Let me rephrase on infrastructure. Car and Air infrastructure is obviously as developed (footprint, accessibility, sophistication, etc.) in Europe and China compared to the US. Utilization proportions is going to be different because US lacks HSR. That Americans use cars more than other countries doesn’t mean those countries have less developed car infrastructure for the needs of their populations.

Perhaps you should reread those points

And again, other US infrastructure projects that deal with the same obstacles show they don’t prevent development. So they’re weak excuses. I am very open to reasonable or more specific explanations as to why HSR development in California is justifiably dead.

Oh, do you “enjoy” air and car travel in California?

I think it’s a little strange to say Europe and China and even Japan lack the car and air infrastructure the US does, car culture sure.

My response was more asking to clarify what your response to OP was. The OP meme points out an embarassing gap between how other places have built HSR much to the benefit of its people while California has yet to lay a single line after a decade of promises for a people who want and stand to benefit from HSR. You pointed out obstacles that China doesn’t face, but none of these obstacles are insurmountable and have been overcome in other US projects, so how is the decade of broken promises not an embarassing tragedy?

If your point is that it’s harder and more expensive to build HSR in the US than in China, so what? The US builds massive infrastructure that’s more regulated and more expensive than the equivalent in China all the time. None of your points adequately explain why no HSR has been built in California and has only just started being built in the US broadly compared to what’s been built around the world in the last decade.

2048

You don’t need to be a therapist or psychologist to not shoot someone having a mental health crisis

How would you describe the media is treating it and how should the media be treating presidents who share such imagery regardless of party?

I think it’s one thing for a private citizen to do this, but it would be another thing for a sitting/former president running for election to do the same

The comic is not implying that every single time a woman says no to man, that man will do something bad. It is saying that often when a woman wants to say no to a man, they have to do an internal calculation to answer questions like “Can I trust this man to respond okay to a No? How likely will they say something rude, or escalate to harassment? What do I do if he gets physically persistent? Is he going to get pissed off if I say no and come after me when I leave?”

Usually the answer is “he’s probably fine”, but women do have to go through the calculation much more than men typically. And that’s kinda fucked up.

The comic is saying “just say no” ignores/dismisses the non-negligible risk of just saying no.

Yeah, fuck the media. Instead, you should try talking to the women close to you about their experiences turning men down. Some might have no issues and think nothing of it, some might have good reason to be calculating. Don’t take it from me.

Exactly, you should stop listening to media and start listening to the experiences of women close to you instead.

Understanding and explaining how people may develop a perspective is not a defense of those people or their perspective. Simply saying “They’re morons, end of story” is unproductive. Denouncing a nuanced examination of the problem of distrust in healthcare is counterproductive. You can humanize without condoning. And clearly the intention was to address the problem in a meaningful way.

Or maybe I’m mistaken and the solution is “Stop being morons. End of story.” /s

You forgot, corporations are people too. And who are the most important people in the world??

If they set a 10 year goal it may take 20 years to hit 80% of goals, if they set a 20 year goal it’ll take 40 years to hit 50%, if they set a 50 year goal…

Nobody thinks this is a realistic goal, but the target gives a concrete number to set a mandate on which actually pragmatic policies, funding projects, and incentives can hang their hat on to keep the ball rolling.

With big infrastructure developments, nobody wants to buy into realistic goals, it’s too costly, and there’s never enough political will. You set overly ambitious goals so you can get people to buy in and then the project is too big to fail, so you end up paying what it actually costs, and you try to mitigate waste, unanticipated problems, corruption, and poor management along the way.

That’s not an insult, it’s a specific form of trolling/harassment called sealioning.