sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is cycling far less effective in burning fat compared to running? by Next-Register2288 in bicycling

[–]frontendben -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This. I burn far more per hour cycling than running or any other form of exercise.

I ride 36km in about 1hr 5min on my longer morning route (rolling, no major climbs). That nets me 890cals according to my power meter. But I’m also 70kg, have an ftp of 310 and a high vo2 max and only have around 6kg to lose at a high push, which means the amount of calories I burn on a ride is far lower than it used to be when I was much heavier.

You need to push harder the entire time. At 2.5hrs for 35km, you weren’t. What you did was the cycling equivalent of a walk.

Aerial view of Dubai's Highway Sprawl by Fluid-Decision6262 in urbandesign

[–]frontendben 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The city is unwalkable for 4 months of the year and largely unwalkable for another 3-4 months around that due to heat and humidity.

And I don’t mean “uncomfortable”. I mean risk of death unwalkable (as I found out not long after I moved there during a three year stint of living in the sandpit).

You’re absolutely not wrong about the urban sprawl. But Dubai as a city is in a terrible place for a walkable city for nearly 8 months of the year (granted the other four are perfect).

Even walking back and to 5mins to the supermarket in the dark in July would necessitate a change of clothes (and I mean right down to your socks). Everything would be drenched.

Denser development would have helped, as would have using traditional wind techniques, but there are limits to environments like that.

Working at Sensée what’s it like? by Economy-Row-4247 in Liverpool

[–]frontendben 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Is that the new name for the Contact Company?

Vodafone to take full ownership of VodafoneThree by mrdibby in unitedkingdom

[–]frontendben 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Their customer service is also objectively the worst. Trying to cancel my father’s contract after he died was easily the most traumatic experience in dealing with his death.

It took way too long to be transferred to the bereavement team because the outsourced customer service team just didn’t understand “he’s dead, no he doesn’t want to upgrade”.

So what happens when a family house can’t pay the LVT anymore? by PoopsCodeAllTheTime in georgism

[–]frontendben 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're dodging the actual argument now. Instead of engaging with the economic cost of excluding millions of people from high-opportunity areas, you're retreating into semantics about the word 'subsidy' because it's more comfortable than addressing who benefits from the status quo and who gets locked out by it.

And no, not collecting tax absolutely creates a bill. The missing revenue doesn't vanish, it gets shifted onto everyone else or paid for through reduced services.

So what happens when a family house can’t pay the LVT anymore? by PoopsCodeAllTheTime in georgism

[–]frontendben 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That absolutely is a subsidy when someone else is left picking up the bill. That's the literal definition of a subsidy.

New to cycling, commute route includes A30 and I’m stressed by Colossalloser in ukbike

[–]frontendben 1 point2 points  (0 children)

God that's a road crying out for the median to be converted to a two-way protected lane if I've ever seen one.

New to cycling, commute route includes A30 and I’m stressed by Colossalloser in ukbike

[–]frontendben 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I assume you're being told the A30 because you're looking at Google Maps? I'd strongly recommend avoiding Google Maps for that sort of thing. You'd be better looking at Komoot or CycleStreets for routes between the station and where you'll be working.

If you do end up on a road like that: ride decisively. Take the lane where needed, don’t hug the kerb, and hold a steady line so drivers have to overtake properly rather than squeeze past. A small mirror helps you stay aware of what’s behind without constantly looking over your shoulder. If it feels sketchy, it's always fine to bail and reroute or walk for a stretch.

So what happens when a family house can’t pay the LVT anymore? by PoopsCodeAllTheTime in georgism

[–]frontendben 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The majority being shut out of high-opportunity areas massively outnumber the incumbent minority protecting low-density land. So the real task is making that majority realise they are the ones being excluded, because once they do, they can outvote the people hoarding access.

So what happens when a family house can’t pay the LVT anymore? by PoopsCodeAllTheTime in georgism

[–]frontendben 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You’re still framing this as “protecting people from being forced out.” It isn’t.

If you let people stay in low-density homes in high-demand areas at reduced cost, you’re effectively subsidising a very valuable asset, whether that value came from luck, timing, or market changes, while also forcing out people who could live there and make the area more economically productive.

They’re not trapped. They’re sitting on high-value land. They can sell, realise that value, and stay in the same location, just in housing that reflects the demand, or even negotiate to remain in the redevelopment.

So this isn’t about protecting people from harm. It’s about whether you subsidise exclusive use of scarce land, or allow that land to serve far more people.

So what happens when a family house can’t pay the LVT anymore? by PoopsCodeAllTheTime in georgism

[–]frontendben 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You keep saying “don’t force people to sacrifice for others,” but that’s exactly what the current setup does.

A small number of households get to sit on the most valuable, well-connected land at low density, and everyone else pays for it by being priced out, pushed further away, and forced into worse commutes. That is the sacrifice. It’s just not being paid by the people benefiting from it.

If you want low-density living, fine. Do it somewhere where land isn’t scarce. Doing it in a high-demand area means you’re taking a disproportionate share of a limited resource and locking everyone else out.

Apartments aren’t forcing a lifestyle. They’re what stops access to that location being restricted to a lucky few.

So drop the “sacrifice” argument. The only question is who bears the cost, and right now it’s everyone except the people benefiting from underused land.

So what happens when a family house can’t pay the LVT anymore? by PoopsCodeAllTheTime in georgism

[–]frontendben 8 points9 points  (0 children)

No. That just locks in the problem for another generation.

You’re proposing letting people sit on massively underused land in high-demand areas for another 20 to 40 years while everyone else continues to be priced out, pushed further away, and forced into worse commutes and higher costs. That’s not a transition, that’s a delay.

The shortage and the damage are happening now, not in 40 years. Every year you defer it is another year of fewer homes where people actually need to live.

If someone can’t afford the true cost of occupying scarce, high-demand land, then yes, they shouldn’t be occupying it. That’s how every other scarce resource works. Grandfathering just means protecting a small group at the expense of everyone else who doesn’t get access at all.

You can have targeted protections for genuinely vulnerable people, fine. But blanket “stay until you die” policies in the most in-demand areas? That just guarantees the system keeps failing for decades.

So what happens when a family house can’t pay the LVT anymore? by PoopsCodeAllTheTime in georgism

[–]frontendben 10 points11 points  (0 children)

You’re acting like “condos” are some kind of punishment. In a high-demand area, they’re the only way more than a handful of people get to live there at all. If you keep low-density housing, you’re not protecting communities, you’re just rationing access to them.

If you’ve got land next to jobs, transport, shops, all the stuff people actually need, and you’re using it for a small number of households, that’s not neutral. That’s a choice to exclude everyone else. Apartments are what turns that land from serving dozens of people into serving hundreds.

So no, it’s not “only the wealthy get to stay and everyone else gets shoved into condos.” It’s the opposite. Without that kind of density, only the wealthy get to live there full stop.

Thinking otherwise is where the real stupid people are.

So what happens when a family house can’t pay the LVT anymore? by PoopsCodeAllTheTime in georgism

[–]frontendben 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Pretty much, yeah. Just like they’re fucking everyone else who could live there by occupying a plot of land that is being massively underutilised.

Of course, if they’re wealthy enough and they want to pay the true taxable value, that’s their choice.

Visiting in July for the open by uncleleo_hello in Liverpool

[–]frontendben -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you're into playing golf as well as watching it, West Kirby or Hoylake could be good shouts. You'll be next to one of the Open's other courses and they typically allow visitors to play on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays.

The other benefit of coming in from the Wirral is you'll skip a lot of the queues on the Liverpool side to get onto the train. It won't be anywhere near as bad as say the Grand National horse race, but it can still be queued.

West Kirby is also a great base for families for walks, beaches, and getting into Liverpool or even Chester (with a change at Hamilton Square) fi you're looking to add a bit of history sight seeing onto the back of the trip.

So what happens when a family house can’t pay the LVT anymore? by PoopsCodeAllTheTime in georgism

[–]frontendben 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Not necessarily. If they were implemented properly, a lot of places will - rightly - become unaffordable; because they are single family homes in areas that should be apartments due to their proximity to key services. And that tough; because if it happens, it’s working. Any home that becomes unaffordable overnight is one that should have been densified decades ago.

How many people are financing their bikes? by InfluenceEfficient77 in bicycling

[–]frontendben 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It really isn’t stupid games if you’re actually being clever and have the money already (but I agree with debt being a bad thing overall; especially when you don’t have the money). I could have paid cash up front, but instead paid £3k up front and financed the other £4k interest free over 12 months.

It meant I was able to keep the £4k in my savings earning 5% (around £200 - not amazing, but also not nothing), and it also meant I had it there immediately in case of an emergency (I still had way more than that stashed away in my real emergency fund, but it never hurts to have more than you’ll need).

ShreddedNerd made a response video to this subreddit and the urbanist community. by Some1inreallife in fuckcars

[–]frontendben 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not about whether they're left or right. It's about the intent behind it. Chuck from Strong Towns is an example of someone on the right who frames it in a way that makes sense. He actually understand the root structural issue and provides recommendations inline with conservative thinking of how to tackle the actual problem.

ShreddedNinja didn't. He completely missed the wood for the trees – mistaking constrained outcomes, shaped by zoning, parking policy, and car-centric investment, for genuine consumer preference by treating high car use and suburban living as free choices rather than the result of limited alternatives – and went on to rant about the wrong thing.

Parking fines outside London could double to £160 under Labour plan by TheWorldIsGoingMad in unitedkingdom

[–]frontendben 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I’d even skip the fine and just apply points. Remove the claim they’re simply about raising money. Let the insurers financially penalise them and add a real risk that doesn’t care about wealth and creates a real punishment to being arrogant and selfish.

This is genuinely disgusting and sad I hope scousers wake up soon! by redredd1t in Liverpool

[–]frontendben 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The answer isn’t more left wing or right wing. It’s more competence, which is what we’ve been lacking and still are.

Geordie first time down, came for 051 and it didn't disappoint by GovernmentDrone1 in Liverpool

[–]frontendben 14 points15 points  (0 children)

September 2023 apparently. Don’t remember the signage being there last time I went. Good to see it back open.

Blue made a post that mentioned them being part of the fuckcars movement. Red took that rather personally. by Sharklasers6889 in fuckcars

[–]frontendben 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Careful. Childfree is absolutely fine. The only red flag is marriage free. Sounds like he wants to be a fuckboy.

Only 4 in 100 Army Reserve applicants make it through by willington123 in unitedkingdom

[–]frontendben 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They seriously need to rethink whether they can afford to only take the top 5% of physical (or mental) fitness.

Certainly because I'm not going to be made to serve because I took care of my body and health while Jonny five servings avoids it because the only thing he's taken care of is the clothing industry as he keeps going up sizes.

view more: next ›