I noticed this posts doesn't link back !neptunia@lemmy.world.

Cross-posts on Lemmy work by detecting whether someone has linked to the same thing, so to allow people to find their way to the original post, you can simply copy the image URL from your first post and re-use it any further posts instead of re-uploading the image.

Clients that support it will then show "also posted to" and link to the other communities to which something has been posted, allowing people to discover other communities they might like through the posts on communities they already sub to.

I don't even remotely agree.

Fanart can add, include or leave out whatever the artist likes.

There is no such thing as an "essence" of a character. There is simply an original depiction, no single part of which is central or integral when translating to another depiction.

What does and doesn't get lost in translation is entirely up to the artist, and whether they care to depict that given aspect.

Do artists not get to apply their own art-styles to characters?

This is how Dandonfuga draws Kale.

By your own admission they've adapted every basic physical trait of the character aside from clothing, and drawn a character fitting the description, but in their unique style.

What more can you ask? Take away the art-style of the original artist and any character is just a list of physical features.

Aww. She can stab a pencil in my eye any day.

Feel free to log in over on twitter and take it up with the artist.

Gateway drugging their players. Makes sense.

I respect the hell out of that!

The car, when used for all transport, is wildly inefficient. Multimodal transport where whatever mode is most efficient is used, isn't applied enough.

You like driving. If the goal is to enjoy the pleasure of driving, then no other option serves that purpose. Hence, driving is what YOU should be doing.

But cars are used to achieve so many other goals that do have more efficient options, simply because it is the existing standard.

There are people who VEHEMENTLY HATE commuting by car. They shouldn't be driving, but doing so might still be the least offensive option. Providing these people a way not to drive, also fits the description of "discouraging" car ownership.

Cultural knee-jerk reactions like yours, as well as the barrier of existing infrastructure, make improvement difficult. OP is specifically asking how to change things in a way that would make people want the change, rather than have it be forced on them.

They didn't ask how to stop people from owning cars. Discourage means discourage. If you'll never sell your car no matter what, that means you're one of the people who can't be discouraged, but that doesn't mean people who can, and even should be, don't exist.

You admit to using transit systems, when applicable, which means you're already accepting the solution. Would it really be so bad if you could use transit to get more places, and more people could use it for all their needs, even if you aren't one of them?

No-one who seriously considers the issue thinks all cars should be done away with.

Cities designed for pedestrians can still be made to accommodate accessibility vehicles, and even more importantly, emergency vehicles.

Right, and we built tracks out to every building anyone might conceivably want to visit.

Wait, no we didn't. The popularity of the car in some countries is VERY artificial. Driven by early auto-industry advertising that solidified into culture.

But it didn't take hold world-wide.

There's a train station in Tokyo through which the entire population of my country passes DAILY.

A design for a highway interchange that can get 5 million people where they need to go within less than 24 hours, does not exist.

It's hard to drive what I don't own.

How does your neighbor no longer needing a vehicle, stop you from owning one you do need?

And talking subsidies, my city burns through $150 million annually to build out 400+ miles of bike lanes that 3% of the population use. (Actual stats published by the city)

Car infrastructure is measured in billions. Infrastructure that is used by 100% of the population can still be less cost-effective, if its costs are great enough. Spending 100 billion so that everyone can drive makes no sense if everyone as a whole can only afford 80 billion.

Diverting at least some resources then, so that at least some people can get where they need to go for less, only makes sense.

At least part of the problem is cultural momentum. Even as more cost-effective ways to get around are built out, people will continue to drive because it is what they are used to. The benefits of shifting transport systems also have a severe lag time because a complete transit system is built over decades, not months.

150 million a year is nothing, no shit it's only useful to 3%. That number only reaches the nineties of cities like Amsterdam when you've been doing it for generations. The same was and is true for cars.

but understand when you try to pinch casual drivers, you got us too

Not in my city. Getting around in a car is better than ever. In fact, getting around using every possible mode of transport available is better than ever.

This policy can't reduce casual vehicle use without harming workers.

Then it's bad policy, and your local planners don't know how to change things efficiently. But the cities where it works for everyone LITERALLY EXIST. I live in one.

It is extremely easy for planners to spend money on half-measures that only make things worse, as is happening all over, but that isn't a reason to stick with something the math proves is broken.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach here.

Exactly. Yet the entirety of humanity has congregated around the car as if that is that one-size-fits-all solution you're admitting doesn't exist.

You could always contact Lego. That seems like a problem with the production run or color.

And while somewhat blasmephous, if it's a display piece, you could consider glueing the things.