The ACTUAL Solution to Traffic - A Response to CGP Grey

On the Starship:
"Dear passengers, due to unfavorable surface weather conditions we'll be landing in Shanghai instead of Los Angeles. We apologize for the inconvenience."

Dame bruh ,it looks like you got some errors in you , must be the error in system that delay you from commenting this comment

funny horsie

I’ve already seen a video review for the VW EV released in the US that uses the phrase , reboot the car ,unironically .

Did you know Grey loves Tesla, is a big fan of SpaceX, and likes Musk in general?

@@jacksprat9209 Reject Detroit, Become Human.

Me: reject gray and adam, become smart.

@@fireshadow7598 Kill everyone?

The virgin tin can vs the chad diesel beast.

Oh my Lord this comment is perfect

LMAO

underrated comment

krplus.net/bidio/npSDrGiZg6_eeHY

I have a feeling you are on the other side of the mugging

The mugger is getting scammed then. You are paying for the experience before they take your money. Reducing what they can actually take.

Trains are the crabs/mustelids of travel infrastructure. Optimize something far enough, it becomes a train sooner or later.

It reminds me about an experiment from USSR. In 1950s when new cities were built, some architects have decided to fix traffic. They have spent few years and a lot of money to test different approaches like building extra roads, separating cars from pedestrians, using "green wave" lights (that one was implemented in Moscow, St Petersburg, Almaty and other big cities) etc. but ended up with conclusion that the most efficient way of organising traffic are trams. They have calculated that just one correctly placed tramway can replace roughly 5 lanes.

@@user-kh6nn4vj8m ha and in mexico is enough with 2-4 four lanes at most

Problem with trains is that you have to share it with stinky people

@Anno Kitsune I have a car

My family doctor is across town, because when I signed up that's where I lived and their office hasn't moved, but everything else is the same. Montreal

We just need a total overhaul of cities to include pedestrian arch bridges every 300 feet but, in practice, because of tight budgets, more like every 300 in commercial and upper income areas and every few miles in low income areas. Win-win.

The cars would stop. The point CGP Grey made is that humans driving cars stopping anywhere when a pedestrian crosses is unsafe and inefficient but self driving cars will be able to do it. So in theory a pedestrian could cross any time any where. Adam is strawmanning CGP Grey here by using a slippery slope into grade separation for pedestrians when nowhere did CGP Grey actually suggest that. Especially given that he a pedestrian living in London who doesn't own a car.

That's really not a hard problem to solve. Have you ever used a cross walk with a button you press when you want to cross? Just have that alert the self driving cars that someone is crossing, and they can stop. And you can allow the same gap in the traffic to allow people at intersections to cross the road as the gap gets to them. So one gap in traffic allows everyone in that direction down the street to cross as the gap gets to them. BUT, none of this is the real solution. All he did here was go one level deeper, from "There are too many cars" to "increase density and make things walkable", which isn't really getting to the fundamental issue. The issue is there are just too many people, and promoting increased density is exactly the wrong thing, as that means there will be even more people. It's the same stupid argument that he's disproving, but just replace "too many cars" with "too many people". If you look at the population of any other species, is it continually increasing all the time? No. But with people it is. So why just go one level deeper, and kick the can further down the road, rather than address the real problem.

@@gorak9000 What would your solution to an increasing population be?

Buttons to alert nearby cars sounds great on paper but that's a much harder idea to implement than you realize. A fully automated interconnected highway system is simply not scalable, having millions of independent vehicles means way too many failure points.

You know the crab thing

@@bugrilyus things also tend to evolve into sharks and crocodiles

As it should

How about making more trains instead of making cars into trains? Just a thought.

@@bugrilyus crabs are baby, everything evolves into worms. snakes are worms, and trains are worms too. bilateral symmetry is where it's at!

Londoners are lucky that they get so much public transport investment

@@uzidayo yeah the only downside is you sacrifice your ability to not be stabbed 😂😂

@@lil.dogbyte well at least when you learn the healthcare won't be so expensive 🤣🤣

@@itisshoe8437 It's funny cause more people are stabbed (per capita) in the US than in the UK - even without public transport.

@@itisshoe8437 yeah, they are quick for trauma. But that waiting list for serious conditions is inhumane.

ich war letzten oktober in texas, wollte whataburger probieren und dachte mir ich geh zu fuß „sind ja nur 2km“. bin vom airbnb losgegangen, es gab kaum bürgersteige und habe mehr als eine stunde gebraucht. und ich war nicht irgendwo in der wüste, ich war 10km von austin entfernt in round rock.

The European mindset in this video is extremely obvious.
Look at it this way, you can do daily errands with minor inconvenience (parking spaces, traffic, etc) or you can pay with time (waiting for the bus/train).
You are from Germany, how often is the bus and train reliable?! The amount of times that I've called my boss and said "bus number 1 was late, I missed my connection, I will be late" is ridiculous.

@@rareram The reliability of public transportation in Europe is still better than in the USA, and the ability to walk to the most important places in a city is still something to be considered. I don't really get your point?

@@ShotofDespresso a country that relies on public transportation is easier to disrupt than one that has citizens who have their own method of travel.
For example the country wide mass strike of the train, air, and bus workers did result in a peaceful day. I saw a lot less people at work. No plane noises overhead.
I agree that public transportation around a city is a good idea. But you have to realize that this video is proposing a blanket solution and the creator is saying that they don't care who is affected negatively. That's a very irresponsible way to attempt to change things.
In the usa people like to live in the vast region that they have. In Europe space is a very limited resource... So population is a bit more compact in general.
I feel like I'm rambling, but I guess my point is that both videos are a bad solution to the problem. Solutions need to be more specific to each region.

@@rarerameople can still drive in Europe lmao there is just a choice
If it doesn’t exist then your only option is driving

its so funny how cgp writhes around trains using language like "a connected set of cars that move in unison" and didnt think of a fucking train. tech bros are incredible

Is this some kind of pun or are you really that bad with crabs.

@@ciprianpopa1503 here krplus.net/bidio/p9qehGOKfo-0p6g

Carcinization does not mean that most sea creatures evolve into a crab like form, it only applies to non crab like crustaceans (and even then it's not a guaranteed process as there are advantages to being more shrimp/lobster like, and sometimes even the opposite can happen, where a crab like crustacean evolves into a less crab like body)

@@ciprianpopa1503 it's a meme about carcinization, a process that describes how crustaceans often evolve to have a more compact body plan over time

I mean, its true haha

@@Paco1337 Sure, but some people just prefer to drive (not me, I ride a bike). They wouldn't switch unless you make driving way more uncomfortable. And that would be mean. At least from a contemporary point of view. I for once really don't like to sit in a train. It's like (unattractive) people touching my genitals.

@@Paco1337 but here’s the thing it’s incredibly easy to F with train tracks not to mention how you would have to wait for one train to make around the number of 900 or more stops because not everyone can or wants to walk every where . Both trains and cars have down sides but it’s easy we to stop in front of where you want to go than having to walk there after 20 to 30 mins of waiting for everyone to get on the train . In order to make this work you would have to change how people think about personal transportation in order to not make this a waste of money .

only truths detected

@@wassollderscheiss33 I mean, we spent decades absolutely wrecking our cities to make them more convenient for drivers at the expense of everybody else. I don't think a course-correction in the opposite direction would be "mean", it's just a return to sanity.

Yet somehow safe and efficient automated train and transit systems already exist and are heavily relied upon in many places all over the world now. It's naïve to think that the technology won't continue to improve, evolve and be incorporated into even more complex systems in the future.

An automated train has a predetermined path it follows. Pretty much every part of its evironment is known ahead of time and doesn't change. The train can only move along the track.
A car, though, has to deal with movement in 2 dimensions and has to do it in an environment with tons outside variables that all regularly change. The complexity is really not comparable.

@@patrickherke8947 Like I said, it' naïve to think that technology won't continue to improve and evolve to the point where it can deal with more complex systems in the future.
Once upon a time people didn't believe automated trains were possible either. Heck even planes can entirely fly and land themselves these days if they have to and they operate in 3 dimensions nevermind 2 lol.
Automated vehicles are coming it's just a question of when, not if.

@@vejet Both planes and trains still have accidents, even when they're auto-piloted. Now imagine there still being millions of auto-pilot cars on the roads at once, that's millions more possible accidents.

@@vejet if you want that kind of security that you have with trains, you would need to restrict self driving to certain routes along certain paths that never change. You couldnt stop along the way as it would interrupt the flow, you also couldnt just take an exit, the exit would need to be planned ahead of time. Miles ahead of time.
What if we made it even more efficient and offered a sort of "catch a ride" system along side that? People who want to get to a certain destination could meet up beforehand, get into a car together. Maybe we can even sort those cars so the ones going into the same direction all take the exist one after the other, that way we would reduce the potential risk of catastrophic failure to merge AND we could even use that information to plan ahead of time so when 10 cars leave the path at an intersection, 10 miles down the line another group "knows" that a free space on the path is going to come along in a couple minutes. Speaking of failure, we can increase the reliability of our network if we hardlink all the cars that go to the same destination together, that way one can run out of battery or experience a failure in the drive system without breaking down and grinding the network to a halt. All of this requires a lot of computing time and requires quite exact timing, maybe we could make it so you have a predetermined time of depature, that way you can even plan around a time to leave when going for a little urban exploration session in the city youre visiting. Along the predetermined paths we could also install a different sort of ground and use different wheels to reduce rolling resistance, increasing the range while reducing maintenance and wear of our cars.
Wait a minute. I think i accidentally optimized our car system into a train network again. DAMMIT!
>Heck even planes can entirely fly and land themselves these days if they have to and they operate in 3 dimensions nevermind 2 lol.
If youve ever seen how Planes operate, youre gonna be really surprised. They fly along "corridors", which is airspace thats designated to civilian travel AND designated to certain directions. They have a height, width and length and what youre really doing is getting a plane on a course to insec into one of those corridors. Essentially, planes are trains with a higher energy usage but less dependancy on land based tracks. Thats why they are usually used for long range only.

True though. Simcity doesn't work without good public transit. Kudos to the designers.

Or roundabouts. You gotta love a roundabout.

Or just build public transit in Cities Skylines instead and pedestrianize the surface streets 😂

@@TheSkyGuy77 yep

it's a shame that EA stopped SimCity franchises. The game could flourish if they let Maxis continue producing SimCity the way Maxis intended

No people
No cars
No traffic

It's the ultimate techbro solution. People have problems, ergo: no more people, no more problems.

*_yeet the humans_*

honestly I foresee both eventually happening.
Well, trains are already very common in places that aren't managed by insane people.
But, self-driving cars are just eventually going to become normal as the last leg of a journey.
trains are awesome, but there are always lots of areas where trains can't reach. and people don't want to walk.
People already cover this leg of their journey with normal cars, and if they could, most people would press a button and let their car drive them.
Or, even better, we could have an uber-style system so nobody has to spend a ton of money on owning a car.

@@Nerobyrne Yeah. Though instead of self-driving cars, I think hybrids would be better. Technology isn't perfect, so it's always better to have a backup in case of emergency.
Cars are great, but they don't belong in the city.

I dont think its that simple. These cars communicate at the speed of light. They hypothetically could all stop simultaneously to avoid an accident

Well its a good thing our current system uses humans, who are known for never making a mistake!

Great accept I don't have access to public transportation and walking 2 hours to work and 2 hours back is not an option. A bicycle is viable but too dangerous because then I'd either be forced to share the road with drunk maniacs going 80+ miles per hour on the road or go into the woods slushing in puddles. Public transportation is about as accessible as the moon for the average American.

*interconnected pods, please

@@petelee2477 the solution isn't telling everyone to not drive and take public transit, but to improve public transit and make it viable so that you are able to make the choice and have it be an actual smart choice

I like trains

@@petelee2477 Yeah because the US politics prevented any efficient sometimes accessible public transportation.

Yeah, I also chuckled when he assumed that CGP wouldn't be able to "imagine his life without motorization". Have you seen his Las Vegas vlogs? Oh, how he hated having to drive everywhere.

Techno-Optimism and its Consequences
etc. etc.

Some of Grey's videos over the last couple of years are him walking or cycling around London!

@@lonestarr1490 Driving around in big cities objectively sucks

CGP is a science teacher. His favourite ideas will all work just great, for spherical cows in a vacuum. Just wish someone would forcefeed him Strong Towns, but he intentionally avoids consuming content too close to his own niche, so he hasn't experienced the joy of Map Men Map Men Map Map Map Men Men Men.
Men.

You even need to consider that a large amount of people really wants to drive, so there's no way to get rid of regular cars.

Actually no, it does training them a lot harder but it's definitely possible, even if take a lot of time. When successful they will be better than your average human driver in the proper human driving environment, and, how CGP said, they don't have to be perfect, just have to be better than humans.

Same way we removed horses from roads.

@@Skaypegote Dude, people still use horses on roads.

@@Skaypegote As someone who live near Amish country, horse are still used on roads.

It's understandable if you don't experience the alternatives. If you grow up in a car-centric environment, of course that's your first pick. It's what you know. And it might feel really odd for many people when you take away the one thing they know. "Then how the f do we get around?" It's hard to imagine when you never got to experience any alternative as a bus, train, tram, metro, bicycle, scooter, e-bike, even boat, or just the ability to walk. It won't cross your mind, because you never did any of that.
I totally get it how it got this way.

It is location dependent. If you think it's possible to change all towns and villages over to public transport you simply have no perspective outside an urban environment. It then gets trickier to public transportize when you need people to transit from a rural area to an urban area.
Hundreds of millions of people live more than 50 miles from a town with 50,000+ people, public transit is literally impossible in an economic way for them.

According to 2020 census, the 214,032,675 Americans live in 58 metropolitan areas each with population of at least 1 million.
"Hundreds of millions of people live more than 50 miles from a town with 50,000+ people," is simply false.

@@fatviscount6562 Oh my bad, it was only a single hundred million people. Or maybe you could extrapolate that down to a few dozen million people.
That changes everything, it is suddenly possible for those millions of people to have fast or effective public transportation! (that is sarcasm)
And regardless, the way that American cities are laid out means that simply being within a metropolitan area does not guarantee that you are within a reasonable distance of the resources you need on a daily basis. Before you could even argue that it would be possible, I would first need to even know how "metropolitan" is defined from wherever you pulled that data.

@@eewweeppkk MSA and CSA are official US Census Data, with precise definitions.
Your comment implied that transit is impossible in most of America, when the reverse is true: that well over 2/3 of Americans live in dense enough places to warrant good transit in the rest of the world, yet in the US have nonexistent to abysmal transit.

wrong.
best car is train car.

Problem with train car is other people I'd rather sit in a car for extra 10 minutes

yeah absolutely, enough degenerates using public transport already so a longer drive and brisk walk is much more "eco friendly" if you catch my drift.
maybe removing degenerates from our society and training out that behaviour will make public transport a lot more comfortable, and therefore, viable.

@@ugbayoogway Bro, you actually fucking sound like Adolf Hitler.

Hard agree with SomeEnglishDude. Hitler's main agenda was exactly that, removing "denegenerates" from society (which according to him were jews but also lots and lots of other people)

Funny how a London guy who hates driving love the American way of just using cars

Revisionist history did a podcast about Waymo and Pedestrian. Their conclusion is that once every car is autonomous, pedestrian will be able to stop traffic because autonomous cars will not want to hit them. Waymo slows down and stops as soon as there's a pedestrian that might cross its path even if it's not at an intersection.

I never bore of the fact that you always comment leave a comment on this channel. Btw, love the Amsterdam videos.

@@TereniaDelamay yeah I heard this too! I think the underrated answer to this is that there's the world where we basically end car travel, and there's the world where we use physical barriers and police enforcement to ensure pedestrian-free roads. I am worried that those with legal and legislative power will produce the latter

sound like Robert Moses

That's so true. Vehicle's here are rampant on the road. The problem that the Philippine government does not want to solve is the volume of cars on the road. In fact, some houses have 2 or more cars on their garage being used or not (or used to avoid coding). Our transport system is even shit, road system is shit that is why people are being forced to buy more cars than go on a commute.
Ngl, if our transport system in our country was well developed, where's jeepneys, busses, and tricycles are more systemized, then I would rather use my car to travel to provinces than scramble with other cars here in Manila. There's just too much cars (private vehicles specifically) here in the Philippines, especially in Manila.
Edited: much better if there will be trains like ktx in Korea, and bullet train in Japan to travel in provinces than use a car.

So your walkways now fit half an American?

Philippines? The dipshits now are using Ebikes to slow down traffic, making the road more hazardous than usual by counterflowing, turning whenever they want, and not obeying stoplights because they can get away with it

@@Skhuztha_CulTz0742 At least there's going to be a subway in a few years. Finally.

One of my fondest memories of being in the Phillipines are the jeepneys. Busses, but better. Do they still drive where you live, and are you positive about them as well? To me I always have this utopian feel when I think of them because they seem to be so efficient, cheap, community oriented and.. fun.

You can run a bunch of Teslas together on steel rails and name that an AI Hyper Connected Pod Lane

It's the transport equivalent of carcinisation. Eventually everything becomes train.

0:56 for the train bit, it's great 👍

Do not choke yourself :c

Same here, Adam’s sarcasm can be a health hazard

Yeah but if other people don't watch you run can you really say you're exercising?

@@0Clewi0 Be your own spectator and tell uncertainty to go fuck itself

@@arcturus4762 It was mostly sarcasm about the gym culture in some places

@@0Clewi0 Never miss an opportunity to go tell uncertainty to go fuck itself, while you watch

I know people who do that, very sad.

Yeah this video came across as too smug for me

It's not a very good angle to approach the concept of traffic to isolate the speed of cars in movement from every other aspect of the use of space, and the fact that the time a car spends moving is by far the minority of its life.

Would you sacrifice the comfort of a personal car for public transport? I wouldn't.
Imagine carrying a f*ckton of bags with you, for example, when you are shopping by yourself. Not only will it be more problematic to carry all of them with you when you are getting on and off the bus/train/etc., but you will also be blamed by other people for taking too much space with your stupid bags.
Car is freedom, public transport is not.
It is actually a common theme with all these new and fancy solutions to transport and energy generation(i'm looking at you, wind turbines), they are great until you start looking deeper into details.

@@user-lk1fw1lp8b you're speaking from car as default again.

@@weatheranddarkness okay, if I have a personal train instead of car, I don't care. The point I was trying to make and the one you missed is that you need personal transport, not public. The way it works is a different story.

Better yet, why not just make a normal remote for it if the consumer is that lazy? (in terms of a household lightswitch, that is)

Thats not at all the point. Flipping a light switch has never been a problem. The reason that technologies like that are made is because we know how to do it and that's cool as fuck. People need something to do, and alot of people love inventing and building and marveling at other inventions, just for its own sake. Ofcourse its ridiculous, it's not like we invent stuff because we have to.

I disagree with this take.
And though I’m aware this may contain fallacies, the server farms are being made regardless of whether I buy a fancy lightbulb. I am not investing in these companies because I am lazy to flip a light switch. I already have half a dozen compatible devices that use the same network, and all they did was add one very small device to that network.
That infrastructure is being used for so much more and the lightbulb is not the sole cause for the creation of the infrastructure, it is a tiny addition to it.
Implying people are morally wrong for using a technology that simple that’s already built into tech they already use is not great.

this take makes no sense

cars influence people negatively not only because they are dangerous but also because they spend way more energy than the alternative you wouldn't be able to say that about the light switches in a way they can actually save power because you will never be too lazy to turn off the light and these servers are paying for power like everyone else and they are used by hundreds of thousands of people on top of that most lights that are controllable through voice are low power and run efficiently also they dont break as often. and if you actually look at humans or even physics everything is about convenience we always go towards the path of least friction its how we advanced as a species and how the universe works with the only difference being that humans have forethought and know that buying a light switch like that will momentarily be an inconvenience but in the long term will be beneficial

Same

@White wolf That's the big problem with city planners nowadays. Cars need to be more expensive and roads more clogged so that people are forced not to use them?
It's not really their job to force something on people that they don't want...

@White wolf except everyone does not prefers cars. Do you want to move from A to B listening to your music? Headphones and smartphones. Do you want the right temperature inside your transportation?? A/C in buses and trains. Do you not want to walk too much from vehicles to your home?? Good public tranportation planning and not live in a copy/paste suburb. Etc.

@@quiquencio5744 It's a very small percentage though that really prefers it. Most only use public transport out of necessity, because they can't afford anything else.

@@Mike25654 so making it better and cheaper would fix that, no?

Trains aren't parallel dimensions ahead
They are into an another plane of existence

Fun fact, god actually came down to Earth to design trains himself.

I love your profile pic. May the force be with you.

@@tjarkschweizer May the force be with you!

@@ziksy6460 I founded your comment hilarious

Until I can move musical equipment around( bass amps, upright bass and tuba, I know awful instrument selection as a kid) I'll always need a car for even small trips for certain things, but try and not use it if things are walkable beucase minus highway night driving it ls just added stress to my day, no idea why people who need to lug around absolutely nothing would ever drive even a mod sized suv like mine, feels like a tank and it's just an old v6 highlander, can't imagine driving the V8 monster truck I park next to wt my apartment, and I've never even seen them have a front seat passenger lol

God, what a Tesla shill tech bro

maybe he uderstand most people wont giving up car yet. so he try to become relatable first

Why isn't he allowed to drive?

@@Anonymous-df8it Probably never got licensed in the UK. You can only drive on a foreign license for the first 6 months or so of your residency and you have to get licensed if you want to continue driving there beyond that. And US driver's licenses are painfully underaccepted in other countries, i.e. you can't simply exchange your US license for a local one. You're forced to take all the tests.

@@HarshDeshpande91 I thought he broke some driving laws...

Except it carries 15~50x more people than a car while only occupying the same space as 3 cars would. Not as good as a train, but way better than cars, and better at dealing with smaller, lower budget routes

@@adityaattri5414 That's the way we're heading. If you want to prevent automation, you'd have to put an end to capitalism, because it demands that we do whatever promises the most profit.
If we don't want to put an end to capitalism, we better start about thinking how to deal with mass unemployment and the 'unemployability' of virtually everyone without a major in the STEM fields or art.

Yea, a self-driving car which only drives a predefined route and only stops at predefined spots.

Yooo this is the best comment here

@@LeyvatenLoop Yes, and the daily commute takes an hour of waiting and 20 minutes of riding instead of just 10 minutes of driving.

I don't understand how this is an effective argument. There are at least two solutions to this problem I can think of: 1. Where I live pedestrians can press a button when they want to cross a street and the traffic lights act accordingly. This idea can just as well be used to inform a network of self-driving cars. 2. Pedestrians could also use underground crossings which is as well already done nowadays.

@@someliker He literally talks about how inconvenient underground crossings are in the video.

It's simple. The pedestrian whips out his/her phone, opens an app, orders a ride share, gets in the car on one side of the intersection and gets out on the other.

Ahahahaa good one

@@someliker yes I agree the button thing sounds like a very simple solution

i'd love to see their reaction if they spent a week in los angeles. they'd be begging and crying for the tube lol

@@Wingnut326 Complaining about the tube is a national institution mate, don't take it away from us!

I find it incredibly hard to believe you found Southermers who were willing to talk to you lmao. The people in the south of England tend to be much less willing to talk to strangers than us Northern lot

London tube system has 1 huge issue. Its old as F and kinda hold the city hostage while I think its more and more hard to maintain thanks to the fact it just can't stop for that.

@@petercselik5674 At least it exists.

Yeah, what you do about people who just don't want to use a vehicle that other people use? Because that's why most people buy cars.

@@talkysassis most people where? The US has almost no feasible alternatives to driving yourself or at least being driven by someone else, and that's because these alternatives were phased out by auto industry lobbyists, not democracy. Look at any country in Europe and, while many still have high car ownership, their public transit is way better than that of North America, even in much poorer nations.

@@talkysassisthat’s definitely not why most people buy cars. Look at japan (where majority of japanese people own a car) or european cities, where still lots of people own cars (or have at least an access to a car from a family member, or use company car for personal use as well), but prefer to use public transport when possible. People who are irrationally afraid of being with another human being lets say on a bus or a metro are a minority. And for those, providing good public transport and bike infrastructure is beneficial, as it would take cars off the street of those drivers that in current circumstances have no option but to drive. After all, no one is proposing getting rid of roads altogether, how would fire trucks, police cars or ambulances get through? There are no fire bikes or trains. How would cars providing all sorts of business from delivery, to utilities, to taxis come through? We need roads and we need cars, even though for personal use most of the trips could be done more efficiently alternative. And then even few lunatics that for some strange reason don’t want to be on public transport or a bike might be happier at the end of the day, as roads would get less congested and trips faster

@Brian Williams auto industry lobbyists are just as much a part of the American democratic system as voting.

Nobody would actually want to do that. How much fun would it be to take a two hour commute every few days just for food? You're not carrying 30 lbs of groceries home on a bus, Public transportation isn't transportation, its a public commute service, because its not actually designed to move anything other than people. Its designed to get people to work, and then home; not make your life easier, but your boss's. This guy is pathetically out of touch, and so is everyone who advocates for public "transportation." Its garbage.

Imagine *dying* to ride a bike in a city where cars worked this way...

I like trains

@@TheGerbold VRROOOOOOOOOOOMMMMM

@@abbytran8514 CHOO CHOOOOOOOOM

The Wendover of trains.....

To be fair, trains ARE a good solution for many problems if you are willing to invest the time and money to set it up properly.

Americans don't worship the car...it is the only choice given to Americans.

As wise people have said, the best security is only as good as the dumbest person responsible for using it correctly.

It’s absolutely true that encryption is probably gonna be fine for a while, but how much can we trust auto makers on fixing vulnerabilities and actually use encryption properly 😂😂😂

@@NumberedMonk a chain is only as strong as its weakest link

@@NumberedMonk So google token tipe of deal. Like lets let computer take control of our passwords

And how long after that before _everyone_ has one? Some people drive a 15-year-old car because it's the best they can afford; some drive a 50-year-old car because it's what they love. How will those vehicles plug in to a self-driving network?

Yeah I think he did say in one Q and A video that he overestimated how much self driving tech would progress

ok but self driving cars currently exist

@@lucas_xyz Not ones that are reliable enough to be included in the law. "Self-driving" cars still hit ambulances, pedestrians, and even stationary objects a bit too often to be trusted.

@@lucas_xyz one some weeks ago stopped in the middle of a tunnel roadway and it caused a massive accident :)

I'm partial to Futurama's tubes.

Well I give a glowing recommendation to cannons.

I like this idea. just put people in those giant inflatable balls that you can bounce in and stuff and just throw it against a wall or into a net and then open the door to climb out. it works perfectly.

As you appear to be a deku scrub, I was expecting you to say one of those deku flowers that launch you up into the air with propellers.

Angry Birds : IRL Edition

skynet.

You created an infinite ~~paperclip~~ traffic machine

The easiest way to fix traffic is to ban cars.

I think people are looking way past his video and think he ever claims everything else must be removed. He was just simplifying things for the sake of the explanation of cars on roads.
Not everyone demands literally everything to be explains that's ever slightly relates to 1 small subject. Making short video's forever impossible

@@tardvandecluntproductions1278 the intersection he shows in the video is literally impossible for a pedestrian to traverse. His idea bans pedestrians from the road implicitly.

Hell you they even be able to identify things like caltrops or loose pins on the roads and identify them

@@jmurray1110 Two scenarios:
1. A guy with a BB gun off the side of the road, hiding in a bush - nobody would expect or detect that;
2. A guy walking along the road tossing things on it. The car will either not have time to detect it, or will swerve unexpectedly to the side, creating the possibility of a crash.

I have the same inner conflict. I love cars, but we shouldn't let us lead by our emotions.

It'll also take a lot of vehicles off the road, which is good for us car nuts.

@Dave M Well cars are cars no matter how they produce velocity. I think the most usefuel vehicle would be an electric bicycle that goes 60km/h.

@@brokkrep A simpler solution? Just a regular bicycle. Why? Becaue:
1. Fights america's biggest health problem, obesity
2. It's fun
3. Really cheap
4. Can be used by 3 year olds - no cars = no danger when crossing a non-existent road
5. Fast on short distances, sustaiable on long trips
6. Works on almost any type of terrain

@@michakrzyzanowski8554 I commute by bicycle for at least two years now. You're right, but hilly terrain makes it hard to not be exhausted at arrival at work

Yeah, I think he should change his channel name to "Sounds like a train", that pretty much sums up his content ;)

Except it's not anything like a train because people standing in line are not a train. The same goes for cars in a line.

@@spacedoohicky But a train is a line of cars... ok depending on the type of train it may have an engine. But the trains I drive consist only of cars, that are in a line and accelerate at the same time.

@@ssingfo Trains also pull hoppers, flat beds, containers, stacks of containers, refrigerators, and fluid tanks. And in the definition of "train" each vehicle is connected, and travels on a rail system. Sometimes trains even pull a rack of cars (motor vehicles).
But in the definition there are more loose meanings of alt-definitions of "train" that actually does stand for "a line of people", but then Adam Something's joke doesn't work because the equivocation leads to even more confusing references like "gear trains", and a "train" on a wedding gown. So in a metaphorical way Adam is correct in calling it a train, but it's virtually meaningless as a joke because it is a confusing metaphor.
Also there's a video showing what in China is being called, an "innovative" "virtual rail train" which everyone is making fun of because in England they have the exact same transport which they call a bus which is a series of buslike cars connected in series. People were saying, "That's a bus. LOL.", or "That's not a train. It's a bus. LOL." which gives the impression that even if the cars are connected in series, going the same speed, that isn't always technically a train, except maybe metaphorically.
But further the joke doesn't work because a series of automated cars wouldn't just follow each other, but could also split off at any turn which breaks the definition of train absolutely. It's just a really bad joke.

@@spacedoohicky You do know that there is a general word for all those things, (hoppers, flat beds, carriages, etc.) that word is car. Therefore a train is always pulling cars. Unless its only an engine. Or do you want to tell me that my list of cars (a list refering to all the cars in a train) is wrong. Like I said, I'm a train driver, and I even drive trains only consisting of powered cars, no locomotive.

Thing about CGP Grey is he lives in London and doesn’t even own a car. He lives his life as a consumer of public transit!

@@aliensinnoh1 yeah, he hate driving

Nichijou!

its so good i want to make a series highlighting how car brain runs rampant through most of the "western world"

ie. every american

but they still need rails

@@josejose-fu9dd Rails are a good thing. They keep the trains where they should be.

@@josejose-fu9dd And cars need roads. Your point? All transport needs infrastructure to support it.

Trains masterrace

What if we just traveled with ICBMs? Seems like a rational solution.

Individualism is the main reason why car dependency developed widespread

@@leonpaelinck As someone who lives in the countryside and needs a car, I hate this 'cause I get stuck in traffick caused by hords of white collar workers who don't even need to do the commute in the first place.

Guess what, that's the american traffic concept in a nutshell

Saying that hacking is the problem is the same as saying humans are the problem. This notion applies to literally everything.
Generalized = "What if we ?" "What if someone exploited it's security flaws?!"
Streets **already** prioritize automobiles... Claiming that organizing them more efficiently would prevent other forms of transportation is making some really big leaps.
(Are you concerned about how automobiles replaced horses? No? You prefer the more automated mechanical transportation? Weird.....)

@@Gotlyfe Horses require constant care and housing space and they poop a lot. A car is lower maintenance and lower waste than a horse, but a bicycle is lower maintenance and lower waste than both, so cars completely eclipsing horses can't be compared to them doing the same to bicycles.
And yes, streets already prioritize automobiles, but it's arguable they shouldn't, considering other means of transportation are, as stated above, less expensive, less cumbersome and less wasteful. Streets prioritizing automobiles punishes those who can't afford a car or storage for a car, and those who would rather not leave behind the amount of waste a car does.

Maintenance is a the combination of effort, training, and materials. With that notion, comparing the two is disingenuous because our culture decides those costs, so they could be anything from free to unaffordable.
Car manufacturing and usage produce massive waste. Just because the waste was in a factory before a consumer got the vehicle doesn't mean its gone.
I'm not sure what metrics you're using to calculate waste when comparing these transportation methods.
First it seemed like you were worried about time and effort spent by people, but then you tossed manually powered vehicles into the mix.
I know many people who would consider spending 2 hours to travel across a city on a bike a gigantic waste.
I feel like the only thing I can agree with is the decades of inflating of prices, disproportional to cost, to the point most people can't realistically afford the transportation our corporate overlords have decided is the standard.

@@Gotlyfe
I meant waste in terms of physical waste, not wastes of time. A car belches fumes into the atmosphere whereas a bicycle does not. Also, part of the reason cycling takes that amount of time is due to cities being spaced out in such a way that they're only truly accessible by car. Better urban planning could make them less necessary, and in cases that can't be done, trains more efficiently transport people across further distances due to being able to carry more people at once.
I should probably note that:
a) I'm not an economist, so I'm only relaying the experiences other people have shared with me, and
b) I'm not saying everyone should toss their cars in a trash compactor en masse this instant, or even that personal automobiles to necessarily be phased out entirely. I just don't think urban planning should be set to punish those who prefer other modes of transportation, a factor which the CGP Grey video's solution sets to exacerbate.

Develop public transport to a level where people choose it instead of their cars."
4,5% support at election.
Well that sums up the issue.
Some people will ALWAYS choose their cars, thus the promise is unfulfillable.

I think this is emblematic of the problem that people are instinctively weary of radical change. Even if you are selling what they want they will look for a half measure (see the Dems and Labor parties if the Anglo sphere)

To be fair, that third guy's proposal sounded HORRIBLE, so fucking boring lol

@@LancesArmorStriking
>Russian shill

@@regulate.artificer_g23.mdctlsk the Russian government is conspiring to decrease the efficiency of Budapest’s public transportation network by paying people to disagree with you in KRplus comment sections be very afraid!

But if every vehicle is controlled centrally, you could get the most mathematically efficient use of the roads.

@@benjacobs574 cause IT systems never break down, and everyone always has an internet connection.
And even if you had mathematically optimized traffic you'd still have traffic....

@@benjacobs574 Not the most efficient one, just a more efficient one. Your GPS doesn't calculate the mathematically proven shortes route, but settles for a "good enough" solution. Now scale that up to thousands of selfdriven cars. We don't have the supercomputers to calculate that

@B J, well presumably they would be like separate carriages that can form trains when necessary but then easily split off to get to a different location.

@@NabekenProG87 lmao if we did have enough computers for it they would be more laggy than the average grandmothers computer

San Francisco is theoretically livable mainly because it is car unfriendly; it's just that the city government is incompetent at dealing with crime, homelessness, and cleanliness. Tough luck for everyone there. Hopefully, things will change soon.

I live in a part of the city that’s pretty walkable. More cars than I would like, and when the streets were closed to cars during a street festival this summer it was absolutely amazing. But it’s a pretty walkable city and the public transit is at least decent (kinda).
Still unlivable though because the rent is too damn high

@@beevins99 The public transit is decent in the sense that there's almost always a line going to where you want to go, at least inside the city limits. The public transit is super terrible if you have any kind of time schedule and desire a reliable mode of transportation. The number of times I've been stuck waiting for 45 minutes when the next bus was 10 minutes away on a 15 minute bus schedule is too high to count. This is worse when you realize that many of these trips were started at the bus terminus, which was about 3 blocks from the bus storage yard, and no buses showed up at all in that time, except one which said it was the next bus to leave but stayed until after I had finally left on a different bus that showed up. I know this sounds like a singular incident; this has happened to me on over a dozen occasions, but at least those were after work. When it happens before work and the bus is on a 30+ minute schedule...and then the bus that shows up is actually for the cycle after next...RIP work.
The city is pretty walkable, if you like hills and have lots of time and everything you need is close by and you never go grocery shopping for more than maybe 2 or 3 bags at once. At least everything is close. I give it that. Of course, living in the more central parts of town mean you're also closer to the heavier crime areas...Not sure how much that's worth it, to be honest.

Cause of a lack of trains

@@jackstolte hence why most are in no rush to get back on BART to SF

Helicopter parents: They should be able to what now??

"If a child can’t navigate the city, it’s built wrong." - exactly this. As a kid and a teen, I used to travel a lot around the city I lived in. In a lot of cases, I could navigate around most of the city, using only foot and metro, under 10 minutes walk from the stations. In some cases, I needed public transit and it was awful. Also, metro is a horribly expensive solution but will work if your metro area is over 3+ millions, I believe. We had around 15 and over 20 now.
What I like about Tbilisi, for example, is that their bus stations and lanes are very neatly organised and tightly run. You won't even need metro in a lot of cases. However, it can still be improved, it's a great deal better than Yerevan one, for example, and IMO better than Saint-Petersburg, too.
However metro and cars both have one significant pros over most of the buses I encounter: easy visibility.
It's weird, but it is really hard to find an actual scheme of buses overlaid on city streets. It's always just a list of numbers that don't tell you anything. You can easily trace the road you have to walk, cycle, drive, or take on a metro, to see how to get to your destination, even without entering the start and end of your destination. Not the case with most other ways of public transit!

That sounds like thinnest-skinned man engineering.
No, engineer around a reasonable scope of ability and everyone else can make the personal adjustments they need to get around it.

The school system is set up that way and it has never wronged or damaged anyone ever in the history of education, ever

@@BygoneT The best part of that is that its best read as dripping with sarcasm.

And if it malfunctions? You may die and nobody will be responsible

counterpoint: that's because everyone fixes capacity by adding more traffic.

This is because traffic is always growing because of globalization and concentration of capital.
government are just desperately trying to catch up with capacity until the whole system just collapses and burns in blue flames

Make sure you add the right lanes. Biffa is the youtuber who does fix your city, if you haven't seen him, and he will regularly cut lanes on submitted cities after getting the turn lanes set right for the game AI.

@@deltaxcd But also because without heavy traffic, a car is more convenient for most people, and therefore a lot of people only take public transport if traffic is sufficiently bad. If you add capacity, the car gains an edge over public transport and people switch back to using cars, blocking up the roads again.

​@@CFTim I highly doubt if traffic can get that bad to justify use of public transport which is not only inconvenient and slow but very overpriced too.
And if you want to fight blocked roads rather than forcing people to use shitty public transport you should plan your city to eliminate the need to excessive transportation.
it is extremely stupid city planning when you have long lines of cars moving to one direction in the morning and in another direction in the evening
when this happens it is better to identify what is the the destination of all those cars and move that destination to the less busy place.

Actually it makes me cringe everytime, because at intersections where many pedestrians want to cross we can simply set up traffic lights .. duh. Self-driving cars are by far superior even with traffic lights and it really annoys me how many people here and of course Adam Something is pretending that CGP Gray is some kind of pedestrian hater who would oppose that, without any basis for that.

PARKOUR

@@germanyoutubedeutschland9899 no, I meant that the way he presented it was funny. I agree that the whole cgp video was cringe, but Adam is pretty funny when shredding other content to pieces.

@A Fels You completely misunderstood my point. What you are describing is not good. You know that. I know that. Adam lets everyone know he knows. But GCP Gray knows that too, and he never said anything else. The allegations against him are completely ridiculous and do not reflect the statements in his video. For Adam, everyone who thinks self-driving cars are good is a pedestrian-hating monster, but the world is not that black and white.
You can see the advantages of self-driving cars and still stand up for traffic lights, that's what Adam and Moon Moon don't want to understand and therefore act like unreasonable children here.

@@germanyoutubedeutschland9899 ok so what happens when a pedestrian crosses on red? They're not steered by ai and will still make shitty choices. All the cars driven by AI will have to keep standing because of programming and in some countries that just means they'll be standing forever. I don't know à single person in Paris that actually waits for green

basically

People say this, but I don’t think it’s true. I’ve heard of and know tech workers who are happily quite invested into smart homes and such.
You’re right about printers though, absolutely no one trusts those bastards.

huh, this looks very familiar. wonder which post this is from

@@cjeam9199 I'm friends with a computer engineer at work and she has no socials, runs Linux on her smartphone to avoid being tracked by Google. The paranoia is real 😂

@@cjeam9199 I do software development because rent, but boy do I dislike computers. I feel like my coworkers are mixed, with some truly loving tech and buying into things like crypto currency and self driving cars, while most seem rather indifferent

Have you considered a bike or little motor scooter?
It's not much, but... it's a step up from that.

@@zacheryeckard3051 In a lot of rural and suburban areas, it's safer to be a pedestrian than a cyclist. On a bike, drivers will pass you with little to no clearance, turn directly into your path because they weren't looking out for bikes, or just scream at you to get off the road. At least as a pedestrian you're separate from traffic.

@@lizardbrain_art When there's no sidewalk, there's *not* a separation from the traffic.

@@zacheryeckard3051 While technically true, it's also a driver's mentality. A pedestrian is something that is not a vehicle, and so will be seen.
A bike or cycle is a vehicle, and so must simply mind its own business or doesn't exist to the driver.
Shitty I know, and should be changed, but that is the way it works.

@@adamthethird4753 You say that like we don't see pedestrian strikes.

That's why we need SAFE & RELIABLE public transportation.

Nice, I also want the government to control whether I should be allowed to travel or where I should be allowed using their transport instead of being self-sufficient

"terminally american"

@@acceptable1514 how about making transits free just like how roads are free?

@@acceptable1514 nice, i also want government controlling where i can take my car by building and maintaining highways (or not doing those). And I also want to stare at increasingly high gas prices as I submissively pump gas anyway because it is the only way I can stay afloat. And I also want to be referred to as self sufficient while I use privately pumped petroleum to power my car and am at a governments mercy roadwise as I zoom down residential roads.
Just accept cars are bad, do I need to say why trains are good? Because I know trains have some of these problems, but only some.

@@acceptable1514 you do realize the government builds roads, right?

And buses, as public transport that uses the same roads, have more capacity than cars in the same volume. Rail transport has even more capacity, but also needs specialized driveways.

Exactly. I live in Europe and I heard people complain all the time about traffic jams in the city center at rush hours and I'm like, what do you mean? Unless there is a road renovation, at worst you're gonna stop for a minute at a red light and that's it. You will have enough time to easily pass after. Why? Because all of city center is well connected with massive buses on their own lanes and trams, and these travel absolutely packed.
Where there actually are traffic jams is outskirts. Why? Because people who use those roads have to travel by car because they either go inter city, buses for which are more rare and less convenient to use, or don't have direct bus connection.

When I see politicians use public transportation instead of gas hogging SUVs then I will take their demand for more trains more seriously

But it's abstract, takes some time and it's difficult to wrap ones head around this idea - sooooooooooo let's keep building them roads!

The problem with trains.....Trains don't go everywhere. If you live outside the city, there are no trains.

"oversized sardine cans" you mean public transport like Adam is pushing for?
Because it is hard to even find a seat on those

@@doombybbr Are you BR too?
Also, I meant cars, not public transport.
Public transport problems are pretty much only political and lobby, not transportation engineering itself.

@@AlphaOmegaRN you may have meant cars
but cars are less sardine tins than public transport. As they have significantly fewer passengers than public transport.
Also far more importantly, it is impossible to have any larger location that does not rely on motorised transport to get to places, just due to the simple fact that cities are huge and people will want to get from one part to another for a million different reasons.

@@doombybbr Hmm, true. And of course, we need motorized vehicles.
But that is also largely a city planning, on big daily travels for work instead of making it easier to live where you work or study.

@@AlphaOmegaRN even smaller villages benefit from road access, and anything larger than 1000 people is going to NEED road access

Watching your spacing is absolutely a solid thing to do as longa s you are stuck driving. It’s also significantly safer to just back TF off from the care ahead of you based on how much speed you have. I had a lot of work to do with my ex-husband and getting him to treat driving like the activity it really is: the single most dangerous activity a person will participate in during an average day.
I also tend to favor space ahead over space behind me. I know other drivers suck, and giving myself extra space means I can slow down in more time, and kind of undo a bit of any traffic snake I run into… and another big consideration is that the greatest amount of delay you can run into is if you are involved in a collision yourself. Even if no one is hurt, and very little damage has been done, you’re going to have to be delayed and deal with the situation, rather than getting to where you wanted to go.
Even in motorsports, “safe is fast”.

I felt like a boss when I did that yesterday

Ditto. Being more aware of my spacing and influence on others is positive change. =]

I live in Florida and we have the shittiest drivers on the east coast if not the entire US. There is no public driver's education in this state. People just learn to drive from people with bad habits and their environment of bad drivers around them. Attentive driving is rare, turn signals are rare, proper acceleration on an onramp to the flow of traffic is rare, observance of the concept of the passing lane is rare. Drivers are getting worse and worse and they are coddled by their new car's "safety" features of proximity alarms, auto braking, and 29 cameras, so they can spend more time on their cell phones while driving. Self driving cars has become an almost unavoidable solution in order to save idiots from themselves.

@@Timithos you're not wrong but unfortunately that's also how it is in many parts of the country. florida is just… special

That is, in fact, the top comment on grey's video

It is very much like a train, except a train where any specific "car" of the train (and its passengers) can split loose from the train at any one of dozens of points along any given route, and head in a different direction, often within seconds, and where the train can reach practically any destination in the city, without the need for expensive underground tunnels or thousands of additional stations.So, you know, pros and cons.

@@timogul You know it used to be common practice to separate parts of a train to let that car stop at a station that was too small for the entire train to stop at.

@@hedgehog3180 We should bring that back then. Make trains that can split off into groupings of maybe 4-6 seats each, and then each of those could split off every few hundred feet of track to head onto different lines without having to switch cars.

The problem with trains is that they are stuck in rails while cars or self driving cars can pretty much go anywhere onto specific areas.

That is one of the most depressingly capitalist things I've ever heard

@@magiv4205 And socialism or communism would have behaved differently in that situation?

@@solaris9426 Yes, actually. Because firstly, a government controlled gas line would be far more secure than a privately owned one and would be less likely to be hacked in the first place. And secondly, the government wouldn’t shut off the gas line because it’s not the government’s goal to profit off of the gas line, because the taxes would have already been paid to use it.

@@jacobrzeszewski6527 What he said. Privatized infrastructure leads to neglected infrastructure, because to fulfill capitalism's goal of constant growth and profit, you need to invest the lowest feasible amount of money to make the biggest profit. If that means not updating the security system of one of the most important pipelines in the country to save money, so be it. If that means not renovating the electrical grid from the 50s or so to save money and de-coupling it from the surrounding states to de-regulate it even further, so that one single cold freeze in texas can utterly shut down large parts of a state that's almost as big as Germany and France combined and leave them without heating or running water - _so be it._ Oh, and guess what - as soon as electricity became a commodity, what did capitalism do? Drive up the price from 12 cents/ kwh to up to 9$/kwh. Not only did they not have elextricity, but those affected could now pay thousands in bills because the vultures in control of the grid saw a way to make more money off these people's misery. Apart from getting bled dry, hundreds of people died as a result of this btw, and they wouldn't have died if their most basic infrastructure wasn't privatized into oblivion.

@@magiv4205 It's also not true. They shut down lots of things, and it took a long time to get back running because the hackers might have broken stuff, and turning it on again without checking every facet would have caused irreversible damage.

also mini ICBMs might work too

Do you mean helicopters? Because you can do that with helicopters. I wonder why there are no cities that have replaced overpasses with helicopters.

@@mariusdufour9186 or we could use blimps instead, imagine what a glorious clusterfuck that would be

I don't know about you but I welcome our glorious steampunk oligarchs.

Just give people powerful pogo sticks. They can bounce over the road.

Agreed! Maybe cars aren't as needed in most of western and central Europe but big countries can't really afford super quick public transportation that connects something in the middle of nowhere to everything else every 15/30 minutes. It's just impossible.

@@MaryamMaqdisi That's unfortunately the result of suburbs and how expanded everything is built. European countries are much more compact, the distances are much smaller. For example, take Houston, which is 1,722 km² and has 2.3 million citizens. Now how large do you think Paris is, with 2.1 million citizens? It's 105.4 km².
Houston is *sixteen times* larger than Paris. Not double, not triple, not tenfold but sixteen times larger. No wonder they have traffic issues, everything is sprawled out *way* too far apart. And this goes for a lot of not most US cities due to their rules of single family homes being build and banning any other type of building. And this means every single thing is spread further out. The garbage truck needs to drive further, your power lines are longer, the streets need more asphalt, your need more gas for the distance, delivery takes much longer, your trips to anything takes longer...
TLDR it's extra difficult now to fix because of how the cities were build. But it's not impossible, but it requires some changes. And to forbid anything other than single family homes needs to go first.

If bus travel on same route on same road takes 9 times longer, you should take a closer look what the fuck is happening here.
To get from my home to uni on PT it takes 50-55 minutes, on car - 40-65 minites. And that's not a direct route on PT.

@@MaryamMaqdisiWe are talking about cities aren't we? Oh, and trains for middle of nowhere.

@Quantum Passport driving is always better if you are the only one driving

As long as the systems fail safe, this is not an issue. If someone flashed a whole bunch of lights at you, you're likely to crash also. As always, there's an XKCD about this:
xkcd.com/1958/

@@NickLilovich Am pretty sure flashing people without getting found out is far harder than just discreetly hiding an antenna somewhere that emits noise

I mean... What you're describing is literally a DoS attack, one of the most primitive types, and they really are not that hard to filter out. DDoS's are far more dangerous, but can still be countered by relatively simply Zero-Trust procedures that add virtually 0 lag time. So no, you can't just emit a lot of noise and cause cars to crash.

The entire infosec portion of this video is garbage. He thinks that ""encryption"" matters in this context - encryption isn't the fundamental problem. Even if you could break any encryption, you can't just send arbitrarily shit to cars to get them to do stuff since you lack the authn/authz required to make them obey you.
And "quantum" as just an imaginary baddie of all crypto is hilarious. There already exist quantum-immune algos. They have existed since like 2010 or even earlier.
Seriously, this video makes me doubt everything about this guy. What a goon.

@@TheDeathlyG Frequency jamming isn't a primitive or solved DoS type. It still works and there's no meaningful solution to it other than "stronger signals" - which is just an arms race against an attacker. No solution to that.
DDoS doesn't even make sense in this scenario. And DDoS is just a subset of DoS that almost exclusively applies to network-layer DoSing. Tons of DoS attacks (particularly resource DoS) are still viable without any need to distribute them.
This wannabe infosec comments section is almost as bad as the video.

Compare the size of Japan and the size of the United States.

@@Awaken_To_0 what about the entirety of europe?

more than 95 percent of americans live in urban areas, you aren’t traveling across the country every day for work

@@oak_a The *Continent* of Europe is about the same size as the entire US. Something a lot of people - particularly in America seem to forget. "Europe" is not a country. Some of our states are larger than their nations.

That's not true. According to the US census it's more like 80% with the other 20 % ( or one in every 5 people) living scattered over the rest of the over 90% rural land in America.
Further, that 80% urban populations isn't evenly distributed over every urban area either. They congregate to larger cities.
If you want to make things better, actually try thinking about why things are the way they are and how to solve those problems so they can change. Don't make things up to feel better than people.

also its like a 2 day thing just to drive from coast to coast…and thats just the us, it’s about a 3 day thing (and like 2 ferry rides) coast to coast in canada.

@@sevencents7 Yeah, it'd probably be more than 2 days for me lol. I can't drive that long straight through. When I'd arrive I would barely be able to walk from all the cramping.

Pretty much the only appeal of a shinkansen-style system in America is for people who are serious about the environment; the niche filled by bullet trains in Japan is already filled in America by commuter flights, and so the only use case for it is in cutting down on emissions from aircraft. Bullet trains are not commuter transportation in the sense of "commuting from the suburbs", they're commuter transportation in the sense of "commuting from another city 400 miles away". When you arrive in Chicago after leaving New York, whether it be by bullet train or commuter flight, your first stop is still going to be the Hertz Car Rental desk at the terminal you arrived at unless a slew of other changes are made which are entirely separate from the issue of America's ancient railway system. It'd do little in the way of reducing car usage.
(But I would also kill for it, if only because it's a cool as hell moonshot idea, just like the hyperloop.)

(What America needs is either to completely redesign itself from the ground up and/or sprawling interconnected local transportation systems which make getting around once you arrive at your general destination easier, which is almost as impossible as the physics-defying absurdity of the originally proposed Hyperloop.)

The hyper loop is a legitimate thing, not just a moonshot idea. It’s not the best solution at the moment, as a LOT more infrastructure and money would have to go to hyper loops to allow them to be significant

@@verde5738 I didn't say you cannot criticize it. and people asked him not to take it down. Because some tips are good in there.

He should remake the video then, but with his sort of schedule that probably won’t happen for a while

@@Sentient_Blob Well - Veritasium even cited CGP's video i his last video. I know that CGP doesn't have time, but at this point he should write on how many mistakes there are.

@@Sentient_Blob CGPgrey has talked about once a video is uploaded, it doesn’t get touched (unless disaster strikes)

@@jannegrey593 I don’t think there are many mistakes. I just think he ignores all the other solutions to traffic

He did, in the last video he uploaded

@@estebanjosearancibiardrigu4068 I have not done a collab with Adam Something, for what it's worth.
I'd be open to it though; I enjoy his videos.

@@NotJustBikes Man i was so surprised to see you here

@@NotJustBikes I love the sheer potential a video with both of you would have.

True

C'mon dude... Don't give the tech oligarchs any more crazy ideas.

Hey that could work, but how about following Barcelona's example and making them islands of 3x3 blocks? Would leave so much room for activities.

@@EmyrDerfel it's not the island part that's the issue. It's the megacorp part that's the issue.

@@TheMorMor if the island has enough stuff on it, you won't need to get involved with the megacorp at all.

@@EmyrDerfel @Emyr Derfel Sweden actually tried a thing like that in the 50/60ss in Stockholm during the so called record years (record growth, employment rates etc). It was called the miljonprogrammet ( a push to make the population of Stockholm over one million) it involved a major traffic rerouting, and the creation of so called ABC suburbs (Arbete,Bostad,Centrum Work,Housing,Center) which where to be fairly self containing I that there would be a limited need to commute outside of your suburb. Unfortunately the project didn't work out as well as intended.
It's is a very interesting story about social democracy, city planning and social engineering.
Adam should definitely look into it

My brain made that joke as soon as he mentioned it. "Why, they'll just get in their own self-driving car, drive across the intersection, and get back out again. Simple!"

Then get lowered into an underground tunnel

No one would let autonomous cars loose on the road unless they were very safe. Safe enough that if a pedestrian randomly ran across the road. The issue would not be cars constantly going & never letting ppl cross rather ppl constantly walking out while not looking & cars having to wait for them. Ps the solution is to have all the solutions.

Jumping on cars

@@RB-eg7mj If cars stopped for every pedestrian, wouldn't that slow down traffic considerably, defeating the purpose of coordination?

I don’t think he even owns a car

I mean, he doesn't need to ignore car problems or think just about benefits for himself rather than drivers just cause he isn't driving much

Yeah, just because he doesn't mention every single issue with cars, city design etc in a 4 minute video doesn't mean he doesn't know. He just looks at existing systems and what's wrong with them.

Is it possible that, having lived in a dense walkable city with public transit, he prefers cities where you can drive efficiently?

@@appa609 if that's the case, why does he continue to live in the parts of London that are not accommodating to cars?