keyboard_slap

Texas' high property taxes play an important role. Owners are incentivized to permit new development to satisfy demand and keep their taxes low.

...or expressing the opinion that there's more to manhood or womanhood than a declaration of manhood or womanhood. I don't want to get into a debate about transgender politics here, but it should be acknowledged that such debates were (still are?) impossible to have on Reddit.

It could work, but would it be cost-competitive?

Portable SSD?

In some sleepy suburb you must pay for food delivery or hop in your car and drive to the restaurant. In Manhattan you could pay for delivery or skip delivery altogether and walk to one of the half-dozen (at least) restaurants on your block.

Because most public transit simply isn't profitable

On this small scale, rebuilding would likely be more expensive than this tunnel. But extending this network to every home would be (IMO) on the same order of magnitude as redevelopment in cost, complexity, and time. Redevelopment is complicated during construction but this system is also complicated forever. Our cities are already being rebuilt piece-by-piece every day; I'd just like zoning laws to permit rebuilding with mixed use and higher density development

I'm American and have lived most of my life in American suburbs. I don't like them very much, and I don't like the imperial system.

I don't think denser development is a short term solution, but I don't like short term solutions either. Short term planning is part of what made traffic in cities like Atlanta so bad. And IMO it seemed like a fair suggestion because extending these tunnels to every house in suburban Atlanta wouldn't be a short process either.

I'm not objecting to convince in favor of density because there isn't a choice to be made between the two. You can have convenience in low or high density development. The difference is in cost and complexity; high density development has all the convenience with fewer delivery costs

What problem is this system trying to solve? It seems to be, in this initial deployment, that the office park is too far away from the restaurants its employees want to visit, compelling them to drive there. I feel like a better solution would be permitting denser and mixed-use development, so employees can walk to their favorite restaurants on the ground floor instead of driving >1km to them or paying for a delivery tunnel.

To a point. Their usefulness is typically eclipsed by trains, drones, and direct insertion in the late game.

Let's extend the metaphor. If you're trying to move a small, intermittent supply of products from around 1km away to your base, do you build an underground belt (this startup's gadgetbahn) or connect it to your rail network (existing roads and sidewalks)?

> That is not what the survey shows.

In OP's article, doesn't the survey show that conservative respondents are about as likely to allow campus speakers who espoused liberal opinions as ones who espoused conservative opinions?

> No nuance can save C1-3.

Sure it can, at least for C1. If gender dysphoria isn't a mental disorder, then its treatment doesn't need to be covered by health insurance.

The liberal talking points used in the survey (2nd Amendment should be repealed, religious liberty is used to justify discrimination, structural racism exists) are also just repeats of the same argument we've heard a million times over. While I agree that novelty should be an important factor in choosing a campus speaker, it's clear that most respondents to the survey don't; they support unoriginal talking points from one side of the political spectrum and not the other.