alt.hn

7/22/2026 at 3:29:44 PM

Zero roadkill as Amazon canopy bridges secure 15,000 crossings

 https://news.mongabay.com/2026/07/zero-roadkill-as-amazon-canopy-bridges-secure-15000-crossings/

by hn_acker

7/25/2026 at 4:48:02 PM

Just wanna say, Monga Bay is an incredible publication that doesn't get enough attention. As someone who follows a lot of environmental news, they routinely cover important topics and do original journalism on stories I hear nowhere else. Their YouTube channel is full of extremely high quality videos that often get less than 2k views. I would highly recommend checking them out

https://www.youtube.com/@MongabayTV/videos

Here's a few of my favorites:

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2rfy9HkzSs

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZEkt4Ph41M

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynXNzOUI7Xw

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMeui4P6urY

by culi

7/25/2026 at 7:25:00 PM

How do they tend to clock in on the doomer scale? I'm trying to find alternatives to the regular news that don't feed my doomerism.

by harimau777

7/25/2026 at 10:42:31 PM

I'd actually say climate/environmental news has had an optimism bias because there was a strong strain of thinking reporting on how dreadful certain things are would cause people to give up. I'd say Mongabay is mostly focused on solutions but does not shy away from covering environmental injustices.

If you want something more hopeful, it's hard to suggest news in general, but I really like Shareable's focus on community solutions https://www.shareable.net/stories/

And I also enjoy updates from certain orgs that are actually doing projects:

- Andrew Millison taught permaculture at Oregon State and then worked for the United Nations. His channel is an incredible gallery of amazing climate solutions around the world: https://www.youtube.com/@amillison/videos

- Mossy Earth is a nonprofit that does a lot of cool restoration and rewilding projects that have had tremendous success: https://www.youtube.com/@MossyEarth/videos

- Ecosia (yes the search engine) also does similar work. They collaborate with a lot of nonprofits around the world so its also a good jumping off point to find other groups: https://www.youtube.com/@Ecosia/videos

by culi

7/26/2026 at 5:21:00 AM

Mossy Earth have, and sponsor some wonderful work (and their videos are great) though it’s worth nothing that they are quite explicit that they are not a charity, nor are they a non-profit. It’s owned by the founders, and operates much like a charitable foundation in terms of their mission - this is outlined in their transparency page here:

https://www.mossy.earth/methodologies/business-ethos

Also in their FAQs:

Is Mossy Earth a charity? We are a social enterprise incorporated as a private limited company in the United Kingdom with a for profit structure. In other words, we are a business and the membership is a payment for a service we provide, not a donation. You pay us to rewild nature, and we do our best to make sure that your money has the biggest possible impact.

by gavanm

7/25/2026 at 8:22:31 PM

I meant look at the titles of the recent videos, it's all about disaster recovery/prevention, saving wildlife & nature and getting the perspective from native populations, some stuff will be happy, some stuff will indirectly/directly be not so happy. Maybe I wouldn't call it "happy news", maybe "pensive" is more fitting?

by embedding-shape

7/25/2026 at 8:30:08 PM

[dead]

by cindyllm

7/26/2026 at 10:19:56 AM

On YouTube there is a channel called Good News (@Good_News) that has a monthly show highlighting positive environmental stories.

by Digit-Al

7/26/2026 at 1:03:16 AM

>doomer scale

Well the environment keeps getting worse and nobody is doing anything about it. So I'd say any source is pretty good

by fuzzer371

7/25/2026 at 10:52:35 PM

As I understand it, they've finally been getting noticed in the last year or two. This is a super professional nonprofit media outlet that's producing an almost incredible volume of reporting on subjects of critical importance that almost nobody else is covering. It really is a lesson in the limits to the organic surfacing of quality in the attention economy.

by bluebarbet

7/26/2026 at 7:09:32 AM

403'd :(

by voicedYoda

7/25/2026 at 4:24:41 PM

We just had our first bear crossing on a wildlife here in the Northwest.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/first-black-bear-u...

I know these things are more complicated than they seem at first, but whenever these stories surface, I immediately go to an idealistic childhood cartoon land where we have a prime directive that tells us to go forth(!) and watch out for each other!

by ynac

7/25/2026 at 5:05:24 PM

I always wonder how the world would look if the bible had said "Respect the earth and all living beings" instead of “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion…"

by vjvjvjvjghv

7/25/2026 at 7:28:34 PM

A lot of Christians argue that it does say exactly that. In Genesis 2:15, God tells Adam to care for the planet:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.

Of course fundamentalists tend not to see it that way.

by harimau777

7/26/2026 at 3:30:38 AM

A lot of Christians have also argued that god would not allow a species he created to go extinct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction#History_of_scientif...

So perhaps holy books are not the best manuals for environmental stewardship.

Genesis also gives the impression that plant life primarily exists for humans to eat. Humans don't need any encouragement to favor edible plants over inedible, to judge by their tendency to cut down forests to grow crops.

"Behold, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit contains seed. They will be yours for food."

by RunSet

7/25/2026 at 10:07:15 PM

> Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

John 2:15

by echelon_musk

7/25/2026 at 10:30:13 PM

(that's 1 John 2:15 - John 2:15 is the one where Jesus attacks the money changers)

The next line is critical for context, as it defines what "things in the world" means.

> [...] For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

Seems clear to me this isn't about creation (ie not saying don't cherish nature / animals).

by hoten

7/26/2026 at 3:00:28 PM

As another sibling points out, creation before the fall, so.the animals and humans in the garden of eden, were vegan.

There is also a theory that Jesus was vegan and a belief that Christians should be too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_vegetarianism#Biblic...

by constantius

7/26/2026 at 6:53:04 PM

I was introduced to this idea by the excellent documentary https://christspiracy.com/

Video is an interesting format but I'm glad you shared that page, text is more appropriate to dive into a subject.

by aziaziazi

7/26/2026 at 8:25:20 PM

> Is there a spiritual way to kill an animal? How would Jesus kill an animal?

Amazing question. I'm not spiritual, but regularly debate this topic with others (including here): this will be a useful way of approaching it. Thanks for posting the link!

by constantius

7/25/2026 at 5:47:46 PM

Well no king would ever accept and propagate that religion.

by nvarsj

7/25/2026 at 7:55:48 PM

There are infinite alterations you can make to the bible to make it more moral, like remove the parts where innocent people are punished on someone else’s behalf (raped, stoned, killed) or commanded to enslaved others and take virgins as the spoils of war.

Thankfully over the centuries some people have used their human moral intuitions to gloss over some of the worst parts. But would’ve been much nicer to not have those parts at all.

by hombre_fatal

7/26/2026 at 7:00:26 AM

tbh that’s my biggest problem with it, the cherry picking. Either everything is true or nothing, but once they start cherry picking the whole thing falls apart step by step

by haunter

7/25/2026 at 8:28:03 PM

> alterations you can make to the bible to make it more moral

this is brilliant. The book that is supposed to the be the word on morality needs edits. I can hear the religious right gathering their pitchforks and tiki lights now. It's a perfect book written by the almighty. But for those that don't drink that particular kool-aid it's a self evident observation since it's a book of cherry picked stories by a group of people to push their agenda.

by dylan604

7/25/2026 at 9:52:33 PM

Depends how you interpret it tbh. At least in my tradition the focus is on seeing the good, bad, and ugly of history. There's many bible stories that are more cautionary tales than role models.

Now to be fair, there's also examples of God (as portrayed by the writers) being vindictive and harsh. I don't have great answers for that, but I do wonder how much it is seeing through their perspective of the situation and how much it was God. (I obviously come at this as a believer).

As to being the only moral text... I certainly hope it's not, because we've learned a lot since then, and I hope what's considered truth can expand beyond one book.

EDIT: not to dismiss your points, just to say that some of us view it in a more nuanced way.

by smj-edison

7/25/2026 at 6:07:13 PM

The tribe with the bible that directed to multiply would have conquered the tribe with the bible that directed respect the earth and all living beings because back then, might was proportional to population.

by lotsofpulp

7/25/2026 at 6:55:48 PM

“ It has not occurred to you that your ancestors were survivors and that the survival itself sometimes involved savage decisions, a kind of wanton brutality which civilized humankind works very hard to suppress. What price will you pay for that suppression? Will you accept your own extinction?”

- Frank Herbert, God Emperor of Dune

by mr_toad

7/25/2026 at 8:17:27 PM

better to attribute it to God Emperor Leto Atreides II , not Frank Herbet the author

by user-

7/25/2026 at 8:33:27 PM

The same can be said for moments where avoiding savage decisions resulted in survival; when oblivion was the alternative, and where it was the result of humanity's capacity for compassion and cooperation overcoming "civilized" humankind's tendency towards a banal and unthinking brutality.

Remember that, multiple times in the past half-century, the protocol was to launch all ICBMs and pray.

by underlipton

7/25/2026 at 7:12:11 PM

Which is kinda hilarious given that despite being called a tyrant, Leto II had basically created a post scarcity society that was almost entirely castrated of violence or capacity for it. He kept chastising people for that desire to tame those base instincts but he was doing the exact same thing. It's just a funny thing to quote given the context of his character.

by gambiting

7/25/2026 at 7:48:16 PM

[dead]

by Etheryte

7/25/2026 at 6:32:59 PM

It would look like India.

by Jensson

7/25/2026 at 11:52:59 PM

All living being want to literally eat you in one way or another. You can respect the earth, but first you have to subdue it and have dominion, otherwise it will kill you.

by HiPhish

7/25/2026 at 11:58:13 PM

Not at all true, plenty of herbivores out there that doesn't care for humans as nutrition. Plenty of cultures out there living side by side with earth without subjugating it, and it still hasn't killed those people.

by embedding-shape

7/26/2026 at 2:23:49 AM

Most omnivores and carnivores won't touch humans with a ten foot pole either.

But that's because they're either too smart to try or we have altered their genetic makeup by culling anyone who strayed too close.

by chmod775

7/26/2026 at 10:34:10 AM

For better or worse, not that many people meet hungry carnivores vs "I could go without human for now" carnivores. They're generally kind of risk averse until hunger strikes, then any existing reason/logic (since you claimed "too smart") goes out the window.

by embedding-shape

7/26/2026 at 1:30:03 AM

[flagged]

by BolsunBacset

7/25/2026 at 6:52:24 PM

"be fruitful" and "replenish the earth" is already aligned

As for "subdue", ask anyone maintaining a large garden how much they have to work to keep it from reverting back to a wilderness. Gardening is choosing which species stay and which are forcibly removed and optimizing the environment to enable your chosen species to thrive. If the words "subdue" and "dominion" freak you out, pick your brains up off the floor and go touch grass.

Western civilization has decided that it wants to keep the primate species and is dissatisfied when they become roadkill, so it altered the environment to enable the chosen species to thrive. This article is a gardening success story. Gardening requires dominion. We have dominion over the primates and we have chosen to be benevolent with that dominion.

by infogulch

7/25/2026 at 7:08:29 PM

> so it altered the environment

The motorway was not a natural occurrence, and neither cars or trucks evolved naturally. Humans went there and installed a limited fix for the destruction they caused in the first place.

by rbanffy

7/26/2026 at 2:31:22 AM

Are volcanos natural occurrences? Meteors? Earthquakes floods and fires? Are humans natural? It's a pointless distinction, "nature" is plenty fully of destruction and extinction without humans ever being involved.

by wredcoll

7/26/2026 at 12:04:50 PM

I’m sure the current mass extinction, which seems to have started at the same time a climate change, which itself started more or less when we learned how to dump unprecedented amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere are causally related.

by rbanffy

7/25/2026 at 8:33:50 PM

I put a path in my garden so I can continue to maintain the garden, and walk around and enjoy it. But oh no, my daisies are wilting because they're too close to the path. So I adjust the path, raise the bed a little bit, and add a border, and they're happy after a little bit of water.

Totally normal gardener behavior.

by infogulch

7/25/2026 at 10:21:29 PM

Jesus, what a bizarrely aggressive response.

by andrepd

7/26/2026 at 12:25:29 AM

Hmmm. I thought it was thoughtful and informative. I didn’t see any aggression.

by fivestones

7/25/2026 at 4:20:49 PM

For one moment there I thought Amazon had done a good thing!

by korijn

7/25/2026 at 5:13:35 PM

Pet peeve: companies that appropriate a dictionary term for their name, e.g. Apple, Google (& Alphabet), Amazon, Oracle. It's really not too hard to create a new name for your company, e.g. Microsoft, Facebook and Nvidia.

by em3rgent0rdr

7/25/2026 at 5:50:39 PM

Microsoft doesn’t belong in this list after they trademarked Windows, Word, Works (remember, Microsoft Works is an oxymoron) and others.

by loloquwowndueo

7/25/2026 at 6:20:27 PM

Microsoft Works was such a weird product because it was just half-assed Microsoft Office, but Microsoft Office already existed.

by inigyou

7/25/2026 at 6:22:33 PM

No. Works predated Office by 3 years at least. The first versions of Works ran under ms-dos.

by loloquwowndueo

7/25/2026 at 6:37:25 PM

Several other vendors had office "works" suites too. ClarisWorks, AppleWorks, seems like there were some others for the variety of platforms in the 80s/90s but I can't recall them offhand.

by SoftTalker

7/25/2026 at 6:54:25 PM

Lotus symphony.

by loloquwowndueo

7/25/2026 at 9:11:20 PM

As I understand, Microsoft Works was primary aimed at retail buyers, but Microsoft Office was aimed at enterprises users. MW was probably half the cost of MO. It is market segmentation, as I see it.

by throwaway2037

7/25/2026 at 6:32:58 PM

If you count Google as an appropriation of Googol, surely Nvidia appropriates Invidia?

by GaryBluto

7/25/2026 at 7:53:35 PM

Those are different though? At no point in that sentence was I confused about which word meant what. Unlike Amazonian datacenters deep in the Amazon's Amazon.

by nilamo

7/25/2026 at 8:27:53 PM

Related - companies named after animals or use animal names as part of their name /logo /mascot should at least contribute a share of their profits to its conservation

by manquer

7/25/2026 at 5:24:13 PM

Facebook isn't a new name either. Some schools would publish and distribute a book of student photos with names at the beginning of the school year, to help recognize peers; these were called a facebook. Yearbooks are similar, but published at the end of the year and also have a lot of content about what happened that year and organizations and sports.

by toast0

7/25/2026 at 5:26:52 PM

A face book is a generic term for a school directory with photographs. That's why Zuckerberg called it The Facebook to differentiate it from all the other face books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_book

by fhdkweig

7/25/2026 at 7:18:30 PM

> Pet peeve: companies that appropriate a dictionary term for their name, e.g. Apple, Google (& Alphabet), Amazon, Oracle.

Hard disagree. Consider "Oracle," a truly inspired name for a database company. It's an admirable choice. Here's the computer science definition.

> In complexity theory and computability theory, an oracle machine is an abstract machine that can query a black box called an oracle, which is able to give an answer to any instance of a certain problem in a single operation.

There's also the wealth of linkages with classical oracles, e.g., Delphi, Cumae (technically a Sibyl), Dodona, etc. [1] Taken together, it's hard to think of a better name.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle

by hodgesrm

7/25/2026 at 8:34:34 PM

nVidia comes from the Latin word invidia, which means things like envy, or jealousy.

Microsoft (originally Micro-Soft) is a portmanteau of microcomputer and software.

Facebook, as others have mentioned, is a compound word that was borrowed from what literal books of faces [and names] were called.

When I think of non-dictionary names, I think of things like Mosptnspg.

by ssl-3

7/25/2026 at 6:17:17 PM

I don’t think Google should be on that list. The word is “googol.”

by wat10000

7/25/2026 at 9:12:37 PM

Not to mention, even “googol” is a word almost no one uses (unlike “apple” and “Amazon”).

by jader201

7/25/2026 at 9:10:19 PM

Wildberries

by throwaway2037

7/25/2026 at 4:47:46 PM

same - I was like "headline reads like PR but I guess it's good..." reminder to self: there was an Amazon before the bald bookseller

by skeeter2020

7/25/2026 at 5:58:23 PM

Selling you dirt-cheap goods with next-day delivery isn't enough for you?

by Falimonda

7/25/2026 at 4:33:26 PM

I thought for a moment this was some kind of reference to "no more destroyed Amazon Ground trailers on underpasses"...

by kotaKat

7/25/2026 at 4:44:58 PM

I had the exact same reaction for a moment. But no, of course not.

by everyone

7/25/2026 at 4:34:33 PM

I remember reading that back in the day North America used to have more trees and dense vegetation that squirrels rarely touched the ground since that was more dangerous for them, so they would use the trees like highways.

by dmix

7/25/2026 at 9:49:44 PM

Tree squirrels are big on digging, they bury food for later retrieval and eat a good amount of terrestrial foods. You regularly see them on the ground even in dense forest. Flying squirrels stick more to the trees but their gliding ability means dense forest is not a requirement for avoiding the ground.

by ofalkaed

7/26/2026 at 9:57:27 PM

Funny I just went camping in a provincial park in Canada and I put a tent down on some dirt next to a tree which turned out to be full of buried nuts which was revealed when I tried to sweep away debris. You'd have no idea there were a hundred of them buried right next to the trees.

by dmix

7/25/2026 at 6:19:16 PM

This is the first time Cloudflare has told me I am a bot and can't pass even if I click the box.

by inigyou

7/26/2026 at 12:46:46 AM

Huh I'm surprised these aren't more common around the world? We have these in Australia and they work great

by jofzar

7/25/2026 at 10:57:03 PM

Oh snap, I'm so Hackernews-brained I thought Amazon (company) had sponsored the construction of special animal-crossing bridges for San Francisco freeways.

by bitwize

7/25/2026 at 5:58:14 PM

I don't know what the local fauna looks like, but I'm curious if it'd be possible to start training trees or vines across the bridges as a way to gradually replace the ropes with something more durable - I'm thinking something like the Root Bridges in India[1] that last for centuries.

I worry with projects like this that the first version's easy enough to build and show off, but if you don't keep up with the ongoing maintenance you're right back where you started within a decade, and "monkey bridge maintenance" is an easy budgetary line item for the "fiscal conservatives" to go after.

[1] https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/living-root-bridges-in...

by roughly

7/25/2026 at 6:46:30 PM

I've been here! It takes a veryyyyy long time to grow them unfortunately and they're not as durable as they seem though. I don't think they last for centuries...

by HaloZero

7/26/2026 at 12:39:24 AM

Wow - that's actually incredible. Happy to learn people have done this.

by throwitaway222

7/26/2026 at 12:48:46 AM

did you know that there are 0 (zero) bridges crossing Amazon river?

by NooneAtAll3

7/25/2026 at 6:26:41 PM

Do the animals actually understand roads or that these are crossing points? Or a hope that a percentage will stumble upon them?

by codeddesign

7/25/2026 at 6:48:34 PM

It ends up being the path of least resistance. In many places, there are wildlife fencing around motorways, but it always ends up with holes and animals crossing via the holes, mostly because the animals want to get to the other side and don't find another way. I've never seen those kind of "hanging jungle bridges" like the article talks about, but "wildlife bridges" which literally are bridges with just earth/tress/vegetation on top I've encountered a bunch of times. When those exists, the animals who want to cross can then find a path to get to the other side, without resorting to making a hole in the fence and crossing the roads.

by embedding-shape

7/25/2026 at 6:39:08 PM

They probably see it as an easier crossing than coming down out of the trees to cross the road at ground level. They might feel it's safer too, as being on the open ground is more exposure to predators, which they would instinctively avoid.

by SoftTalker

7/26/2026 at 12:51:17 AM

They actually learn it, what's more crazy in Australia is that we have videos of some birds (bush turkeys/swans) using zebra crossings to cross because they know it's safe.

by jofzar

7/25/2026 at 6:39:29 PM

Apparently, they do

by acjohnson55

7/25/2026 at 5:36:04 PM

This is one of the rare headline where Amazon does not refer to the hyperscaler

by nubg

7/25/2026 at 8:00:00 PM

I dunno, seems like Amazon the forest is the real hyperscaler

by fritzo

7/25/2026 at 5:45:15 PM

What? Amazon Canopy is their new Global Anycast Load Balancer product(GALB)!

by fragmede

7/26/2026 at 4:10:27 AM

This is the kind of stuff Republicans in the US hate.

"big government wasting their money on a bunch of critters"

I'm pretty left. The one thing I will never understand is how the right does not care about nature. Just insane to me.

by honkycat

7/26/2026 at 7:59:05 AM

Yes, you would think 'conservatives' would be big on conserving "god's creation", but no. Apparently having 'dominion' over nature means killing it, not looking after it.

Also, the disconnect between Jesus's politics and what the Christian Right practices is pretty jarring.

by perilunar

7/26/2026 at 10:20:04 AM

You two have put multiple constituencies in a small box so you can beat more people with a single stick. Even just in America, the only overlap between fundies, incels, and technolibertarians is the "R" they tick. Likewise, on the left, there's not much in common between labour activists and eco-hippies.

by psd1

7/26/2026 at 3:28:58 AM

Upon first read of headline I assumed, not unreasonably, that it was a story about how Amazon.com was paying for some wildlife crossings as a kind of community philanthropy.

by syngrog66

7/25/2026 at 4:57:47 PM

California would find a much more expensive solution that worked far less well. The Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing cost an estimated $115M--a total waste of tax payer funds. Bravo to this practical and effective solution.

by diogenescynic

7/25/2026 at 5:12:57 PM

Whoa that's awesome. I didn't know California had one of those. Keeps animals, humans, and cars safe and looks beautiful too.

by megaloblasto

7/25/2026 at 8:19:51 PM

At the cost of $115M we could have built a new public university or added more light rail somewhere it's desperately needed like Orange County or San Diego. I am not against land crossings for animals, but the way the government just blows tax money with no accountability on projects the public has almost no direct benefit from is quite extraordinary.

by diogenescynic

7/25/2026 at 8:52:51 PM

> new public university

I assume you meant to say building, yes?

> added more light rail somewhere it's desperately needed like Orange County or San Diego

In San Diego, 115M would get you what, half a mile of light rail?

by rootusrootus

7/25/2026 at 9:28:25 PM

You're making my argument for me. Infrastructure costs in California are outrageously more expensive than any other developed country--for no reason other than grift.

by diogenescynic

7/25/2026 at 9:43:45 PM

https://transitcosts.com/transit-costs-study-final-report/

Wow look New York is expensive too! It’s almost like it’s the entire country and there are other reasons besides grift.

by bix6

7/26/2026 at 12:05:09 AM

Ah yes, let's ignore that California has spent ~$15B on high speed rail and has literally nothing to show for it... I guess that just makes sense to some people...

To me, I can't accept it when I see other countries rapidly doing these infrastructure projects at a fraction of the cost and multiple times faster. Compare our costs to Switzerland or any other high income developed first world country--we're off the charts. It makes no sense other than lobbyists and environment lawyers and other ticky-tack bullshit that helps no one.

I also see it as a longterm competitive disadvantage and liability for the country. We can't complete big projects any more without squandering most of the tax payer money. It also lowers our quality of life when we're spending this much time in traffic and wasting our tax money for such little to show for it.

by diogenescynic

7/26/2026 at 10:54:39 AM

> It makes no sense other than lobbyists and environment lawyers and other ticky-tack bullshit

Those other countries also have lobbyists and environment lawyers, so your thesis reveals a lack of discernment.

The poster child in the west for infrastructure projects is Spain, and i can assure you that Spain is not light on regulation.

America has an interesting political structure - look there for your answer.

Ultimately, a democracy with a strong concept of individual rights will inevitably surface nimbies. America's fractal disorganisation gives them multiple venues to oppose any project. America's love-hate relationship with federal bodies creates overlaps. America's semi-regular cycle into small-government administration means it regularly expunges institutional infrastructure experience. You could shoot every environmental lawyer and lobbyist, and your projects would still be bunfights.

> that helps no one

You're welcome to your own values. I believe there's a place called "Flint Michigan" where the citizens would disagree.

by psd1

7/26/2026 at 2:35:13 PM

>so your thesis reveals a lack of discernment.

You're really quick to just get angry mad and throw out insults over me saying something as benign as 'wow it'd be nice if California used our tax money as effectively as the example in the article?' Just seems like a bizarre totally mundane thing to get hung up on and then have this nauseating Karen-like condescending tone 'actually... the costs are totally justified, it's fine that California spends 7-10x what every other developed country does--it just makes sense'. You reek of assigned opinion and just conformist talking points from Newsom.

I've lived in California for 40 years and every year the government becomes less effective and more tax money is embezzled and fleeced and squandered. I don't know how someone could travel to Europe or Japan and then come back to California and defend the state of our infrastructure and not be wholly embarrassed. Our schools, roads, bridges, everything that matters are decades behind (despite a sufficiently large tax base to fund those same projects).

We could be doing better, but simps like you just keep giving the one party system a free pass so there've never any accountability whatsoever. Good job, let's just keep lowering our expectations and shrugging this magnitude of incompetence off.

> I believe there's a place called "Flint Michigan" where the citizens would disagree.

How do you think Flint reinforces your argument? If anything it is evidence of exactly what I'm talking about---government bureaucrats making unaccountable decisions that then devastate and rip off the local constituents. They never fixed the Flint crisis... even Obama and Biden did nothing.

by diogenescynic

7/25/2026 at 5:11:35 PM

This is a solution specifically for arboreal animals, while the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing is explicitly for mountain lions.

by tokai

7/25/2026 at 7:37:23 PM

I think the idea of more opportunities to cross is good but the pricetag is absurd still. After all, they are terraforming a hillside. I think it is a little misplaced though. We assume animals need this to cross but it seems they can take a regular old bridge just fine. You can probably build a cheap "animal only" overpass, e.g. maybe a light load mesh metal or plank bridge or somesuch, for a fraction the cost and offer many fold more crossing opportunities across more of the freeway vs just one big budget spectacle. I'm sure the contractor was connected in some way. A sort of storm drain like underpass design would probably also be cheap if done during routine freeway work.

by asdff

7/25/2026 at 9:47:30 PM

Do you know how much accidents cost? $100M is nothing in comparison over the long term. Plus this was a 10 lane overpass and a unique build during a high inflation period. That is not simple terraforming amigo.

by bix6

7/26/2026 at 8:46:27 AM

So build more bridges and fencing along the highway for less money then if that is about the accident rate?

by asdff

7/25/2026 at 7:43:41 PM

Instead of guessing you could look into the research literature on animal road crossings. Its a surprisingly large area of study because it is hard to get animals to use these constructions. Maybe they did a bad and expensive job, but you have nothing to base that on at all.

by tokai

7/26/2026 at 8:50:22 AM

I base it on the mountain lions in question already urbanized enough to walk on sidewalks in los angeles. I mean there were people seriously claiming the griffith park mountain lion was somehow isolated to griffith park, and yet it was showing up on people's ring cameras miles away from the park. I think a lot of people assume that animals are only found in "nature" and don't know what to do in an unnatural setting. They can figure it out. Look at your housecat figuring out your entire home, and realize this is basically a smaller brained mountain lion.

by asdff

7/25/2026 at 11:54:21 PM

Dunning Kruger effect at work.

by oatmeal1

7/26/2026 at 8:51:12 AM

Why discuss anything if there could be a chesterson's fence right?

by asdff

7/25/2026 at 5:56:22 PM

Ok what’s your solution? I’m seeing more and more wild life bridges and tunnels so clearly the engineers think they work.

by bix6

7/25/2026 at 8:18:30 PM

Or maybe it's just a good project for lawyers and lobbyists to get kickbacks...

by diogenescynic

7/25/2026 at 9:39:49 PM

What are you even on about dude…

by bix6

7/26/2026 at 12:09:03 AM

You think $115M is a reasonable price to build a 200 foot bridge that doesn't have to support any real heavy weight? You wouldn't rather have that money spent on you know... humans? The money is skimmed off the top by the people who pay for the politicians to get elected who sign off on these projects. It's all about money and political patronage.

by diogenescynic

7/25/2026 at 7:58:37 PM

Not exactly apples to oranges though, is it?

by kitd

7/25/2026 at 8:17:12 PM

Sure, but that's not the point. My point is that infrastructure costs are like 20-50x more in California than in other developed countries for no apparent reason. We spend a million dollars of tax payer funds to build one single public bathroom in LA or even more in SF. There's something fundamentally broken... I appreciate seeing cost effective solutions that actually works. In California, it seems like most government 'solutions' are a complete scam to divert tax dollars into someone's pet project and create a funnel for their own income/profit.

by diogenescynic

7/25/2026 at 8:55:20 PM

> infrastructure costs are like 20-50x more in California than in other developed countries

Is that really true? For a simple example, it looks like a simple surface light rail line in the US typically runs about 100M/mi. That's pretty much the same as what it costs in the UK.

by rootusrootus

7/25/2026 at 9:31:12 PM

I may be exaggerating the exact number, but it's a well known fact that infrastructure costs more in California. The subway in San Francisco's Chinatown was more expensive than most modern airports... we're being scammed.

by diogenescynic

7/26/2026 at 12:01:57 AM

A "low-cost" subway is generally figured at about $80-100M/km, and in many more countries, you'd figure more like $150-200M/km as a good number.

The Chinatown subway was $600M/km, which is 3-4× "reasonable" construction costs, and fairly far from the most expensive subway, which is I believe NYC's Second Ave phase 2, at almost $4000M/km.

The US in general is a high-cost construction country (for a variety of reasons), but relative to the rest of the US, California is neither particularly expensive nor particularly cheap.

by jcranmer

7/25/2026 at 9:38:59 PM

You’re exaggerating well known facts? Bro get some facts in here instead of just spewing anti California rhetoric.

by bix6

7/26/2026 at 12:12:31 AM

Google it yourself. I've lived in California my entire life and will never leave. I'm allowed to criticize it. I want it to work harder and more effectively and stop wasting resources. Unfortunately there's zero accountability to voters because we're a one party state and the party nominee practically always wins. You can let an entire neighborhood burn down while out of the country at a party and the voters will still defend you.

There's no reason we pay such high taxes and have so little to show for it. I get tired of the endless excuses. Every other country--even the more expensive ones like Switzerland--have more effective infrastructure projects. I honestly don't even think this is debatable. Go look at how poorly maintained practically everything in the state is--schools, roads, bridges... It doesn't make sense when we're paying such high taxes and have all the big tech companies here... I don't know why people are so comfortable with that cognitive dissonance.

by diogenescynic