andrewrgross

First, the most honest answer is that it's a shitty question. This 'Sophie's Choice' promise is inherently designed to disrespect someone. In real life, you just react and try to save both, most likely based on who is a better swimmer, is closer, etc.

But the question between who you prioritize is valid. The answer is subjective, of course, but my advice would be that you prioritize your mother over a casual girlfriend/bf, but you prioritize a finance or spouse over your mother. And this isn't hard to explain to Mom. I did. I said, "Hey Mom: remember how Dad always put Grandma in front of you because he was such a wimp, and it made you feel absolutely terrible? Well good news: you raised a better man than she did."

She didn't love it, but she got it. And she respected it.

It's pretty wild, because this is genuinely great politics and great policy. It's weird that folks haven't realized this and acted on it yet. Fingers crossed.

That's what I said! Fifteen minutes isn't far. But it's no longer close.

About twelve.

Could you throw this back in the fryer? I think I see a few uncompressed pixels.

This is really deep.

I also gotta say: I reserve more respect for anyone who changed their attitudes to something I admire than someone who always held them. Me? I'm pretty progressive. But it's not like I can take credit. I share similar views to most people with my upbringing. Holding these beliefs is about impressive as a ball rolling down a hill.

Questioning your beliefs and going somewhere else? That's an achievement.

Get ready, because this is kind of cheesy stuff, but these two pieces of sports advice, taken together, have guided me for years.

First: a mentor of mine who was a pool shark taught me that when you're playing pool, there is always a best shot to take. Sometimes, when you've got no good options in front of you you want to just do nothing or quit. But no matter what, billiards offers a finite set of options of where to try and aim the cue, and if you rank them from best to worst, there is always a best. When you're in a bad situation, you find it and you take the best option. Often, that's either a harm reduction strategy, a long-shot that feels impossible, or a combo of both. But if you always do this you'll usually suffer far less harm in the aggregate, and if you take enough long shots you'll occasionally achieve a few incredibly improbable wins.

Second: A kayaking instructor taught me -- and this I'm told is true in many similar sports -- you go where your focus is, so to evade a problem, focus on the way past. If you see a rock, don't stare it it, you'll hit it. It doesn't matter if your brain is thinking "I gotta go anywhere except that rock!" If you're looking at, you're heading into it. If you don't want to hit the rock, instead you have to look at wherever it is you DO want to go. It takes a bit of practice, because your brain sees "rock!" more easily than "smooth water flowing between two rocks". But that's how you get down a river, and it's also how you work through almost any other problems in life that are rushing at you: don't focus ON them, focus on whatever is the preferred alternative. This is especially useful if the alternative is sort of a non-thing, like an empty gap between two problems. And it often is.

Taken together, you get the basic approach that has steered my problem solving throughout adulthood. And it really works.

Real

Alright, I just wasted a bunch of time I should've been working looking into this, and here is the HSRA's most recent report on the subject: https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Sustainability-Report-2024-FINAL-A11Y-20240916.pdf

From the relevant section, pg 58:

With high-speed rail, the annual GHG emissions reductions are projected to be 0.6 to 3 million MTCO2e. based on 2024 Business Plan ridership models. This reduction is equivalent to the annual carbon emissions associated with the energy use of between 77,000 and 372,000 homes – more than the housing stock of San Jose. The cumulative reductions in well-to-wheels emissions over the first 50 years of operations are projected to be between 29 million and 142 million MTCO2e.

I wish they'd provided a percent reduction in vehicle emissions, but according to another source (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data), in 2023, transportation emissions in California were 137 million metric tons of CO2. The average of the range comes out to around 1.3% of that range.

That's interesting. I wonder what fraction of transit emissions are from passenger travel across the state, vs commercial hauling and inner city traffic. I still think this is an obviously necessary step, but I'm curious what other actions are needed to take care of the other 99% of transit emissions. Perhaps urban public transit and bike infrastructure.

First: fuck this bullshit. This is such a common problem with market-based solutions. I'm a big proponent of them, but you really need to keep politicians from doing this. The goal is phasing out fossil fuels. The money absolutely should be going to projects that fulfill that goal. This is not a piggy bank.

Second:

"While supporters ballyhoo the bullet train as something that would have a major impact on emissions by reducing auto traffic, the High Speed Rail Authority’s own projections indicate that, were it to be fully completed, it would reduce automobile emissions by scarcely 1%. Meanwhile construction actually increases emissions."

This doesn't quite pass the sniff test. You're telling me that if you built a zero-emissions mode of high speed transit along one of the most trafficked routes in the state that there would be no change in emissions? Are the ridership projections zero? Did the model say that for every driver who choses to take the train instead of driving, a new driver will take their place? Is this factoring in the effect on airline emissions from people who train instead of fly? This just sounds like that monologue from Landman where Billy Bob Thorton's character confidently declares a bunch of facts about climate reduction that the writer thought sounded good.

That was a great ep and this is a great meme

Holy shit, really?

That is Sony levels of stupid.