Brioche is still a fancier food than basic bread. It's like saying 'let them eat bagels'.

Choice of sub seems a bit weird?

It's always mass production. They're not making them by the millions. Messing around with glass and vacuums is a pain

Lift one boat's rope over the other boat.

Buildings yes.

I'm not so sure about infrastructure, especially things like steel girder bridges.

An awfully large number of things that are now considered 'historical scenic attractions' and 'an integral part of the landscape' were originally built entirely for practical purposes with almost no consideration for aesthetics. Especially bridges and other infrastructure. See also steam trains.

But you try and build new infrastructure and everyone wants to spend 3x the cost on architectural design, screening, or tunnel it underground entirely.

It was an attempt to derail California (and other) High Speed Rail.

Why would you build HSR if there's something way faster/better/cheaper, you just need to wait 5 years? You're going to look really dumb if you spend tens of billions on infrastructure intended to last more than a century, and then it's obsolete before it's complete.

Similar story with Toyota perpetually claiming to have amazing batteries 3-5 years away, making every EV look like an expensive waste with no resale value.

And a hydrogen economy, small nuclear reactors, or fusion power being 5/10/20 years away, removing the need to invest in transmission and generation.

A major paradigm shift being right around the corner makes people choose short-term solutions, because you want to wait for the new thing to arrive before investing in 'old tech'.

The problem is most of it is lies, perpetuated by those selling the short-term-fix old tech.

There's a good chunk of the world where you don't ever have to water lawn, except when initially seeding it.

The whole point of pronouns, I would argue, is to not need a separate set for every instance.

Otherwise you may as well just use Dan/Dan/Dan's/Danself conjugated for each name.

Pronouns:

• Are (generally) shorter than names, because there's less need for them to be unique and they're used more frequently.

• Can be used even when you don't know specifics about a person or object, or they don't want to give out their name.

• Everyone knows how to conjugate them, so once you know someone is a 'they', you can readily extrapolate to them, their, theirs.

My only comment is that at least you only have to learn it once (or, well, thrice), not for any given conversation.

He, she, or they works well enough for most circumstances. Do we really need to broaden it beyond that?

Once pronouns become unique and personalised instead of generic, you lose the advantages of having them in the first place, and may as well refer to everyone by name every time. It'd be less confusing, especially if you're re-using existing words as pronouns.

This is the Georgia in Europe, not the US state.

Trump is beholden to the public?

Apparently they kept saying things like 'long-term investment is important and private companies are bad at that', 'worker productivity is harmed by poor health and education', 'strong urban planning is necessary'.

Fibre needs bigger bend radii proportional to the cable size, but they're still rarely over 15mm diameter cables so you can bend them in like 150mm.

Once you start getting to 11kV MV cables, they do like 2m bend radii.

In NZ, David Seymour at least axed the old Productivity Commission (which his own ACT party founded) to create his new Ministry for Regulation.

Apparently they didn't like the answers they got out of the previous version.

Yeah, directional thrusting is a thing. It was used a lot when contractors were installing NZ's new fibre network about a decade ago. I don't think it's in as widespread usage for power because power cables tend to have much wider bending radii.

Regular trains don't run underground. Lots of opencast mines exist .

Basically all mines have an above ground terminal where whatever you mined is unloaded from your underground trains, lifts, haul trucks or whatever else onto storage piles, then loaded onto the actual long distance trains.

If the mine entry is up a mountain, then the trip down from that point will be a net energy producer regardless of anything else.

Those of us in NZ would like to point out that access to the ocean does not necessarily mean shipping is cheap.

Does that only apply as long as the person isn't pregnant, or possibly cannot be pregnant?

Two religions is not more statistically significant than one.

Referring to yourself in the third person and acting like this comes off as extremely condescending.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are electrified railway lines doing the same. Regenerate large amounts of energy into the grid while descending loaded; consume a relatively small amount of energy to haul the empty train back uphill.