You are assuming that the faces don't intersect, and that the faces have edges that don't intersect. The easiest example of a polyhedron with self-intersecting behavior to wrap your head around is IMO the small stellated dodecahedron, made from twelve pentagrams.

If you want to dive in a bit into strange polyhedra, I can really recommend this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hjRvZYkAgA

Thanks! That "small stellated dodecahedron" drove the point home for me.

(also TIL a 5-pointed star counts as a regular polygon, feels like cheating somehow)

> feels like cheating somehow

Yeah, we're used to "convex" polygons. That's the phrasing to remove that part that feels wrong.

While this is a laudable product they are still stuck with thinking the problems faced when commuting in suburbia are solved by non-structural change.

"The problem is not too many single-occupant drivers. It's the design of the cars that they are driving."

Putting all discussion of solutions aside, this strikes me as naive. Including this quote on the same page as "The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them." is ridiculous. Highways would still be crowded even if everyone switched to the Tango, and fixing that requires more than a smaller car.

"The fact is: People who can afford cars will use them, despite the inconvenience of traffic congestion."

This is another point they make that I don't agree with. Commuters will choose their mode of transportation based on comfort, speed and affordability. If another mode of transport rivals the car on these points people will commute less by car. Making this point only goes to show that the people behind the product are locked in a car-centric mindset and that the idea of commuting by train is off the table before it is even discussed.

Highway congestion will stay with us as long as cars are the only viable option for commuting, and as long as suburbian sprawl goes on, that will be the case. Even if the cars get smaller.

An obvious counterexample to "people who can afford cars will use them" would be, say, the Tokyo metropolitan area, where an overwhelming majority of commuters of every income level use mass transit. The Tokyo metro area has 37 million people and only about 3 million registered cars.

IIRC you can’t buy cars in Japan unless you have a certificate proving that you have a parking space for it. So owning a car for lots of people in Tokyo is borderline impossible.

If you look at Seoul, with similar density and public transit system but without a similar regulation for car ownership, you’ll find that the rate of car registration dramatically increases.

The Netherlands has 1.5x the density of Japan yet has more cars than households because they are relatively affordable. People wouldn't have as much cars as we do now if they weren't affordable.

I have a car that I seldomly use, but it's cheap and comes in handy for trips where public transit doesn't work out. I probably would sell it if it became unaffordable. Right now it costs me around 3% of my monthly wage to keep around.

You're asking the wrong question.

Tokyo is full of people who are happy to use public transport. People who are not generally don't live there.

Car enthusiasts rarely live in Central London either.

The quote at the page's bottom: “The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them” - well, about that...