|
Alkydere posted:Oh, you're talking about non-RSP picking where it's dozens of people walking up and down aisles of stuff. Yeah, my facility is an AR sort facility (Amazon Robotics). Yeah non AR-Sort facilities are either old buildings made before Amazon had ALL the money or they're dealing with specialty/large items. I never want to work in an non-AR-Sort facility. Yeah, this was years ago, full manual picking with just your trusty Amazon pick scanner tracking your pick rate as your only friend. Amazon doesn't even use the facility anymore and it may even be empty now. I want to say it used to be (in part) a large book warehouse, which gives some insight into how and why they were using it.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
Azhais posted:Nothing like being stuck at a rail crossing when one of those 4 mile long trains rolls through I assume the grade is why that circles around like that rather than taking the more direct route?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
DelphiAegis posted:I assume the grade is why that circles around like that rather than taking the more direct route? Metal wheels on metal rails results in very bad traction. Trains can't handle much of a grade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
DelphiAegis posted:I assume the grade is why that circles around like that rather than taking the more direct route? Looks like a pretty significant elevation change, the direct route would be a hill too steep to climb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
d3lness posted:If only there were some way to balance expenses and not have to worry about profits. Maybe if there were a program we could all pay into with taxes. Like, something we socially agree on. Maybe we could even open this transportation up for general public use. This has nothing to do with profitability. It's about efficiency. A project doesn't magically stop becoming inefficient by making it a public work. It just means you're wasting the limited taxpayer funds on a Detroit-Cincinnati line that'll never gets above 30% ridership (and, because of that low ridership, will gradually get less and less funding and become more run-down and dangerous as time goes on).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
You can't point to amtrack use in the Midwest as a reason for avoiding an actual functioning rail. Who the gently caress wants to get up at 3am to hop on a train? Plane transport is what should be compared. It is the only convenient option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:Yeah, the biggest problem is that passenger rail needs its own track. And you've got to have enough destinations/money in the areas to make that level of infrastructure investment worth it. Like, the Acela corridor for Amtrak is basically the perfect position. You've got DC -> Baltimore -> Philadelphia -> New York -> Boston, all major population centers, all in a row so it's a straight-shot end-to-end, and all close enough that it's only 7 hours end-to-end for a high-speed train. That's not something you can really find anywhere else in the country. Like, try to figure out the most efficient way to set up high speed rail that would service the US Midwest... I live in rural Minnesota and I've watched for decades now as various proposals come and go for high speed rail between the Twin Cities and Chicago, and it has always struck me as a solution in search of a problem. The latest failed proposal called for a 110 mph train that would make the trip in 4.5 hours and ... well, that just drops it down from the current 8 hours (according to Amtrak's site). For $1.2 billion dollars, I'm having a hard time seeing the justification. For reference, a Grayhound ticket for the same route takes 9 hours and costs $37 one way. A round trip flight would normally be $150-200 (the same price as a train ticket currently) and take about 90 minutes, not counting the time at the airport of course. Like, if the plan is to ban domestic air travel, or curtail it so that short hop domestic flights aren't allowed, that's one thing, but the vast distances out here mean you're not getting commuters between major cities or day-trippers without cutting edge trains getting those times down around where flights are, and good luck getting funding for that when most states struggle to get funding to repair roads and bridges. I totally get it out on the coasts, but ... yeah, good luck getting that poo poo nationwide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:Yeah, the biggest problem is that passenger rail needs its own track. And you've got to have enough destinations/money in the areas to make that level of infrastructure investment worth it. Like, the Acela corridor for Amtrak is basically the perfect position. You've got DC -> Baltimore -> Philadelphia -> New York -> Boston, all major population centers, all in a row so it's a straight-shot end-to-end, and all close enough that it's only 7 hours end-to-end for a high-speed train. That's not something you can really find anywhere else in the country. Like, try to figure out the most efficient way to set up high speed rail that would service the US Midwest... The dumbest thing is some of it is there. There is rail service from Milwaukee to Chicago and Chicago to Gary, In, but not MKE to Minneapolis or Madison or Chicago to Minneapolis
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:(and, because of that low ridership, will gradually get less and less funding and become more run-down and dangerous as time goes on). You now understand how public works shouldn't function. Congratulations! The whole idea is to let sections with income prop up those without to make sure communities get serviced equally. Cutting off funding leads to a nasty downward spiral that ends in a failed system and a heavily underserved community. Claiming that the problem is inefficiency is the same as saying it's an issue with profitability. The end goal should be equal and affordable service and nothing else. On a side note, maybe don't use a top heavy corporation as an example on how impossible a task is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:You can't point to amtrack use in the Midwest as a reason for avoiding an actual functioning rail. Who the gently caress wants to get up at 3am to hop on a train? Plane transport is what should be compared. It is the only convenient option. I wasn't comparing it to current Amtrak use. It's that these are smaller markets spread out over long distances and it becomes difficult to make the economics work. If a new high-speed train came along and 100% of the people who were gonna fly from Detroit to Cincinnati on a typical weekday took that train instead, it would barely fill up 1 train. So now you're maintaining a line longer than Paris to Brussels that will only run 1-2 trains a day. Look, I'm a huge train fan. I was taking Amtrak at least once a month before the 'rona hit. I think it's an absolute blessing for the Acela corridor and the best way to travel between those cities. But there are just huge chunks of the US where it doesn't make sense. EDIT: d3lness posted:You now understand how public works shouldn't function. Congratulations! The whole idea is to let sections with income prop up those without to make sure communities get serviced equally. Cutting off funding leads to a nasty downward spiral that ends in a failed system and a heavily underserved community. Claiming that the problem is inefficiency is the same as saying it's an issue with profitability. The end goal should be equal and affordable service and nothing else. Okay, so clearly you're living in a fantasy world where expensive, little-used public services aren't at the top of the list when it's time for governments to cut budgets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 22:07
|
|
|
High speed rail probably wouldn't really work in the USA, aside from maybe a couple of key corridors like the atlantic coast, SF-LA, and the rust belt, because there just isn't train-level demand to get from like Kansas City to Louisville in 90 minutes. For the people who do have that need, there are plenty of airplanes. Yeah they cost a little more and the total travel time is longer than a theoretical high-speed rail trip. But the economics aren't there to replace it. I think once electric aviation begins to take off (pun intended) the high-speed rail demand will dry up. Electric planes will have a shorter range and lower passenger capacity than combustion engine planes for a long time, but they also have a much lower operating cost. That opens the possibility of shifting away from the current hub-and-spoke airport model to a much more mesh-like model, with small planes flying a few dozen people directly from one small town to another instead of everyone transferring at some giant class B airport. That will dramatically reduce both the overall flying time and the time spent dealing with airport bullshit, probably pushing the total time below even an optimistic high-speed rail proposal, but with zero new infrastructure beyond charging points at the airports that already exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:Okay, so clearly you're living in a fantasy world where expensive, little-used public services aren't at the top of the list when it's time for governments to cut budgets. As I said, shouldn't work. There is a huge systemic problem involved, but any solution you come up with in the current framework is doomed to fail regardless. Again, thank you for highlighting one of the biggest issues with public transportation no matter the vehicle involved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:I live in rural Minnesota and I've watched for decades now as various proposals come and go for high speed rail between the Twin Cities and Chicago, and it has always struck me as a solution in search of a problem. So the flight is the same cost as the train ticket but a flight takes 90 minutes compared to the passenger train's 4.5 hours. 110MPH is pretty slow for a long distance train, most European intercity trains do anything from 160-180ish. Ok. So you are flying for 90 minutes. But you also have 90 minutes at the airport going through security, getting to the gate, making sure you are on time, plus maybe 30 minutes at the other end, more if you need to wait for a checked bag. Airports are also out in the middle of nowhere so you need to get to where the aiport is, and then get from the airport to somewhere useful at the other end. If that's more than 30 minutes at each end, your plane trip just took longer than the train took to go city centre to city centre. However, that 4.5+ hours for your air trip was spent moving from one place to another place, queuing, waiting, moving. You get maybe an hour on the plane to relax and get a device out before they make you stow it for landing. On the train, you rock up to the station, get on the train and can spend every minute of those 4.5 hours resting, working, playing a game, watching movies, whatever. I loving love taking a train for any sub 5 hour flight time, it's way more relaxing, and not usually any slower when you count all of the externalities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
Xakura posted:Incredible I guess I should have used a sarcasm tag. I was riffing on the silicon valley trope of reinventing things like trains and busses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 22:23
|
|
energy. Just because you guys haven't figured it out, doesn't mean quality passenger rail is impossible.
|
It's so frustrating because if you travel around Europe the train system is amazing. Then you come back here and think, hey trains would be cool here too. But you can't even mention this because every internet poster will fall all over themselves to tell you why you can't run a Sioux Falls to Winnipeg line at a profit. No poo poo. We all know no one is getting on a train in Winnemucca Nevada and riding the rails to Williston North Dakota to see the farmstead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
The carbon footprint from frequent/regular domestic air travel is an ecological nightmare, not even counting the lead poisoning aspect. It should absolutely not be handwaved away in a statement like "unless you're willing to get rid [of it]". We have to get rid of it if we want to survive
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
I just got a job where we have offices in Milwaukee and Chicago and I’m looking forward to riding the Haiawatha between them and playing hella Nintendo Switch while I do it
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:So the flight is the same cost as the train ticket but a flight takes 90 minutes compared to the passenger train's 4.5 hours. 110MPH is pretty slow for a long distance train, most European intercity trains do anything from 160-180ish. Yeah, I'm not arguing that flying is a great experience and I absolutely prefer trains for shorter stuff. However, most people flying from MSP to Chicago aren't stopping in Chicago. They're catching a connecting flight at O'Hare or Midway to somewhere else and that's just leg 1 of their trip. I've flown to Chicago numerous times from MSP, and never once actually left the airport in Chicago. That's a pretty common experience for Minnesota flyers. The point is, the distance between all these Midwest cities is huge, and spending a literal billion dollars is a hard sell when the only justification is "now it's as fast as a plane, once you factor in time at the airport". Like, if the proposal was $6 billion and it made it 90 minutes from the Twin Cities to Chicago, that's something you can make the case for. That's an improvement that could actually change the dynamics of travel between those cities. But that's not and never has been on the table (not even sure it's feasible at any cost, but w/e)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
Trains are hosed in the states because the government spent like 40 years telling everyone public transport was bad and the car is the future, as a sort of bailout to the american auto industry. Now your infrastructure is built entirely around that. this is then coupled with Hollywood thinking people are stupid that unless they use a 1980's train or bus in a film or TV show, no one will know what it is, giving the perception to the general public as a whole that trains and buses are tiny, rattling metal shitboxes held together with duct tape and full of crack addicts... which isn't really true these days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 22:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JanFredrikD/status/1268270255509512193?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
Jokerpilled Drudge posted:The carbon footprint from frequent/regular domestic air travel is an ecological nightmare, not even counting the lead poisoning aspect. It should absolutely not be handwaved away in a statement like "unless you're willing to get rid [of it]". We have to get rid of it if we want to survive Lead poisoning is the one thing you don't have to worry about with jet and turbo prop planes. You don't have to get rid of domestic air travel, you have to get rid of fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:Yeah, the biggest problem is that passenger rail needs its own track. And you've got to have enough destinations/money in the areas to make that level of infrastructure investment worth it. Like, the Acela corridor for Amtrak is basically the perfect position. You've got DC -> Baltimore -> Philadelphia -> New York -> Boston, all major population centers, all in a row so it's a straight-shot end-to-end, and all close enough that it's only 7 hours end-to-end for a high-speed train. That's not something you can really find anywhere else in the country. Like, try to figure out the most efficient way to set up high speed rail that would service the US Midwest...  Use a ferry to connect Cleveland and Detroit. Phanatic posted:Looks like a pretty significant elevation change, the direct route would be a hill too steep to climb. It’s the Tehachapi Loop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
Quick clay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q-qfNlEP4A
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:Lead poisoning is the one thing you don't have to worry about with jet and turbo prop planes. Are you talking about electric passenger planes? I'm down for this
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 23:47
|
|
|
Jokerpilled Drudge posted:The carbon footprint from frequent/regular domestic air travel is an ecological nightmare, not even counting the lead poisoning aspect. What's the lead poisoning aspect of regular domestic air travel? Jet engines don't burn leaded gas. And the carbon footprint from domestic air travel is a rounding error. 87% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are from burning fossil fuels. 22% of that 87% is from transportation. Of that 22% of 87%, 11% is aviation. That's a bit over 2% of human CO2 emissions. If that's an "ecological nightmare," what do you consider coal power? Or marine shipping?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
Jokerpilled Drudge posted:Are you talking about electric passenger planes? I'm down for this Planes using bio/synthetic fuel, hybrid or full electric turbines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 00:10
|
|
|
drat, that's some nasty stuff to get caught up in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 00:11
|
|
|
When I saw "mudslide" I thought a wall of mud sweeping the buildings out to sea, not the goddamn mountain itself going for a swim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 00:19
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:What's the lead poisoning aspect of regular domestic air travel? Jet engines don't burn leaded gas. While it may have been "2%" at one point, it's growing at a very fast clip and will account for a very sizable chunk of 'the budget'. of course, those other examples are ecological nightmares as well 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Jokerpilled Drudge posted:While it may have been "2%" at one point, it's growing at a very fast clip and will account for a very sizable chunk of 'the budget'. of course, those other examples are ecological nightmares as well https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/aviation "CO2 emissions from aviation accounted for around 2.5% of global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2018." There's so much more low-hanging fruit to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
Jokerpilled Drudge posted:The carbon footprint from frequent/regular domestic air travel is an ecological nightmare, not even counting the lead poisoning aspect. It should absolutely not be handwaved away in a statement like "unless you're willing to get rid [of it]". We have to get rid of it if we want to survive Source any of that. Leaded gasoline is only used in rich people pleasure aircraft, not commercial aircraft. Commercial aircraft are equivalent to buses per person mile in efficiency. Phanatic posted:https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/aviation And don't even look at how much of that aviation fuel is used in military dickwaving. If you only count civilian aviation, it's even less.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There's so much more low-hanging fruit to deal with. There’s bigger fruit, but it ain’t low‐hanging.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:There’s bigger fruit, but it ain’t low‐hanging. Here's one example article but lawn mowers are worse for both. https://www.scientificamerican.com/...0lawn%20mowers. If we just stopped the stupidity of the American lawn, it would reduce CO2 emissions more and reduce aquifer depletion and reduce greenhouse gases worse than CO2 and reduce fertilizer pollution... lawns are so much worse than air travel and completely frivolous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 01:12
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/pOMQ5ju.gifv I was fine till it switched to the cockpit view, then I went 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
Ah yes I forgot about the wisdom of the 'one thing at a time' approach to environmental justice
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 01:33
|
|
|
Jokerpilled Drudge posted:Ah yes I forgot about the wisdom of the 'one thing at a time' approach to environmental justice Lawns, international shipping, meat eating, military largesse, suburbia, coal, gem mining, out of season vegetables, microplastics. Air travel isn't even top 10 in environmental concerns. It's safe and efficient unless you just want to ban long distance travel entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:Lawns, international shipping, meat eating, military largesse, suburbia, coal, gem mining, out of season vegetables, microplastics. Air travel isn't even top 10 in environmental concerns. It's safe and efficient unless you just want to ban long distance travel entirely. Don't forget coal power, concrete manufacturing, and glassmaking https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://reader.chathamhouse.org/making-concrete-change-innovation-low-carbon-cement-and-concrete https://china.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbl_glass_final.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tw_kotsujiko/status/1268058576532025344?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
that's just straight up magic
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 02:31
|
|
