No it's absolutely not cheaper to drive your family into the city. You said owning+driving a car; did you really take into account ownership costs (maintenance, insurance etc) and driving costs (tolls, parking)? Just the cost of parking alone dwarfs the cost of the train.

Public transportation should always be free in cities, with car commuters paying the operation costs. Not saying it can be implemented right away, but it should be a policy goal for cities.

You have all the right in the world to prefer driving and chilling on your air conditioning and stereo if you can afford it, but it shouldn't be free if you're occupying the lane space 10 people would occupy in a bus, and making the traffic slower for the bus in doing so.

The legitimate criticism I read against "Abundance" is that for the most part regulations and due process emerged to protect public interests from private capture. In the article the author says we should use "pre-approved vendor lists" or "streamlined approvals" and that sounds great in principle, but could also easily be exploited.

One of the reasons American and German cities are made for cars is because of the influence of their car industry. However, this also pushed out investment in competing alternatives like public transport infrastructure.

His book also proceeds from the unquestioned assumption that people working on things like high-speed rail and affordable housing want it to come to fruition, much as you suspect that his critics do not want them to come to fruition. The alternative possibility that maybe needs a glance is that the projects' strongest backers have no intention of bringing those projects to pass, but rather desire to funnel the funds needed for the bureaucratic steps to their cronies. This is sometimes cited in criticism of California's high-speed rail: people working on the studies and processes necessary for bureaucracy are being paid, although the actual train will not be built. Maybe the train (or the Seattle parking spaces) are not actually what some part of the powers behind the project want, because they want really their friends to get paid for the bureaucratic work on the project.

It's less "both sides" and more "two of the four sides." There is Hamas, the weak but fanatical terrorist organization, the powerful and cruel ruling Israeli administration and military, the Palestinian citizens struggling to survive, and the Israeli citizens. The latter two are mostly not committing crimes against humanity¹. By the laws of war Israel signed into, civilians should be protected. Civilians are not parties in a war

1: The violent Israeli settlers, if certain accounts are true, are committing crimes against humanity. But you can't punish every Israeli just because they share nationality with a criminal. Just like we shouldn't starve Palestinians who live in the same area as Hamas.

Honestly I find it kind of sickening how much people treat this conflict like picking a sports team. I’ve been saying that from the start - I feel for the civilians caught in the middle of this conflict, from both Israel and Gaza.

I’ve caught flak from both sides for saying so. Some people seem deadset on making an enemy of nuance.

"The only reason there is starvation in Gaza is because IDF is preventing aid from entering the territory and are refusing to let real humanitarian organizations work safely there."

This is not accurate to say the least. Trucks do get in but Hamas and armed groups control the supplies and prevent a fair distribution

don't they all sign a document saying it's all classified tech?

If I'm the sole owner and only employee of a small business, should I have the right to choose my clients? If so, at what size/scale/level of market capture should I lose my rights?