I saw the Danforth side last time I was visiting relatives in the area and was definitely impressed! I would hate to see them take away the cycle tracks there.
I haven't lived in Toronto in years, but was a bike courier there in my student days. My recollections, dated as they may be, are as follows:
University is a huge expanse of road with ample room for bike lanes. I can't imagine why you would remove them? I suspect it has something to do with Queen's Park sitting in the middle of it and Ford having a personal axe to grind?
In all the time I lived in Toronto, I don't think I ever drove on Young St. At least not in the downtown core. Does any self-respecting local do this? I always thought it should be made into a pedestrian mall like Sparks St. in Ottawa.
To be fair, I tended to avoid Bloor on my bike except in places where you really can't avoid it like crossing the viaduct. This was more to do with it being a perpetual construction zone than because of automobile traffic though. I don't know how it is now?
Whoever that is, I am a fan now. The way she switched to Canadian and American and then back to Australian without missing a beat… Was not expecting that! And yeah, the Canadian one in Saskatchewan was one of the first CCS projects and it set the bar very low for everyone else to follow.
Later that year Ravil Magonov, the chairman of Lukoil, an oil giant, died after falling out of the window of a Moscow hospital.
I had to follow up on this part since they didn't mention what caused his hospitalization in the first place. Did he fall out of his apartment first but it wasn't high enough, so they sent him to the tallest hospital in Moscow?
But no. He apparently suffered a heart attack. His window death was then deemed a suicide as it was known he was on antidepressants. Case closed. The suicide prevention unit at that hospital, I gather, is on the top floor with easy-to-open windows?
I worry about what this legislation could mean for medium-sized cities like where I live that are only now starting to put in bike infrastructure. It is underutilized at this point, but that's because it is still incomplete.
You have, for example, a wonderful off-road trail that is 90% complete connecting the suburbs to downtown, but there is one section where you have to cross a bridge with no bike lanes or anything. Until that part gets done, few people will use the rest of it. But if they decide to take a lane away from cars on the bridge, the province could argue that no one uses the trail in the first place and shoot it down. Uuugh!
I was recently in Montreal and omg it's cycling heaven! Bikes outnumber cars in many places and vehicle congestion seems less in spite of this. Also, drivers seem more cautious in general in the downtown core, even on roads where there are no cycle tracks. It's a bit like the college campus effect I guess? When you have a high density of non-automotive road usage, the cars tend to slow down and be more patient. They're moving slower but there is still a steady flow of traffic. Not a lot of gridlock.
But the mining, milling, and production of nuclear fuel, as well as the construction and decommissioning of nuclear plants, emit greenhouse gases at levels ranging from 10 to 130 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour of power — lower than fossil fuels but higher than wind and hydroelectricity (and roughly on par with solar).
That's interesting. The article they link gives a bit more detail:
These energy intensities translate into greenhouse gas intensities for LWR and HWR of between 10 and 130 g CO2-e/kWhel, with an average of 65 g CO2-e/kWhel.
While these greenhouse gases are expectedly lower than those of fossil technologies (typically 600–1200 g CO2-e/kWhel), they are higher than reported figures for wind turbines and hydroelectricity (around 15–25 g CO2-e/kWhel) and in the order of, or slightly lower than, solar photovoltaic or solar thermal power (around 90 g CO2-e/kWhel).
The wide range for nuclear apparently comes from difficulties in estimating the carbon footprint of mining/processing the uranium, but that nuclear is sort of in the middle of the pack in carbon footprint relative to renewables in spite of the fueling costs is good to know.
I suppose these sort of numbers may change dramatically in years to come. Take solar. A lot of focus seems to be on the efficiency of panels, which would almost certainly lower the carbon cost per unit of energy as it improves, but a breakthrough in panel longevity would also do that in an amortized emissions sort of way.
My most common use case is probably looking up stuff that may or may not be in a dict.
if (val := dct.get(key)) is not None:
# do stuff with val
I guess that's pretty similar to what you were doing?
Sometimes I also use it in some crazy list comprehension thing when I get backed into a corner, though it's hard to think of an example off the top of my head? It usually happens when I'm in a rush and desperate to get something working, but it has an uncanny way of being just the thing you need at that point.
What cities should not be doing, however, is taking away lanes of traffic on our most congested roads
This is so wrong-headed I can't believe I'm reading it. Taking lanes away from private automobiles is precisely what you want to do where there is congestion if you want more people to be able to use the road.
That's pretty sad when you have to pirate a game just to make it playable. I probably shouldn't admit to having cracked games in the past for this reason. Yarrr!
This is actually the first I've heard of Denuvo, but if Wikipedia's page on it is any indication, it sounds pretty awful! Anyway, I've checked the dealbreaker box on the survey.
Yeah, I think the current situation is they have to burn a certain amount of fuel to refine the bitumen, and then of course the oil itself is eventually burned by the end user. So it's a carbon emissions double whammy. Not a good look. But if nuclear steps in to handle the refining part, they may be able to sell more oil by trading on a "clean" image? Or something. I have trouble getting into that mind set.
it may look to replace the role of fossil fuels in its electricity grid with another controversial energy source — nuclear
I wouldn't be so sure about the "replace" part. Refining oil sands is an energy-intensive process. Couldn't the nuclear power wind up going to that? I thought they were even advocating for this.
We donated a guitar to a high school music program. Honestly, I don't know anyone who owns exactly one guitar. You either have none or several. Do you really need them all? How about taking your old student model and letting a beginner play on it? I get it. It's that sentimental first instrument you ever picked up. But you're not playing it anymore, and instruments like to be played. It deserves a happier life than sitting at the back of your closet.
I guess the central premise of capitalism is that while every society has its haves and have nots, capitalism is supposed to encourage the haves to invest in the economy rather than hoarding their wealth. In return, they stand to get even wealthier, but a stronger economy ought to generate more employment and generally improve the lives of commoners as well.
Unfortunately, in a never-ending quest to make wealth-generation more efficient and streamlined, employment is being eliminated through automation, outsourcing, etc. and the system is eating itself out from the inside. I doubt it can persist much longer, but what will replace it remains unclear. I pray that it will be something sensible that ensures everyone has their basic needs met and can still find rewarding pursuits in life. But there are so many ways it could go very wrong, and that includes staying on the current course.
I saw the Danforth side last time I was visiting relatives in the area and was definitely impressed! I would hate to see them take away the cycle tracks there.