Most of the JS bloat comes from really aggressive analytics, error tracking, and a/b testing. Not many developers are willing or given approval to remove these features up for smaller bundle sizes.
Anything under $2.25/watt would put it within under a 4 year payback period, Alberta has good rates for solar. Rooftop solar doesn't have operating costs that I can think of unless you want to clean them and clear snow which is optional. And inverters usually have a 20-25 year warranty.
I don't think so. My financial situation isn't hers though, and I don't even own one. I borrowed a friend's for a 550 mile road trip this past weekend and then for a few days after. It's there enough to do the usual daily trips with minimal interaction, so while road trips is the obvious situation for it it's also really nice to have the rest of the time. It sucks that it costs so much when it could be free, but we still live under capitalism so that's just how that one goes.
The real world isn't A/B tests. No government is going to spend millions on equipment and infrastructure on a congestion zone because some engineers are like "Let's just test this out. I have done zero research on what could possibly happen, but it would be fun to see what the results are."
When you write it out like that, it seems to make total sense! But then you read grant proposals that get funded - in things like the social sciences and humanities, and even conventional science and health - millions of dollars essentially just throwing darts to see what sticks.
This makes perfect sense for a headless CMS. An editor might upload changes or a new article a few times per day/week into a database through a headless CMS. A webserver could make a request to the headless CMS/database for every web page load, but if the content doesn't change then the webpage can be computed and served statically.
The web server can compute just the changes per page or regenerate the whole site on any change on the backend.
And living near a highway is linked to health issues like cardiovascular disease, dementia, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and MS. More cars and road is not more healthy.
That's also true, but more people in Manhattan ride the subway than live live next to a highway and trading one pollution hazard for another isn't improving anything. It'd be a lot better to make the trains safe before forcing people onto them than to point to other people who are also being poisoned.
At this point it is clear you are trolling, either intentionally or not. You want to drive more people to cars, which are a leading cause of death in the United States. Trains don't even rank.
We've tried for decades to make cars safer. They still kill more people than virtually everything other than heart disease, lung disease, and cancer (which themselves are all positively correlated with car use).
No, and I never said that. Acting as if I just want more people to drive cars would be like me acting as if you just want to gas the poors in subway tunnels all so that you have less traffic to deal with while you drive into the city in your car.
By all means, let's get more people into trains and out of cars, but before we do that, let's remove the dangerously high levels of neurotoxin that makes the trains unsafe to use. It's not as if we can't, so why wouldn't we choose to?
Free streets are a handout to suburbanites that drive in and don't have to deal with constant congestion, pollution, noise, and collisions that people living in the congestion zone have to deal with.
I doubt you were old enough to be around and voting for councillors pushing for parking minimums back in the 1950s. You were born into a lot of rules you never chose or voted for. But you happen to like these parking rules.
