Originally it was going to be “over the last twenty years” but I decided to be more flexible.

A lot of discussions about how society has changed or how the world is different always circle around to smartphones, social media, “no one talks to each other in person, they’re on their phones always” and the like.

Outside of those topics, what else has changed, by your perception?

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zipEnglish
    12·
    11 days ago

    i got fed up enough that i decided i’m never flying again. if i can’t get there in time by driving, so sorry, i won’t be able to attend

    • rImITywR@lemmy.worldEnglish
      194·
      11 days ago

      Domestic flights should basically not be a thing. Trains should be the default option if you don’t have to cross an ocean.

      • Lowpast@lemmy.world
        134·
        11 days ago

        Ahh yes, trade 6 hours for a 3 day, $400 train ride to NYC.

        Lmfao what a shit suggestion

        • rImITywR@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          11 days ago

          With the current level of train infrastructure and service, I agree with you. That is why domestics flights are a thing. But trains would be a much better choice if rail wasn’t actively defunded and sabotaged for the last 70 years or so.

          Its this lack of imagination of what could be (and already exists around the world) that makes everyone laugh at Americans.

          • Lowpast@lemmy.world
            53·
            11 days ago

            Even with high speed rail you’re looking at 30+ hours from Seattle to NYC. And that’s optimistic, ignoring the numerous alpine mountains. No thanks.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              2·
              11 days ago

              Why do people always go here?

              • Fine: coast to coast, north to south should have flights. However almost all domestic flights are shorter and most of those are between city pairs where rail could be more efficient.
              • Fine: keep your bush pilots and feeder airlines, but 80% of the population is in metro areas.
              • high speed rail advocates generally speak in terms of population density and distance for choosing the right option: generally city pairs less than 500 miles apart can be more efficiently served by rail. That’s most cities in the US, and metro areas are 80% the population

              We don’t need to argue about it not being absolute,if you can recognized the predominant needs

      • Cenzorrll@lemmy.world
        1·
        9 days ago

        Uhh, I’m gonna disagree with this. My family is 1700 miles away, without high speed rail I’m not doing that trip if there aren’t flights. It’s still a long ass trip by high speed rail. I might be willing to do that trip on regular rail if corporations didn’t fuck it up for passengers and if it was direct, very few stops, and activities were available on board. That’s a long ass time to be travelling on the ground.

        For the Europeans out there, that’s like going from Paris to Kyiv, and I’m not even crossing the whole country.

        I do agree that there should be rail between large cities, distances under 400 miles should be able to be done by rail.

    • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
      6·
      11 days ago

      I’m close. I only fly to see family and drive everywhere else. If I can’t complete the vacation without driving I’m just not doing it.

      It’s weird because flights are cheaper but then I don’t have a vehicle where I land and most of the places I want to go I need a vehicle. I’m not much of a city boy.