuck with the CPUs. And in the scientific world, Fortran for HPC CPUs is still the language of choice.