Doesn’t say much as many of these could have just tried lemmy.world for a few minutes and then discarded the account. Or they could be super active. The statistic doesn’t say.
Same here, I created my first account there while simultaneously creating this one on Kbin.social. With all the issues there were with lemmy.world I've decided to use this one for a while instead to see how I like Kbin. It's been pretty nice so far, the only thing that sucks is that I haven't found a good Kbin app for Android yet.
It is and I have it installed but it's not fully doing what I want it to do yet. For example, as far as I'm aware I can't log in with my Kbin.social account in the app.
It is not what is called “single point of failure “. Usually if “single point of failure “ fails, the whole thing fails. I am on kbin and experience zero failures.
If they were to actually go down (the current failures do not affect the backend), all of the communities they host wouldn’t be usable anymore, taking down a large portion of the Lemmy/Kbin communities.
Only those that are on lemmy.world. There are tons of communities/magazines elsewhere. When lemmy.world goes down, I learn about it from posts. Otherwise, I would not notice.
The uptime on lemmy.world is terrible. lemmy-world.statuspage.io currently shows 95% uptime, but it has been “down” from a UX perspective more than half the time I attempted to use it. The uptime reporting is simply not picking up when something is off as much as it should. And they recently added an archive.org proxy for when it goes down… what the heck? I understand that it is run by volunteers and all, but what a buzzkill.
Not all migrants are good for the country. Many come with views incompatble with western culture. Stuff like homophobia, transohobia, mysogyny. And they are often brought over as cheap labor, undercutting local labor.
The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right. We should be able to carry on all public lands, and other places open to the public.
I’m not from or in America, but imagining a school where every person in that building (kid or adult) is holding a gun walking from point A to point B is very dystopian.
On my drive to work every day, I see a man and woman of Middle Eastern ethnicity, walking and she follows approximately 5 -10 steps behind him. I don’t know what their story is but I am botherred by the fact that she MAY not be allowed to experience the freedoms her new country can offer her while she is influenced so heavily by whatever her previous culture was.
It is hilarious that that timidly suggests that it might be possible that 100% of people brought into the US from wildly incompatible cultures might be an issue is considered so unpopular it’s being downvoted in an unpopular opinion thread.
People have different ideals. For some, a more fair distribution of resources is more important than rich fucks remaining rich fucks. Btw, any problem immigrants may cause is already being caused 1000x over by the absurdly rich.
What are you talking about, a ton of people do. "No human is illegal " is an overused, shitty slogan that is constantly everywhere, even though it doesn’t nake sense.
Those are two different things. One is acknowledging uncontrolled inmigration is a negative thing for a country. The other one is not giving a shit because it’s more important to help people fleeing life threatening situations, even at the expense of one’s own privileged quality of life. At this point it’s important to note that rich countries’ quality of life is only made possible by unfair distribution of planetary resources and human exploitation of the same people being denied entry.
We only need guns in a dysfunctional society. Whatever you believe about the right to bear arms, the fact is that gun violence is rampant, and needs to be addressed. Everything else is a distraction.
And I agree with your statement on migrants, but it is a really difficult issue due to how hard it is to filter who should and who should not be welcome, without succumbing to blatant racism. After all the USA was built on migrants, and we still need them. Ultimately I think private businesses need to be regulated more harshly on how they pay all workers, including migrants and natives, to close the pay inequality. This would be beneficial not only to the migrants but also to our economy as a whole in providing better opportunities for all.
are often brought over as cheap labor, undercutting local labor
I came to the US on a work visa and my company had to pay thousands of dollars for the visa fee, prove that my salary is in line with local averages, publicly post a job opening for the position I was going to fill, and in general show proof that there are no equally or better qualified local candidates for the job. I don’t see how they could have gotten my visa approved if they tried to pay me less.
Corporations should only be allowed to exist as long as they’re doing more good for society than the damage they do. Businesses should either be a net positive or run by people who are individually and jointly liable.
Sadly, yes. Probably not here but on the global scale… Because a lot of people see themselves as a future billionaire and they don’t want to ruin for their future self.
I’ve been a fan of Star Wars since I was a kid. But Disney’s management of this IP has totally ruined it for me. I still haven’t seen The Rise of Skywalker after the trash that was The Last Jedi. They also seem to be focusing on pumping out as much content as possible, which has diluted any feelings of longing I had to see more.
They also need to branch out a bit more. The best of new star wars imo (Rogue one, Mando, and Andor) are so awesome because they focus any other aspect of the immense galaxy instead of focusing on the same 1 family from sand planet.
I downvoted because this is a popular opinion. MCU is the same thing. Most people probably don’t have a strong opinion on Star Wars either way, but for the people who do there are plenty who think it sucks.
I like Star Wars fine. If they make something, I’ll probably watch it. But I don’t consider myself a fan. I don’t keep track of the lore and would be hard pressed to tell you the plot of anything I hadn’t seen recently. Which is a long way of saying I’m in the don’t have a strong opinion camp.
It was a different perspective on an imperfect galaxy and one that felt like it was lived in.
Not just Aliens visit earth!
But a new perspective like.... what if just because we have faster then light travel, racism didn't go away, and it had laser swords and near super human abilities powers!
On the last day of my college internship a senior VP at my little company invited me into his office presumably to get to know me prior to extending a full-time offer. To break the ice he asked me what my favorite Star Wars movie was. I smiled and replied that I could never get through any of them.
As I was uttering these words I began to notice the giant Star Wars poster directly behind the gentleman. It then dawned on me that his office was chalk full of Star Wars memorabilia.
The man did not ask me any further questions. He shook my hand, thanked me for my great work, and I never stepped foot into those offices ever again.
If I come across you in a dark alley and we’re all alone then you better be ready cos I’ll accept your opinion and offer some other suggestions of movies that we might like, such as all 3 Lord of the Rings (extended editions of course).
I absolutely loved Star Wars as a kid. Every movie since then has been a major disappointment. I’ve only watched the first of the OT as an adult so far (with my kids), and I was not as into it as expected. Luke was one whiney kid.
Some of it does. Maybe even a lot of it. Andor is a pretty good miniseries though, I like that it’s more mature and has a bleaker undertone like Rogue One.
No Star Wars media compares to the idea of Star Wars.
Except maybe for Andor. I liked Andor. Make stuff that gets away from those fucking Jedis and the whole Skywalker family. They’re the worst bit about the whole franchise.
I think so much about it is awesome (visuals, design of ships and sets, music, etc.) but maybe due to lack of repeated exposure to the movies as a child I don’t feel much about them. The modern movies were especially meh, since they all feel like they are trying to recapture the feeling of people who saw the originals in the cinema in the late 70s and 80s, but without doing anything new. I did quite enjoy the Fallen Order game and will probably play the follow up at some point too though.
I feel the originals were great when they came out, but haven’t aged well. Of course, I was a kid and the special effects were cutting edge at the time.
They’ve aged fine if you don’t expect the effects to be 2023 effects. If you accept that they were top of the line 1978 effects, it won’t bother you at all. What always made me laugh is my mother telling me how they were all dumbfounded, not by laser blasts and cool ship exteriors, but rather the introductory text moving off into infinity. I think she’d have been something like 21 at the time.
I like to frequent a nearby pond + trail and every time I go I’ll see dogs there looking so happy. It makes me want to adopt a dog just so I can take them on walks there too.
Have yard with dog door, it’s good for a bored sniff, and occasionally howling at an ambulance. Doesn’t come close to the stimulation he gets from the park or some active interaction. It made housebreaking easy, but that’s it
My dog absolutely hates being outside in the yard, but she loves walks and hikes. Unfortunately the nearest place that’s safe for us to walk is a long car ride away because I live in a somewhat rural area. So she only ever gets these on weekends when I’m able to dedicate several hours to it. If I were to live in a city she’d be getting a ton more stimulation daily.
I’m curious how far that stance goes. I live in an apartment and own a small breed dog. I work from home, so I’m with her all day. Additionally, she gets a minimum one mile walk in the morning regardless of weather or season, and the same after work in the evening. I’ve trained her since she was a puppy to be silent. She doesn’t bark at all, the most noise she makes is some light whining when one of her favorite people come over.
In your opinion, should I not own her? Obviously I think I should, and feel like I’ve done my due diligence to provide exercise, entertainment, and training to give her and my neighbors a high quality of life. But I’m curious if your stance holds in every circumstance.
I hate dog owners letting their dogs piss on my mom’s lawn, killing the grass by the sidewalk. When I walk to work in the morning, in NYC I hate dodging piss on the sidewalk as if I’m in SanFran dodging needles.
Generally, social justice is at best, a distraction from real issues, albeit with very good intentions.
(We talk about human dignity, representation in film etc but not say, the fact most of our stuff is made by children who occasionally burn to death making it. If I were one of the billionaires running things, I would be overjoyed that people were so distracted about what a comedian said versus how our entire economic model is structured.)
The lack of justice is exactly how the elite class gets the lower groups to fight each other. The thought of a unified working class would keep up every banker at night if it weren’t for apathetic privileged class claiming that social justice isn’t that important.
The thing is you can't provide "justice" to all. A society will always have conflicting beliefs and some things just aren't worth fight for. Like when people were trying to make Latinx a thing. And like someone else posted not all immigrants are going to agree with a minority movement just because they are a minority.
The thought of a unified working class would keep up every banker at night if it weren’t for apathetic privileged class claiming that social justice isn’t that important.
I think it depends on your definition of social justice. A real social justice, in my mind, would be concerned about the kids who die mining the cobalt for our phones rather than whether we should be saying latinx.
No banker or elite is scared because we now say policeperson instead of policeman.
A real social justice, in my mind, would be concerned about the kids who die mining the cobalt for our phones rather than whether we should be saying latinx.
With that criteria, nobody should do anything about anything until world hunger is eliminated.
Except people don’t do more than one thing. And the frustrating part is that the very issues that depend on nothing more than simple cultural views/coolness are the ones we are ignoring.
Imagine wearing slave made clothes was as uncool as wearing a shirt with the N word or something. Companies would respond like lightning and the problem would be well underway to being solved.
Instead, we whine about the Oscars or get angry about a part of Dave Chappelle’s special. And I get it, it is MUCH easier to complain about things that necessitate zero change or effort on our part (besides complaining on twitter or agreeing with our friends about how evil whatever is.) It just annoys the hell out of me.
This is the whole point of it though, you’re saying that other people should put up with being treated badly because you don’t care about them - that’s selfish but beyond that it’s very short sighted, you think you’re going to get everyone to fight to make a better society when you can’t even do the smallest thing to make people feel included?
It’s literally no effort to say police officer rather than police man, spokesperson is again no effort at all to say compared to spokesman - it’s more accurate and more inclusive, refusing makes no sense. The only reason you’d refuse is if you don’t want to acknowledge the reality that women also do those jobs, would you want to fight alongside someone who resents your existence? Who thinks you shouldn’t have the same rights and dignity as them? That’s shown even the smallest thing is too much for you to care about and that your brave new world you’re fighting for will exclude and denigrate you? Why should you?
I think you misunderstand the point I’m making.It’s not that saying police officer in of itself is a bad thing, it’s that the majority of social justice is about smaller issues like that rather than actual serious things. Those smaller, albeit well intentioned issues wouldn’t be harmful in of themselves but they drown out or take the place of more serious, meaningful issues. And more irritatingly, make people feel lile they are “fighting” for real change when we’re arguing about semantics instead of the children who are maimed to support our cushy lifestyles.
Another way to think about it, it is sort of like a slave owner chiding someone for using the N word in the 1700s; that’s very enlightened but surely the slaves are the more pressing issue!
You really think we’re going to tackle large systematic problems when we can’t even agree not to use language that excludes half the population? The tiniest attempt at improving society is met by endless pushback, but sure let’s play your game - give me an ordered list of the first five things we should work on
You really think we’re going to tackle large systematic problems
I think we should at least try for real issues, like children burning to death, vs nagging people about slightly better language.
I don’t have an ordered list but like I said earlier, the women and children who die making our stuff is exactly the type of issue for which modern social justice is ideally placed. It would take nothing more than making slave made clothes uncool and then people’s buying habits change and then companies would follow for thay whole “profit” thing.
Make wearing slave made stuff as uncool as saying f****t and the rest follows.
Otherwise, you’re just patting each other on the back on twitter about being morally superior while not changing or doing anything.
Policing language is the junk food of social justice, it feels like real food and is fine in some quantities but the real harm is that it takes the place of real, nutritious/meaningful food/social change.
Otherwise, you’re just patting each other on the back on twitter about being morally superior while not changing or doing anything.
Isn’t this exactly what you are doing? You are debating that there are more important things so it isn’t important to think of the ‘little stuff’. So, instead of using inclusive language, which would be ‘changing or doing anything’, you are arguing there is a more morally superior thing to focus on.
But really, my social justice isn’t usually online. Right now, this is me trying to contribute to Lemmy while I poop, with honest opinions.
And I do believe there is something absolutely more worthwhile that we should be focusing on instead of the latest silly social justice trend (latinx anyone?) And that is the children who are maimed and burn to death making our stuff. I live my life as best I can to avoid that and support ethical businesses, I encourage my friends to do the same and I think if half the energy that people spend on twitter being outraged about relatively meaningless shit (I am hard pressed to believe that Chappelle’s jokes are somehow worse than a 6 year old burning to death) that things would be a lot better.
I don’t feel morally superior so much as saddened that all those good intentions and energy are channeled to relatively meaningless battles instead of making real, tangible change that is entirely within our capability.
I’ve wondered about that a lot. I think it’s more a natural consequence of social media algorithms. Surely you are more likely to reteeet/like/post something that doesn’t imply you yourself are, with your daily choices, supporting an abhorrent structure.
But you have to spend at least a little time with someone to judge their behavior.
The problem is that people are pre-judged based on their race, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or lack thereof, nation of origin, first language, and a boatload of other things purely based on these factors without any personal contact or observation of their behavior.
Hence the word prejudice.
Likewise, people take the misbehavior of one or a small group and and apply it to everyone with the same characteristic.
And there are many people out there whose behavior can be described as: judging others’ character based on superficial qualities such as gender presentation or race.
And my judgement of that behavior is that those people should be shamed and educated.
Were they though? Every proper album after Rubber Soul was SOLID. They released five 9/10 or 10/10 albums in five years. Not many other bands have done anything even close to that.
Walk, bike, scooter, train, tram, metro, trolley, bus. Plenty of countries can swing public transportation and plenty of people don’t need to drive but still choose to.
Edit: It occurs to me now this person may have been sarcastic.
It’s more dishonest to pretend such cases don’t exist, it annoys me so much when people act like public transport is a magical solution to everything because I’ve relied on it a lot and there are so many issues to fix - for a start you have to address how dangerous it is, I don’t like getting a night bus and I’m a scruffy male manual labourer - which cities would you want your 18yo daughter travelling across on bus and light rail at 11pm? Or you elderly mother?
Then there’s the logistics, if I was going to visit eight people at home and had to get the bus between them then travel to and from the bus stop, waiting, changing bus and waiting again… Most of my day would be on the bus compared to a small percentage of it in a car if that was used instead. And yes you can say jobs like that shouldn’t exist if you don’t care about other people, just chuck the elderly, disabled and vulnerable people into a home and forget about them, who cares if women can’t live normal lives let them stay at home if they want to be safe! All that matters is it’s now cool to hate cars
Happily I don’t live in your country, where, true, most cities seem to have been designed by car lobbyists.
All the arguments you imagined I’d use to rebuke you are, actually, part of the ethos and the public policy in your country, not mine, so you can stop projecting now.
I live in a European city with what’s widely regarded as one of the best public transit systems in the West, most of the city was designed before cars even existed.
So no I’m not talking about America, are you trying to pretend that getting a bus in Barcelona, Rome, Paris or any other major European city is some magic fairy journey free of pick pockets, aggressive youths, creeps and weirdos? Because I’ve been on buses in all those cities and seen all those things regularly.
Then you don’t fall within the ‘don’t need to drive but choose to’ segment. I don’t fully agree with the root comment of this thread, there are definitely some jobs that require a personal vehicle, and yours sounds like one of them. But for most people who are commuting twice daily, more environmentally sound options can replace their personal car.
That’s cool and all but I’m an industrial electrician. I have to drive to the shop every day, and travel all over the country. Can’t exactly just walk over to a coal mine in bumfuck nowhere Kentucky
Can’t tell if this is sarcasm but just to put my city’s transit into context, it’d be a 2 hour bus ride to get to the shop via bus from my house. And that’s:
12 minute walk -> ride a bus -> 6 minute walk -> transfer and take a different bus -> 14 minute walk
But you could ride a bike! Which is really fun! In the winter, when there is heavy snow, or even on rainy summer days.
I don’t get that some people just don’t understand that it’s sometimes just really inconvenient to not use a car, at least for some people. Please let them use cars without blaming them for doing so…? 🥺
It’s not really that simple and a lot of these things are out of people’s control. People who eat more meat than they need to just because they can are the ones who should be changing their behaviour. Not the people who have a constrained diet due to circumstances like poverty or medical conditions. But even then we should be targeting large scale polluters rather than just focusing on individual behaviour change.
But even then we should be targeting large scale polluters rather than just focusing on individual behaviour change.
This 1000%. The campains to put the responsability of recycling and not polluting in the common citizen, given the immensely greater damage companies do, is just a trick to distract, create guilt and not work actively to visibilize the main culprits.
I think the taking point you’re sharing is actually the one pushed by corporations to curtail social movements that could end them.
I always hear people talk about how ten companies are responsible for 90% of plastic use, one of those is Coca-Cola who create billions of tons of plastic bottles which the CEO swims in like Scrooge McDuck… oh no, they put drinks in them and everyone that’s too lazy to carry a water bottle buys them, drinks the liquid then maybe puts the bottle in the trash, many just throw them on the ground.
You know what happened when we all stopped renting videos? Blockbuster died, also all those VHS cassette stopped being made… Try and imagine how it would look in the coke corporate office if everyone decided they weren’t going to buy drinks in plastic bottles. How long would it take for them to turn off the machines when all the outlets cancel their restock orders? How long could they sit paying rent on factories sitting idle and stacked with unsold product?
Of course we need policy and regulation but ignoring our responsibility to make personal choices only benefits the corrupt and damaging corporations, we could crush them so easily but instead of trying it’s now popular to pretend our choices don’t matter
Unless you think they could pass mandatory consumption laws, not eating meat would absolutely work. We’re at just 2% vegans, and we’ve got Beyond and a lot of vegan options in soo many places, compared to just 10 years ago. Imagine just 10% vegans.
When I was in school people didn’t even know what a vegetarian was, like my parents had to argue with the school to get them to belive it. Now McDonald’s has a whole vegan menu (UK only, look it up online) things have changed so fast.
It’s getting so much easier that I really think we’re only going to see it continue to grow in numbers.
Exactly, if we went to defeat them we first need to destoy their source of power, if we stop buying bottled drinks then they’ll be so tied up trying to pay rent on their factories they won’t be able to afford the legislators. This is why they’re scared of us collectively taking personal responsibility
Everytime i stand at the bins and try to decide if an item is trash or recycling, i think of the amount of single use packaging trash that every hospital creates and wonder what difference my once-a-day cat food can will make.
So tomorrow all politicians decide to do the right thing. Meat (just as one example) suddenly costs 5 times as much, because environmental and animal welfare regulations (ones with teeth, this time). In what universe do you think the population would accept that???
ANY sustainable policy change absolutely REQUIRES the support of the voting population. And that’s a million times easier in a world with even just 10% vegans. Any collective action is comprised of INDIVIDUALS choosing to participate, and do their part.
I agree that not everyone can go 0%, but the vast, vast majority can. Especially if we’re talking about people with access and time to chat on some internet platform, aka everyone reading this.
Not every man can stand up for womens rights either. For example, his sexist boss might constantly make sexist jokes about his coworkers. He needs the job, though. He can’t afford to do the right thing. Do you think, therefore, it’s a good thing to ALWAYS BRING THIS HYPOTHETICAL UP, whenever the topic is that men should stop supporting the patriarchy, feminism is good, etc.? If non-feminists were the ones always bringing up the exceptions, would you believe they actually cared?
That’s entirely down to economies of scale and cultural bias, you’re talking about weird rural towns where the local shop almost caused a riot by accidentally stocking a type of bean no one was familiar with.
The cost to produce vegan food is well below that of meat equivalents, it takes a lot less resources at every stage of the process
Because in some areas it’s rare so anyone choosing it is forced to pay a premium, where it’s more common it’s the cheaper alternative because there’s more competition.
That’s not even close to true, I’ve eaten cheap in every country in Western Europe, I can’t speak for the rest but I know Slovakian and Polish vegans who post great looking meals on their social media.
it takes the same resources. like THE EXACT same resources. because we feed animals the parts of plants we can’t or don’t want to eat. any given acre of soy beans has an 85% chance it will all be used to make soy bean oil, and the industrial waste from that process is fed to livestock.
you have a study that shows that 85% of soybeans aren’t crushed for oil? a study that shows that livestock aren’t mostly fed crop seconds and silage and industrial waste? i’d like to see that.
approximate percent of soybean that is oil = 20.00
percent of soy fed directly to animals = 7.00
percent of soy fed to dairy = 1.4
percent of soy fed to beef = 0.5
percent of soy fed to pets = 0.5
percent of soy fed to aquaculture = 5.6
percent of soy fed to pig = 20.2
percent of soy fed to poultry = 37.0
percent of soy that becomes human food = 20.00
percent of soy that becomes oil for food = 13.2
percent of soy that becomes soy milk = 2.1
percent of soy that becomes tofu = 2.6
percent of soy that becomes tempeh etc = 2.2
percent of soy that is fed to animals = 76.0
percent of soy that is used industrially = 4.00
percent of soy that becomes biodiesel = 2.8
percent of soy that becomes lubricants = .03
percent of soy that has other industrial uses = .07
percent of soy not fed directly to animals = 93.00
if all soy not fed directly to livestock were pressed for oil = (approximate percent of soybean that is oil / 100) * percent of soy not fed directly to animals
soy eaten not as oil = percent of soy that becomes soy milk + percent of soy that becomes tofu + percent of soy that becomes tempeh etc
if all soy not eaten directly by livestock and not as non-oil food is pressed for oil = (percent of soy not fed directly to animals - soy eaten not as oil) * approximate percent of soybean that is oil / 100
If we take 7% of all soy out because it’s fed directly to animals, and another 6.9% is eaten, but not as oil, and 20% of each of the remaining beans are made of oil, we find 17.22% is the maximum amount of oil we could get if all the soy beans not fed to animals or eaten by people are pressed for oil.
It turns out that the chart shows 13.2% is oil for humans to eat, and 4.0% is used industrially (and these are all oil uses), totaling 17.2%,then basically all soy not eaten directly by animals or as various human foods is pressed for oil.
Where does it say, that it counts secondary uses? My understanding of the chart is, that 13.2% of soy is pressed for oil for human consumption and it’s leftovers might also be fed to animals. But additionally to the other 76%
you’re misunderstanding the chart. it literally says "end uses " on the chart. do you see where the soy fed to cattle is called “soy cake”? that’s the byproduct of pressing soybeans for oil.
approximate percent of soybean that is oil = 20.00
percent of soy fed directly to animals = 7.00
percent of soy fed to dairy = 1.4
percent of soy fed to beef = 0.5
percent of soy fed to pets = 0.5
percent of soy fed to aquaculture = 5.6
percent of soy fed to pig = 20.2
percent of soy fed to poultry = 37.0
percent of soy that becomes human food = 20.00
percent of soy that becomes oil for food = 13.2
percent of soy that becomes soy milk = 2.1
percent of soy that becomes tofu = 2.6
percent of soy that becomes tempeh etc = 2.2
percent of soy that is fed to animals = 76.0
percent of soy that is used industrially = 4.00
percent of soy that becomes biodiesel = 2.8
percent of soy that becomes lubricants = .03
percent of soy that has other industrial uses = .07
percent of soy not fed directly to animals = 93.00
if all soy not fed directly to livestock were pressed for oil = (approximate percent of soybean that is oil / 100) * percent of soy not fed directly to animals
soy eaten not as oil = percent of soy that becomes soy milk + percent of soy that becomes tofu + percent of soy that becomes tempeh etc
if all soy not eaten directly by livestock and not as non-oil food is pressed for oil = (percent of soy not fed directly to animals - soy eaten not as oil) * approximate percent of soybean that is oil / 100
If we take 7% of all soy out because it’s fed directly to animals, and another 6.9% is eaten, but not as oil, and 20% of each of the remaining beans are made of oil, we find 17.22% is the maximum amount of oil we could get if all the soy beans not fed to animals or eaten by people are pressed for oil.
It turns out that the chart shows 13.2% is oil for humans to eat, and 4.0% is used industrially (and these are all oil uses), totaling 17.2%,then basically all soy not eaten directly by animals or as various human foods is pressed for oil.
Hell yeah to this! As a vegan it’s disgusting seeing how little anyone thinks of animals. Every little thing is “add eggs,” “add butter,” “more bacon” like, does anyone give a fuck at all about these animals? Disgusting, sick people
I’ll bet you’re not a chocoholic either; you don’t fly a quadcopter; you’ve never entered a hackathon or danceathon; never complained about stagflation, tipflation, greedflation, or bridezillas; and you don’t own a Goldendoodle.
(These, and “chicken burger”, are all examples of linguistic rebracketing.)
The word burger has been separated from its origins in Hamburg. In modern use, a hamburger is a beef patty, and a burger is any meat patty. Deal wit it
The real question is…what should we call a burger made from ground ham?
While traveling in Spain many years ago…and completely desperate for a good old fashioned American cheeseburger, I spotted a street vendor selling ‘hamburgers’…and in my haste and desperation, ordered two. You cannot possibly know the misery that came over me as I realized half-way into my first bite that it was ground ham.
I don’t have anything that important to say but I will say that Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery is one of the worst movies I’ve seen this decade and somehow it has an RT rating of over 90% for both critics and audiences.
Imagine a murder mystery that takes over half the movie’s runtime for the murder to happen, a script that sounds AI generated, a plot centered around a plot point that makes literally no sense, and probably the stupidest ending I’ve ever seen in a movie. Yet every time someone talks about that movie online goes on about how fun it was, I swear everyone has to be a bot because I can’t believe that many people liked this hack of a movie.
Is this the first one? I’ve seen it and I can’t agree more with you! It was so utterly boring and the characters were cringe when they tried to be witty.
The average person shouldn’t be allowed to drive. It’s extremely dangerous and most people are desensitized to it and absolutely don’t take the natural responsibility towards others that comes with having the ability to kill someone with a finger twitch (or a slight lapse in attention) seriously enough. I don’t think it would be allowed if it was just invented this year.
This is why I personally am looking forward to fully self-driving cars. We’re a long way off, but when self-driving cars can completely replace the human element, I think the world will be a much safer place.
How about spacial inefficiency? A car only carries 1-6 people compared to a train which carries dozens or even hundreds. Or a bus which carries dozens.
Traffic and parking are the biggest issue i see with cars and space efficiency. Both can be significantly improved on with self driving. Especially if most people opt for public ownership of cars and not private. Something think will become more popular as self driving takes over and lowers the cost of taking the self driving equivalent of a taxi or Uber.
By the way i think self driving cars will make trains more popular. As trains suck at first and last mile transportation. Self driving solves the first and last mile issues.
If we’re going to opt for public ownership then why would you choose the less efficient single passenger method over already-established public infrastructure like trains and trams and buses which have been proven to work well in other countries?
Also please elaborate on how self driving cars will improve parking issues. And as for traffic, while self-driving cars will be less likely to cause accidents and jams, hundreds of independent low-capacity vehicles are in no way more effective than a single locomotive carrying those hundreds of people in a smaller space.
You’re allowed to like self-driving cars, but buses and trains are objectively more efficient in the large scale and all you have to do is acknowledge that. The more people realize this, the more room there is for us to make progress
If we’re going to opt for public ownership then why would you choose the less efficient single passenger method over already-established public infrastructure like trains and trams and buses which have been proven to work well in other countries?
Simple we have already chosen cars in the US. It is far easier to use the existing roads to our advantage then try and redesign the entire country to fit a train and tram and bus model.
Also please elaborate on how self driving cars will improve parking issues.
In a public car the car will drop people off and drive away to pick up other people. There would be no need parking at all. Just a small drop off and pickup location.
Now this won’t work as well if we are talking about private ownership cars, but it would be better as the car can drop you off and then drive to a centralized parking location. This would remove the need for street parking or parking lots next to restaurants and stores. Or if your planning to stay a long time for exmaple if your going to work for 8 hours. I think many people might want rent out their car during the day. Car drops me off at work and I tell the car to join the “public car” network for 8 hours and it can go find some people to transport.
And as for traffic, while self-driving cars will be less likely to cause accidents and jams, hundreds of independent low-capacity vehicles are in no way more effective than a single locomotive carrying those hundreds of people in a smaller space.
Oh sure it won’t be as effective but it will be much better then what we have now. And there are benefits cars have over trains. For example after a the world pandemic scare I find traveling in my own space a much more pleasant experience then sharing with many other people. Also I really like listening to music in a car as full volume very enjoyable experience that you just can’t do on a public train :). A car will be a single vehicle to my destination, I can get in a fall asleep if I want. Buses and trains are usually multiple vehicles and you need to be some what alert to know when your stop is.
what you say makes sense, not saying you’re completely wrong, but your whole argument is based off the fact that we have already chosen cars. But simply doubling down on a worse solution just puts us deeper in to the hole, instead of making the more difficult decision of redirecting some of our massive amounts of GDP in to larger scale projects (yknow instead of wasting billions on military spending & corporate bailouts) such as making the investment into the development of a proper rail network BESIDE our existing infrastructure, like china has done for example. (not supporting china but it is true that they have made massive progress in public transportation across a country equally large as ours, in a relatively very short time)
Not at all. Most German car companies know this and some have even said as much (focus on luxury cars, car sharing and subscriptions). The Greens (part of the government) have been pushing for better public transportation and now Germany has a nationwide ticket for just 49€ per month. We still need much more investment in infrastructure, but that opinion is shared by many town planners and politicians. An added benefit with reduced road traffic is that driving becomes easier and fun again.
That all sounds very German, lol. I’m mostly just speaking from my America-centric perspective. It would be nice to have reduced road traffic here and make riding more fun, but a lot of the people that support public transit typically hate motorcycles just as much as they hate cars so I feel like I have to oppose them even though I don’t own a car myself.
Better public transportation shouldn’t mean that cars or motorcycles will be banned. It’s a way to move more people more efficiently. Ideally, you wouldn’t want to own a car or motorcycle, because other modes of transport provide a better service. While it might seem very German/European, it’s actually not that straightforward if you consider that the modern car, truck and motorcycle were all invented in Germany (by Karl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler) and that the economy of Germany and Europe as a whole is dependent on the automobile industry. However, other companies in other countries are facing similar problems, so it’s not unique to Europe either. The ones which adapt best will survive (probably).
On the flip side I’m worried about manufacturers realizing that the continuous revenue stream from autonomous vehicles is more profitable than selling vehicles outright thereby increasing the cost of buying a vehicle to the point where ownership becomes functionally obsolete except to the ultra-wealthy. This also makes it much easier to restrict the movement of people. Self driving car companies could easily disable the ability to travel to entire areas either because they say they’re too dangerous or not profitable enough to operate in. I can imagine entire cities and rural areas becoming ghost towns. While personally I think autonomous vehicles, in a vacuum, have the potential to save countless lives, the reality is that in time we will be giving the companies making these vehicles the ability to dictate where we can and cannot go.
Adding onto this, city driving is just… different, in a way that I think a human element is always going to be needed. Sometimes you need to take a risky left, or cut across the double yellow lines into the other lane past someone, or run a yellow. Are these things unsafe? Of course. But when it’s rush hour you have to be a dick just to get through it sometimes. In 2016, Uber built and tested their self-driving cars in my city of Pittsburgh, because we notoriously have some of the worst and most confusing spaghetti messes of roads in the country. They stopped whenever a car struck and killed someone. I rode in one one time because I was just tryin to call an Uber for a concert, and since it couldn’t go on the highway it took the worst way through downtown, and got stuck at a red light for over 5 minutes because the car was waiting to take a left, and everyone was going around us and not giving us a break.
Also, all these new cars with their auto-correcting features scare the shit out of me. What happens when you go across the double yellow to go around someone riding a bicycle and it swerves you back into their lane?
You could call these bugs to be worked out but I feel infinitely safer when I’m the one doing the driving. In a perfect world maybe our infrastructure and transport would’ve been planned differently but I swear half the roads around here are based on deer trails or something, winding through crazy hills in the woods. I’ve heard self-driving cars do best on roads specially designed for them. We can’t even get the city to fix our thousands of potholes, or crumbling infrastructure. We had a major bridge collapse a couple years ago, and the way it was rated during inspections was pretty close to the other ones around here. So how on earth are self-driving car roads going to be put in?
Cars were almost banned when they first became popular. The existing infrastructure and traffic safety regulations (shared roads) were not adequate for a speeding death machine. However, cars were very important for the military, so highways and modern road networks were quickly pushed as “the future”.
Too many places let you drive if you do the happy path stuff right: stopping at a stop sign, changing lanes safely, etc. But the most important time of your driving is when you’re about to hit a semitruck and you need to get your car out of the way, and there is no training material for this at all. People often panic and slam the brakes and aggressively turn the wheel, which is a perfect setup for understeer and losing control of your car. They are literally getting in a situation where they are about to die and they choose to greatly increase their risk due to negligence.
It’s cheaper to run simulators than purchase cars and hire trainers. Get em in nasty situations and teach them how to get out of it. For real, if mom and dad can’t evade sinking their freeway missile into a van full of kids, they shouldn’t be able to get behind the wheel and be presented with opportunities where this might happen any time they drive.
Honestly if you can play that game you must have super human reflexes. I used to play it on the xbox360 and loved it but I’m older now and recently got it on ps5 and I’m just constantly smashing into shit. I would be terrible in a real car!
In a sense, I agree that it makes sense to train people to be better technical drivers. The issue is that for avoiding accidents, your time is orders of magnitude better spent practicing planning and avoiding potential situations in the first place.
Being able to see where you need to pay extra attention, what cars to keep extra distance to, and being able to judge what a safe speed is saves far more lives than building the technical skills to get out of a situation once you’re in it.
To be fair though: at least in Norway we have an obligatory course where we drive on sleet/ice or oil to practice controlling a car in winter conditions. However, the main focus of the course is on recognising how fast you can go in different conditions, and how far of a breaking stretch you need to plan for.
Maybe doing this will also make people more hesitant to get behind the wheel. If more people are aware of the risks of driving, maybe they’ll start to demand alternatives
Germany’s driving test (and school) is fairly strict and will fail you for small mistakes which is good for beginners but after all, there is no test or reinsurance after some years of driving. After some time, people will see driving as a right not a privilege. This is the case for the vast majority of counties. This is the problem.
Problem is that there’s no other alternative for most people. Unless you live in a city, public transportation isn’t a valid option. Most people living in most locations (at least in the US) have to have personal vehicles to attend school/work, shop, and socialize.
Once self driving cars become commonly available, driving will no longer be a requirement and I think that driving licenses should be stricter on who’s allowed to drive.
And just having access to some public transportation doesn’t mean you have useful access. Being able to access a bus stop doesn’t help if it won’t take you where you need to go, or if the time schedule isn’t acceptably close to your needed transportation times.
The way I see it is fuck em, if you can’t safely drive and follow the rules to mimimize risk for everyone around you then pay for a taxi or take the bus. No public transport? Get your ass on a bike. Everytime I go out, even for a short 10 minute drive to the grocery store, 90% of the time I see someone doing something insanely stupid and dangerous but because nothing bad comes of it they don’t learn not to do that.
Driving a vehicle should be considered a huge privilege considering how easy it is to kill not just yourself, but others simply by being a dumbass and not taking it seriously enough. People back up without looking, make turns without looking, tons of dumb shit constantly, shit I had someone merge into my lane without even looking when I was right beside them, I had to slam on my brakes to get out of the way and I was only able to do that because there was no one behind me. I honked at them and they just flipped me off. There should also be a forced age limit for being able to drive cause old people are fucking terrible drivers, or at the very least they should have yearly tests past a certain age to ensure they’re still capable of driving.
Drive properly and safely or deal with the massive consequences of not being able to get around quickly. Need a license to get to/do your job? Drive safely or get fucked. Absolutely zero sympathy for shitty drivers.
shit I had someone merge into my lane without even looking when I was right beside them, I had to slam on my brakes to get out of the way and I was only able to do that because there was no one behind me. I honked at them and they just flipped me off
Man, this really pisses me off because I know they know they’re the dumbass who fucked up but their fragile ego can’t take being honked at so they flip you off nevertheless. Hate idiots like that.
We aren’t saying that they should be driving, quite the opposite. We’re saying that it’s completely fucked that in some places you have to drive to participate in society, precisely because many people shouldn’t. There needs to be alternatives to driving so that law enforcement can remove anyone’s license without effectively placing them in house arrest.
Imo it’s kinda unavoidable. Humans make mistakes all the time. We could greatly reduce the risk however, if we simply reduced our reliance on independent vehicles. Unfortunately this depends on the place where you live as well but if possible, it would be much safer for the collective majority to bike/walk to areas or use public transport where applicable as it would drop the amount of traffic on the roads
Sadly, most cities are build in a way which forces you pretty much to own and drive a car. Everything so far apart and tho public transport may help, tho in some cases is either neglected or badly implemented. Ideally, i think cities should be built around a way that easily allows traveling on foot, bike or with a solid subway and/or bus system.
While we can entertain the idea that some people shouldn’t breed(genetic defects that lower the quality of life for the individual or society) or shouldn’t raise children(stupid raises stupid), there’s no neutral authority that can make and enforce judgments. Even if we make an AI to do it, it would just reflect the view points of the people who made the AI or the sample set that was fed to the AI.
The best we can do is make a society strong enough to cope with these issues, either new and better genetic treatments or more robust public schools systems.
I think most people agree that not everyone should have kids, the problem comes with coming up with criteria, genocide is unfortunately far too tempting to ever give that power to any individual or organization imo. People are better at policing it than you think though, so long as they have easy, stigma free access to the tools to control it themselves.
Add comment