I kinda like Ray-Ban (their luxotica ties notwithstanding) and my current eyeglasses and sunglasses are RB. But the partnership with Meta is what really turns me off, and may actually persuade me to make sure my next pair are not RB.

I think it was alluding to it, but stopped short of explicitly saying it. I felt it was worth explicitly saying.

Calling it two football field would still work. Americans would think brown oblong ball field, everyone else would think black and white orb game. In in all cases they’d be thinking of essentially the same measurement.

I know everyone has different learning styles

Proceeds to say there’s only one way to learn.

I guess the remaining 1% is YouTube?

I’m not so sure. If it’s done to encourage public transportation and biking, and the money generated by parking funds increased non-car infrastructure like bike lanes etc, then sure.

But just slapping parking meters on formerly free parking and the money simply going into the city’s general fund (which is what I’m sure is happening here) I wouldn’t call it an improvement.

I’d agree that making a structural change to remove vehicle parking and install bicycle/public transportation infrastructure sounds great.

But I read the comment above yours as saying that the mayor simply made existing free parking into paid parking. Not sure that’s doing much other than reducing the business activity in the area.

I bet the top ten percent of titles on Gutenberg make up 90% of downloads.

standardebooks.org is a great place for classics

Thank you, it needed to be said.

Well, ICE cars already are. I don’t know about Texas but certainly here in California there’s federal taxes on gasoline and state taxes. The state taxes are always explicitly paying for road maintenance, and the federal taxes pay for “infrastructure” in a vague but probably reasonable manner.

We’re all getting lost on the weeds on this one, but in general both the states and the feds are looking to make up the revenue needed to support road infrastructure lost when someone doesn’t buy gas.

That would be a logical and fair way to do it. Which is why it’ll never happen.

My god American law makers are idiots.

I mean, no question there.

But the 18.5 cent tax on gas is meant to pay for the maintenance of roads. And because it’s on gasoline, it traditionally has scaled well with the amount of wear a vehicle puts on the roadway.

The $130 isn’t meant as “punishment” of EV drivers, only as a replacement of the funds they aren’t currently paying for road maintenance, which they use just as much as ICE vehicles. More-so, actually, as EVs are heavier than ICE on average.

There can and should be incentives by the government to increase EV adoption, but waiving the cost of road maintenance isn’t the answer.

Oh, you

Well, the idea of the $130 is it would be changed to EV drivers who are not currently paying the 18.5 cents per gallon federal gas tax. If it’s more or less than that depends on how many miles the ICE cars are driving, but on average it looks like the $130 would be higher than the about $90 most ICE drivers pay in federal gas tax.

In the US, every car has an annual registration fee (proportional to its value) paid to a state agency. In addition, there are federal and state taxes on each gallon of gas sold meant to be used for maintenance of the roads.

I live in the US, and drive an EV. For the record.

I’m not against an annual fee for electric cars, but it should be going to the state and not the federal government. The problems have with this are:

• goes to the feds instead of the states
• too high, even when using the averages
• averages are unfair to those who drive under the average
• money likely not fully going to road upkeep, and most certainly not to funding public transportation

Address those, and make it ten cents per mile driven for all I care.

deleted by creator

You know how averages work, right?

Honestly, someone who posts everyday averaging 12 comments is probably crazier than the occasional poster who very occasionally hits 50 200 in a day.

Edit: I misread the limits as being 50 comments, which I stand by as not too crazy now and again. 200 comments/replies even on the most newsworthy days is certainly getting to the ‘difficult to do’ level. I’ll grant you that I’d be hard pressed to get to 200 even if I tried. I consider myself on your side on this one. I’ll only say that citing any average usage per day is unimportant, because there are no limits on the average daily usage, only absolute upper limits.