assuming everyone has a gun and is willing to use it, raises the stakes of every encounter. so instead of a police encounter starting at a very low risk level (casual conversation), it starts a very close to deadly force risk.

This causes both sides to be a lot more tense, with a lot less room for mistakes. It also makes any encounter feel very risky.

I don't think people having a gun prevents police from starting an encounter at a casual level. But the assumption everyone is out to harm them, and has the means to do so, does.

Edit: The changes made by the ai are a lot more vissible in the higher quality video uploaded to patreon: https://www.patreon.com/posts/136994036 (this was also linked in the pinned comment on the youtube video)

For an example of what happens to a reactor build according to safety requirements see the onagawa nuclear powerplant

As a conflict has multiple parties trying to reach their own goal which doesn't completely overlap with the others.

i think this would rule out nearly all games (including most non violent ones)

I notice that when i get in a bad head space, i trend to become less active. It then becomes more difficult to start doing anything.

Playing a game like dark souls gives you two things: 1. Its stimulating, and gives you instant feedback. 2. It allows you to fail, and have to retry.

So instead of passively drowning my self in algorithmic content, im actively working towards a goal. This then makes it easier to actually pick something up in the real word.

breaking out of the initial cycle of running away from the world is the most difficult part of getting out of a bad headspace (for me). So anything that breaks open those initial steps can be very helpful.

We have already seen South Korea and Japan announce new trade deals with China. So the US is actually pushing away its allies in the region (which doesn't sound ideal when trying to start a war).

So for spread out places with lost of space cars will usually be the fastest.

However if we look at dense city centres you have a lot of people competing for parking and a lot of people competing for road throughput.

Say we want to move from A to B, assuming infinite throughput the car is fastest. Take the same route, but it can handle only 200 cars/hour and 10000 people want to take it, we end up with a lot of cars waiting for each other. In this case, slower but more efficient modes of travel will be faster at getting all these people to their destination.

This leads us nicely to the Downs–Thomson paradox. When people in the above scenario start to take other modes of transport it reduces the load on our bottleneck. Eventually reaching an equilibrium where the speed of different modes of transport balances out (as people stop switching from one mode to the other)

The hate for traffic calming is an interesting point, as it assumes cars are the only thing that exists. Unfortunately our cars don't exist in a vacuum, but interact with other object in the world like buildings, and people. The goal of traffic calming is to make it so that other things are protected from cars. (mainly by lowering speed in places where there is lots of other stuff, you wont see traffic calming on a highway)

But, it is also important for the fines to be reduced when taking the right steps to improve. Balancing this will probably be quite difficult.

While this ruling does not specifically only use the ePrivacy directive (it is instead based in GDPR), laws do not exist in a vacuum.