this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2026
305 points (99.4% liked)

memes

21695 readers
2594 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I mean... I'd totally rock a personal mini train that left when I wanted and rode on a track.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 3 points 54 minutes ago

And also has a station at my house.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Trains for long haul + autotaxis (or air taxis) for short, low speed rides actually sounds pretty dope.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 55 points 4 hours ago (3 children)
[–] zqwzzle@lemmy.ca 36 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

They just keep reinventing trains except shittier.

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 2 points 52 minutes ago

why would an individual car “train” that can go anywhere (eg. train tracks on all roads for self driving cars) be shitter than a train that has limited availability and is extremely restrictive in where it can go?

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 16 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

What if we made the train wide and flat, gave it armor plating, bolted a pair of claws on the front, and let it run sideways?

[–] DrFunkenstein@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 minutes ago
[–] WesternInfidels@feddit.online 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Boxcarcinization.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 9 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] lime@feddit.nu 8 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

it's ~pods~. completely different.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

Yes, trains have real throughput.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 5 points 3 hours ago

"Trains, but without the tracks."

[–] vapeloki@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

The only way to solve the self driving cat issue is to ban all human drivers from the road.

So, if some techbro wants self driving cars, just give everybody one. All electric of course.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 13 points 3 hours ago

The only way to solve the self driving cat issue is to ban all human drivers from the road.

...and cyclists, and pedestrians, and farm tractors, and horses, and wagons, and stray pets, and wildlife, and...

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

Giving everybody a self-driving car completely defeats the purpose. Human-driven cars spend about 23 hours of each day just sitting around. A car that can drive itself doesn't need to spend any time being parked - it can provide another ride! Liberally assuming a self-driving car would need to spend a full half of its time (12 hours/day) charging or being serviced, that would still mean that replacing all cars with autonomous vehicles could reduce traffic volume by a theoretical limit of 12× (12 hours/day/vehicle vs. 1 hour/day/vehicle).

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 1 points 25 minutes ago

Get rid of privately owned cars and you might be on to something. If the state owned a fleet of self driving cars you could rent at the car library, that would probably be better than everyone having their own car they park somewhere most of the time.

Building walkable living spaces with mass transit would be better for more people environmentally, economically, health-wise, socially...

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 3 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Why would it reduce traffic volume? The cars that are on the road are the ones that are currently in their hour of driving that day, it would more reduce the size of parking lots and parking space allocation, or at least move it to charging hubs away from where people congregate.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 points 53 minutes ago* (last edited 36 minutes ago)

it would more reduce the size of parking lots and parking space allocation

Which would in turn affect city design, letting buildings be placed closer together, making it so you don't have to drive as far, which would then reduce traffic.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 51 minutes ago

Elimination of personal vehicles would make public transit more attractive; with the previously foregone conclusion that one must own a vehicle gone, the choice is between a few dollars for transit, or several times more than that for a private vehicle. How many people currently choose to take an Uber or Lyft to and from work?

[–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 6 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Is that realistic, though? A car is already a status toy, what's to stop conspicuous consumption in the form of buying one's own self-driving car? Or, say, moving to a cheaper house further from the city, because commute time can now be used as work time? Shared cars won't work in that scenario.

Also, rush hour is still a thing. There have to be enough UAVs to handle peak demand, and then most of them will be parked somewhere, idle most of the time. Or running errands. Traffic congestion is bad enough now, with average vehicle occupancy of 1.2 people; it'll be apocalyptic when that number drops below one.

Also, in cities with sky-high housing costs, i guarantee that people will live in self-driving RVs, because road space is "free."

In short, the only way to realize the benefits of the shared UAV future is to ban private car ownership, and cap the number of UAVs in a city. That sounds a lot like a train, except trains' enormous capacity offers better service.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I doubt that we'll be seeing UAVs for personal transport anytime soon. Terrestrial vehicles are significantly easier to manage.

The main thing that will prevent people from purchasing their own AVs will be availability. Waymo and Zoox, for example, are running services, not selling their multi-hundred-thousand-dollar vehicles to the general public. (I'm not bothering to address Tesla as their autonomy stack is an industry joke.)

Elimination of personal vehicles would make public transit more attractive; with the previously foregone conclusion that one must own a vehicle gone, the choice is between a few dollars for transit, or several times more than that for a private vehicle. How many people currently choose to take an Uber or Lyft to and from work?

Also, trains don't have curbside service.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 1 points 44 minutes ago

UAV meaning Unmanned Autonomous Vehicle. (In contrast to rideshare services, like Uber. When they were heavily subsidized, it must be noted, they increased traffic congestion.) Availability of them will increase. The reason that we have an auto-dominated landscape today is that car makers wanted to sell more cars. There's approximately 0% chance that car makers today will be satisfied selling a limited number of vehicles for ride services, when they could sell vastly more cars to individuals.