That suggests a lack of correlation between those two qualities.

Understood! I’m just thinking about my own life, where I feel like I’ve noticed an inverse correlation between conscientiousness and sexual attractiveness in the men that I know.

I have a built-in hand soap pump in the kitchen, and a big bottle in the bathroom. Plus, separate refill bottles for each. No one wants to come over to my house. With the popularity of the bad-boy archetype, I have to wonder if there’s some sort of correlation?

UAV meaning Unmanned Autonomous Vehicle. (In contrast to rideshare services, like Uber. When they were heavily subsidized, it must be noted, they increased traffic congestion.) Availability of them will increase. The reason that we have an auto-dominated landscape today is that car makers wanted to sell more cars. There’s approximately 0% chance that car makers today will be satisfied selling a limited number of vehicles for ride services, when they could sell vastly more cars to individuals.

Is that realistic, though? A car is already a status toy, what’s to stop conspicuous consumption in the form of buying one’s own self-driving car? Or, say, moving to a cheaper house further from the city, because commute time can now be used as work time? Shared cars won’t work in that scenario.

Also, rush hour is still a thing. There have to be enough UAVs to handle peak demand, and then most of them will be parked somewhere, idle most of the time. Or running errands. Traffic congestion is bad enough now, with average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 people; it’ll be apocalyptic when that number drops below one.

Also, in cities with sky-high housing costs, i guarantee that people will live in self-driving RVs, because road space is “free.”

In short, the only way to realize the benefits of the shared UAV future is to ban private car ownership, and cap the number of UAVs in a city. That sounds a lot like a train, except trains’ enormous capacity offers better service.

I understand that Platner can be divisive, but that aside, I seem to recall some unpopular, four-term President declaring that he welcomed that hate from his adversaries. Probably a bad idea to do the same; he might win with that kind of messaging, and winning is against the Democratic ethos.

I have to ask, if it really takes 30 years to get infrastructure in place to reduce car use (it doesn’t, but for the sake of argument), then shouldn’t we be starting on it, like, yesterday? Where are all of those efforts? Are EVs really just a stop-gap measure?