They were invented decades ago.

They have fewer moving parts than wheelbois.

They require less maintenance.

There’s obviously some bottleneck in expanding maglev technology, but what is it?

  • kool_newt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because it’s not currently profitable in most cases. Capitalism ensures that the merit of an idea comes secondary to it’s profitability. We don’t get the best things, we get the profitable things.

    • traches@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not to defend capitalism in general, but it’s really good at answering these sort of “is it worth the cost?” aquestions. The whole point is to allocate scarce resources efficiently; the problem is that it assumes nobody is a scumbag and all the costs are accounted for.

      • kool_newt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s also really good at “externalizing” costs one does not want to factor in – making it worthless for the stated purpose.

      • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It isn’t. Most decision makers of capitalism are very unaware of science. You’d know this if you work in research. The ideas that see light of day do so not because they’re good in any quantifiable sense. It is because they convince the capitalists. This can be affected by so many things that aren’t merit or even cost based.

        Some things make sense from a cost perspective, but not a profitability perspective. Profit isn’t just about cost. There’s margins, competition, longevity, etc. Something can be of moderate costs, but if the margins are too low or it is too long term or a project, it is of low value to capitalists.