Well I wouldn’t attribute to malice what you could attribute to stupidity AI bullshit.
Reddit is a bot farm generated by LLMs and moderated by AI. You used the phrase ‘fuck yourself’, and a dumb little AI thought you were targetting another user.
Reddit is definitely doing a lot of suppression, no doubt about it. Luigi in particular. But like… ya should’ve seen that one coming, mate.
You’d want to avoid using the word ‘progressive’ because it’s already become a shorthand.
People will vote against things they want (ACA) over terms they hate (Obamacare).
28% of Americans thing he’s been good for the economy. 31% of Americans voted for him… There’s some shift and ‘buyers remorse’, sure. But not as much as numbers alone imply.
I think most of the people who’ve been deceived by the rhetoric are too committed. They’d rather convince themselves that their economic pain will serve some greater good, even if they can’t see what that is yet.
So fluid ounces are just metric with extra steps :/
This trait is so ingrained that anytime an RPG had dialogue to point out what an ass I’m being I surprisedpikachu.jpg IRL
For many of us overseas, this is seen as the US pulling back the curtain, yes. These ideas have been couched rhetoric for decades, mostly from Reagan or even earlier. The current figures just don’t know how to be subtle about it. Or perhaps, feel confident enough to believe nobody will stop them.
This follows with the people. We’ve seen Americans make excuses for harmful policy for decades already, preoccupied with which individual social tribes to blame. I think many were (or are) hoping this extremity would prompt revolt or rebellion, but are ultimately not surprised that most Americans have simply become even more divided and hostile. Were begging you to stop it. Most of us are already convinced you won’t.
The groundwork to make men/women left/right native/expat worker/boss Chrstian/Muslim etc blame each other for the suffering in their own communities has been laid for a long time and is now self-sustaining and making uniting against class difficult, if not impossible.
The ridiculous military funding also makes Americans that do want to resist feel too afraid to do so. You were told it would protect you from the other social tribes, but the tribes being blamed were chosen almost exclusively for the elite’s financial or global power reasons.
Wooden plaque that had the words “I swear it was clean yesterday.” From my dad.
I’m not one for impractical clutter. And my dad could be very judgemental. Why I would want an ugly handmade plaque that would imply I was messy, lazy, and dishonest about it?
Curiosity, resigned frustration.
Whether it was him or not, whether evidence was real or not. If the goal was to spark a revolution, if it was to wake people up to their collective power, if it was to scare the elites…
This person took action because they were desperate for change. But he didn’t reveal anything we didn’t already feel, and most people are continuing to do what they’ve already been doing: making memes about their malcontent in their comfortable communities.
I imagine it must feel so disempowering to sacrifice the only thing you think you have left - your free life - in order to spark change, only to watch all those who approve still continue to do nothing at all.
I like that the solidarity in conversation has drawn more attention to class rather than affiliation, that the profitable infighting between Team A and Team B (Left/Right, urban/rural, etc) has temporarily cooled while Americans look upwards.
But if there is change, it’s still a while away. The disenfranchised still have something to lose. They still think they can’t matter, and the lack of meaningful change will continue to prove that to them. Complacent malcontent.
It must be so miserable, being manhandled and denigrated by law enforcement, mistreated and neglected by imprisonment, dehumanized by the self-righteous; and see that the ‘movement’ your last hurrah inspired was the internet’s Meme Flavour of the Month. The sheer impotence of watching everybody laugh and keep waiting for somebody else to save them.
I can barely imagine how that must feel. To sacrifice everything and watch the world laugh.
If anything they’re the opposite. The petitions themselves are not binding, and if they’re not directly to institutions then they’re probably not even noticed.
…but they do convince signers that they’ve ‘done something’, the catharsis of which makes them less likely to do something that actually matters.
That’s fair, and you raise good points. Thank you for sharing and explaining your perspective.
The perception of cycling in general is already negative, but I suspect it has less to do with idiots on bikes and more that bikes can’t help but be in drivers’ way. Yet I still hear NIMBYs actively fight against bike lanes because they think cyclists are entitled, and don’t want to lose parking spaces to them, or get longer commutes if roads are converted to one-way. That’s not something responsible cycling can fix; that’s a direct result of car-centric culture being resistant to having a smaller slice of the pie.
EDIT: One thing to add. Human psychology is weird, and it treats being inside a car as like being in one’s own house. ‘Road rage’ is a real phenomenon of drivers feeling ‘territorial’ in protecting ‘their’ space. It means theyre more reactive, more impulsive, and often more spiteful. No doubt in part because driving is a highly demanding activity mentally, especially at higher speeds, so adrenaline spikes easily.
By comparison, we don’t get widespread ‘supermarket rage’ with our shipping trolleys, because it feels like a public space in a way ‘inside of my car’ doesn’t (and we’re slower and have time to think). And unfortunately, there isn’t anything cyclists can do about that, either.
Also, correction: I didn’t say all the things that piss off drivers are being done to make us safer. I said all the things that make us safer still tend to piss off drivers. Part of the Road Rage issue is that drivers get pissed off over any perceived infraction, regardless of context: even if their own inattention is at fault (like blaming people on the footpath for being in their way). Usually, the feeling passes In a couple seconds, but every now and then some asshole tries to run you off the road to ‘make a point’…
Absolutely, but the same idiots that text while driving and microwave grapes can also buy bikes, so the existence of idiots on bikes cannot be assumed to represent a philosophy for cyclists at large (in your area, anyway). Are these things you see many cyclists doing? Or just things you’ve seen a cyclist do?
I see the concerns you’ve listed, and I agree they’re not safe. But I know why people choose several of them, even if I personally don’t do them. I have headlights and a reflective vest, but if your hobby bike doesn’t and you need to get home after dark, you deal. If there’s no safe space on the road, or the visibility is too poor, you deal.
Some of the other things you name, I haven’t seen and cannot fathom why somebody would do such things. We’re probably not from the same country (let alone area) so our cycling infrastructure will be different.
One of them I have done: riding the footpath in the opposing direction. I’m going at low speed so I can brake, but the only risk is of a bad driver being impatient - the same risk a mobility scooter, mailbuggy, skateboarder etc would have. And I do this if a) the road only has one path, and the otherside i would be exposed on the shoulder, or b) when my destination is close on the same side because it makes no sense to cross the road twice within 100m. Both are decisions I make to reduce my exposure to cars.
Cyclists break laws to reduce exposure to cars and their drivers. Even walking on a footpath, you’re more likely to be killed by a car mounting the curb, or launching from a driveway than anything else. Car drivers are the apex predator of cyclists and pedestrians.
The reason cyclists avoid stopping is that our vehicles are pedal powered. If we lose all momentum, we take far, FAR longer to execute maneuvers. It means we spend longer in intersections, which are the MOST dangerous place for cyclists to be. Because of the cars.
And if we stop and wait, we need a far bigger gap than cars do. We cant inject fuel into our legs for a burst of speed. So drivers get impatient waiting for us to go and try to cut in front of us, turn in front of us, take any gaps we could’ve taken.
So the recommended action is to ‘take the lane’ (be in the middle of the lane so cars can’t pass us) and then drivers are angry we’re in the way and slowing them down and behave recklessly out of spite. Or politeness, sometimes drivers ‘help’ by stopping in the middle of intersections to create space, which also causes accidents.
Or we could be on the footpath, which means we now have to go much slower for safety and oh wait the biggest risk IS STILL CARS because drivers forget the footpath exist and launch out driveways at full speed without even looking. Cyclists, mobility scooters, skateboards; all irrelevant to the impatient driver.
So yeah, all the things that make using a light vehicle safer tend to make heavy vehicle users pissed off. I can do everything right, but if an impatient driver overtakes me in an intersection and collides with me, I’m still the one who ends up in hospital.
So… yeah. Being a defensive cyclists means minimizing interactions with drivers wherever possible.
What the alternative for heating? If it is AC, consider that much of the electrical grid is powered by air pollution anyway (especially coal), so the issue is at best deferred.
In urban areas, I believe the biggest cause of air pollution is vehicles, not woodsmoke.
Good lord. So glad my country has strict animal welfare standards for livestock. Uncomfortable that we still import and slaughter pigs from countries without those standards. (And yes, we import-and-slaughter because we don’t import pork itself. We do however, allow the import/export of live animals, so international trade buys our sheep for ‘breeding’, and sell us their pigs for ‘NZ-made pork’. I suppose it at least enforces abattoir health standards…?)
We probably don’t have enough user traffic to give people the specific help they need. Certainly not compared to something like StackOverflow, which is already what you’re describing.
The issues with generalised user-to-user programming help (esp re: StackOverflow) is that an increasing number of communities are doing this in closed-off areas like Slack and Discord, where their support is not indexed or searchable. Users running into the same problems are struggling to find each others’ answers. Creating yet another community that’s separated from the internet at large exacerbates this problem.
Man, I used to really like browsing the stuff at ThinkGeek. Even bought a few things. Now that it’s owned by… I wanna say GameStop?.. it’s ceased to be interesting to me. I liked things like the laundry basket that looked like a radioactive barrel, the shower gel that looks like a blood bag… that kind of light-hearted novelty stuff. But the new owner just gutted all the interesting content, and it’s just all IP collectables now.
It’s been long enough I forgot bout ThinkGeek. Damn. Wish something like it were still around.
All my commits have comments. I generally commit after completing a ‘block’ objective, a describe what that was but in very simple terms mostly in regards to the file/section with the most significant logic changes. I don’t always specify the file if I did tiny typos/linting/annotation across a bunch of them, because the logic is unaffected I know that the differences will be visible in the commit history.
My weakness is that I don’t do it often enough. If I’m working on [2] for several hours, I’ll only commit when I consider it minimally-viable (completed 2), or when moving between machines ([further] progress on 2). And I have a bad habit of not pushing every time I commit, just at the end of the day or when moving between machines (though a messy rebase hopefully made that lesson stick), or if somebody else on the team wants to review an issue I’m having.
I think that’s a bad faith interpretation to imply that one eats animals exclusively because it being ‘animals’ is the point. Most people don’t think about it, their priority is making their daily life as simple as possible. They just eat whatever tastes good and is easy to get. And the people pushing for eating insects are thinking about it; they just have different priorities; they’re trying to make environmentally-sustainable food easier to get.
Insects are still a far better choice for protein. They don’t take remotely the amount of land or water that soy crops do, and they can be grown in areas of the world that don’t have as much freshwater. They can be fed off scraps and organic material that are waste to us. They also have a high return yield; they’re not being lost to droughts/weather/pests at the rate crops (especially organic) are. I’d posit that an insect-inclusive diet is probably more environmentally-friendly than the modern vegan diet is.
Humans are evolved omnivores. It’s both possible and noble to have an organic and herbivorous diet that meets your basic needs, but it’s difficult, often inaccessible, expensive; and it takes up huge amounts of land to grow the kind of crops needed (especially if much of them are lost to pests). Soy demands a lot of water, and avocados have been priced out of reach of the impoverished Central Americans they used to cheaply feed. Whether plant or animal, we are only alive by consuming life. There is no diet without some harm to somebody somewhere. Most vegan diets are too expensive (or unavailable), and are part of the deforestation for soy plantations overseas.
Ultimately now that principles have become a part of how we consume (and not just necessity, availability, effort etc), any philosophy requires compromise. If one’s primary concern is freshwater, the carbon cycle, deforestation for cropland, nutrition density, local food-chain, animal suffrage, animal consent, organic, local-grown, seasonal, etc… It’s not possible to follow them all, and it’s not reasonable to expect everybody choose a single specific one.
I have a preference towards attainable and environmentally-sustainable eating, which means that eating crickets (and mushrooms, yum) is less harmful ecologically than eating soy (deforestation, water), and far less harmful than cattle (magnitudes worse than any other livestock). I also avoid palm oil products (deforestation). I don’t disagree with any vegetarians or vegans who chose other principles; it’s excellent that humans are becoming increasingly mindful of what we choose to eat. We just have different priorities.
They’re all derivative names. My first/middle names are gender-neutral, though I use the original spelling (which implies masc).
I won’t go into detail since it’s generally not a good idea to share full names on the internet with strangers, but when I was a kid I looked up my birthname, and the meaning of my first name was “the (opposing) version of [Name]” (eg “Francine is the feminine of Frank”).
The irony of the original name was that its meaning was ‘very gender’ (eg: if Frank were to mean “buff and hairy”), so it was confusing if the opposing version’s meaning changed in any way. I took a shine to it when I was a kid, then I used the original name and its most common spelling as my new first name as an adult.
deleted by creator