The data doesn’t seem to support the title of the article.

Am I misreading the data they are sharing in the article?

It shows data that suggests that number of immigrants leaving now is similar to how it’s been for the last decade. And the overall rate now is lower than it’s been most of the last decade, it’s only increased slightly this year for the first time in 4ish years.

Your statement only works if you’re also accounting for accidents prevented by lane assist technology. It’s also worth factoring in cases where these technologies were able to make an accident less severe.

deleted by creator

Hmm, I have a system running a 6000 series i7 (released mid 2015) and it was upgraded to Windows 11 a few months ago.

The version must be more of a recommendation than a firm requirement

Is this because the free upgrade to Windows 11 is too large of a download?

Of course, percentage just help show relativity. It’s why people can look at a 0.5% increase and dismiss it as not significant.

Would it help if I translated the percentage for you? Linux surged 600000 to 2.3 million.

I’m super confused by your point.

In this case we’re looking at Steam.

I have no clue how many people submit to the steam survey, but I’ll assume it’s representative.

A quick google suggests steam has about 120 million active users.

Linux went from about 1.4% to 1.9%.

Rough math says Linux went from 1.7 million to about 2.3 million.

Or an increase of 600 000.

That a lot, both in relative terms and in real terms.

Here’s a counter example for you.

You own stock in banana company. Over one day the price increases 2x. All the news agency’s are talking about how banana surged in price today. Will you then suggest that banana didn’t surge in price because it only makes up 1% of the overall stock market?

That’s why we’re talking about relative percentages.

In your example we would need to know how many trees existed on your road/city before. If there were less than 3 or 4 trees in your city before this, saying there was a surge is likely fine.

What percentage increase do you feel is required for surge to be a reasonable definition. A 35% increase feels surge-y me.

Rural does mostly mean farmhouses and houses in the woods. And yes small villages should get a train connection. But remember you’re suggesting this is a cheap and easy solution when compared to EVs, what you’re suggesting would be very very expensive.

Every country I look up has at least 15% of their population loving in rural areas.

Yes this means that ~20% of most countries live outside low density towns or high density cities.

This is where I think you have a skewed picture of reality.

In North America 20% of people live in rural areas.

As much as I wish that was “vast majority” it isn’t.

Your simple view of public transit doesn’t line up with the realities in North America. I wish it did, but it doesn’t. And unfortunately your uninformed arguments are the fuel actual opponents of public transit use to justify their position.

It doesn’t help the cause to spread uninformed arguments

You’re suggesting that teams and EVs solve the same problems. But they don’t.

EVs replace ICE vehicles. Public transit replace cars in areas that are dense enough to make them viable.

The reason public transit isn’t everywhere because they are expensive to build and maintain.

Yes build them, but suggesting that teams and trains are a replacement for EVs today is completely false and is only hurting your argument overall.

I guess if you don’t include buses in public transit. And pretend that all people live within a 5km walk of existing public transit. You’re right.

But otherwise you’re just oversimplifiying the situation and vastily underestimating how much it actually costs to build a full team network through rural areas.

Roads don’t really go away with public transit, they might need less maintenance overall, but they still need to exist in some form, and roads lasting 10% longer doesn’t seem like a huge savings

Parking is mostly privately owned, so saving money on parking doesn’t really make more money available to invest in public transit.

Which car infrastructure are you talking about in this case?

While public transit is great. It’s a lot more expensive to setup, and even more expensive to make convenient if the city wasn’t built with public transit in mind.

It’s just not a medium term solution for most north american cities, I do desperately hope that cities will start investing more in public transit, and encourage more dense housing, but realistically that is a 30-80 year timeframe. And that’s assuming 100s of municipal governments all get on board. The political lift here is also very large.

The reality right now in North America is, if you’re heavily advocating against electric vehicles, all you’re really doing is adding support to the oil and gas industry trying to stop the outright ban of ICE cars.

We need to do more public transit, and we need to stop using ICE vehicles.

The mining only happens once. The materials in batteries are infinitely recyclable.

Oil is single use and the impacts of mining it has caused sooooooo much damage, news agencies don’t even bother covering it anymore.

Not really though.

If the grid is powered completely by coal, and the government has no plans to phase out said coal and the grid is going to stay all coal for the next 30 years. Then yes, in that case EVs aren’t a great choice.

But like anything else and the “but the grid is currently not clean” arguments don’t really hold water.

This takes time and a lot more money. It’s something we should do in parallel, but even if we started this today, any EV sold in the next decade would be long off the road before sizable impactful progress had been made on 15min cities.