I think we should chip all the buses in half to make more cars. Like worms.
No, that just creates two buses, you idiot. Weren’t you paying any attention in basic biology?
When buses are cut laterally, they can regenerate their other half to become a bendy bus, like above. A similar phenomenon can also be observed in multiple unit trains, though scientists suspect this is more likely a reproduction strategy than a defence mechanism.
Cars are an invasive species, and cannot reproduce on their own without the help of humans (much like corn). If you want cars in your ecosystem, you’ll have to attract them from another city. This can be done by sprinkling wide asphalt paths everywhere (with no bus lanes), removing peoples’ homes from any shops or public buildings, and generally making everything in your life more miserable. A car at sexual maturity will then crash into pedestrians in order to release its seeds.
I feel like buses tend to be a good gauge on peoples’ views on public transportation. Like they’re not as fast or as impressive as trains, they’re not as ‘green’ as bicycles or walking, and they have all the problems that come with relying on road infrastructure. They’re not seen as glamourous or exciting as other vehicles; they often need investment from local authorities to actually be usable; but improving them is ultimately the most viable solution for many, many problems.
There’s a scientific journal called “Get me off Your Fucking Mailing List”.
In 2005, computer scientists David Mazières and Eddie Kohler created this highly profane ten-page paper as a joke, to send in replying to unwanted conference invitations. It literally just contains that seven-word phrase over and over, along with a nice flow chart and scatter-plot graph.
An Australian computer scientist named Peter Vamplew sent it to the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology in response to spam from the journal. Apparently, he thought the editors might simply open and read it.
Instead, they automatically accepted the paper — with an anonymous reviewer rating it as “excellent” — and requested a fee of $150. While this incident is pretty hilarious, it’s a sign of a bigger problem in science publishing. This journal is one of many online-only, for-profit operations that take advantage of inexperienced researchers under pressure to publish their work in any outlet that seems superficially legitimate.
