ocb

> Sadly, I personally can't see how this remains to be the case any longer... RBR with Newey or Dall'Igna with Ducati have been in championship dry-spells for a really long time (last year's win for RBR was the first championship where Mercedes didn't dominate all season like they have since the introduction of the V6) and have only managed to come 2nd best for some time.

I don't buy this. The basis for TFA and the reason Newey is back in the spotlight is because of this current season. RBR is the only team that has nailed the regulations change. The porpoising issue alone makes this clear.

It's a case of the relatively spread out development pattern and associated wide rights of way being advantageous. Minneapolis can tack on fairly substantial bike infrastructure without totally screwing over cars, which would be just as politically difficult in Minneapolis as any other American city.

The Grand Rounds help a lot too. It's a great basis to have inherited from the past.

> Do people really spend that much more time outside than I do? Am I some sort of sky-avoiding freak?

Haha, have you noticed how half of the cars suddenly have ski racks as of the past month or so?

Your point is valid but the person you replied to was specifically asking about Boston. I admittedly don’t know a lot about the public transit infrastructure in Boston but I have a hard time believing it’s less extensive than e.g. Seattle, where public high school students use the standard bus system, with the school district paying for special limited routes where the normal bus routes lack coverage.

Isn't the whole point of a space telescope so that you don't need adaptive optics? Or are you making a joke?

I think it's ridiculous that the author poses the question of why anyone would want to live there and then immediately waves it off with "it's a whole other story". So, thanks for sharing at least one detail about why anyone lives there.

There's also a very verbose description of the geographical context of this place... and no map.

It's like the author ran out of time and just submitted the article without changing anything.

Could you clarify why those things are mutually exclusive? And to be clear: I don't know how to feel about Bitcoin and the attention it has received lately.

I'm certain there's some compelling argument to made about Amazon abusing its market position but this isn't it.

You say "Prime has been proven to be losing money the more a customer buys" like that isn't an obvious consequence of having flat pricing for shipping. The idea that Prime and Amazon's shipping as a whole are a loss leader isn't a new insight.

I'm not going to engage with you beyond this but that doesn't even make sense given that the US makes up ~4-5% of the world population.

Ignoring your completely made up percentiles and the fact that you're a right-wing troll, poor people in the US get to call themselves poor because they face real problems where the not-poor don't. Access to healthy food, healthcare, housing, quality education, etc. are all diminished for low-income people.

What kind of psychopath-filled nightmare land do you live in?

This is extremely misleading. The pro-status quo party boycotted the referendum. I'm relatively ignorant of the political situation in PR but it's obvious that this isn't a situation with near-universal consensus.

If you live in the US that can't be true. The Interstate Highway System, state highways, etc. are government funded infrastructure that isn't funded locally. The mortgage market is also distorted/subsidized nationwide by the federal government. I'm not sure about sewers.

This is getting very off topic, but I think that's a terrible basis for disregarding the ethical argument against eating meat. Why is it "species-ist" to think that mammals and other animals with highly developed nervous systems might have a conscious experience similar to our own (and not plants)?