Instigate @ Instigate @aussie.zone

Posts

5

Comments

424

Joined

2 yr. ago

Given the image was uploaded to a .fr domain it might not be super accurate to assume they’re in the USA. Fun fact: there are almost 200 countries that aren’t the USA!

We’re biochemical foundries. It’s pretty damn cool.

I think this is the thing we tend to often forget: what we read in the news, with regards to individual or anecdotal stories, is oftentimes not representative of a general experience but rather edge cases because that’s what makes them newsworthy. It can be easy to feel doom and gloom about an issue because you’re seeing it reported regularly, but countries, and the USA in particular, have massive populations so edge cases have higher absolute incidence rates.

This differs though from news reports that are more focussed on an issue as a whole and present statistics and research; that’s obviously representative as long as the statistics are being used in good faith and the research is solid.

Yeah, if “toxic + toxic = toxic” made sense then table salt would be extremely dangerous.

Sodium = extremely volatile and usually explosive metal when interacting with water (more than half of what makes us)

Chlorine = gas at room temperature that can kill you in minutes at concentrations of 1000ppm or more

Sodium + Chlorine = Sodium Chloride = delicious table salt that makes food yummy and helps power our neurons

Isn’t… isn’t that basically how it works?

It’s also just generally not a good train of thought regardless of the quality of the media or the individual person’s enjoyment.

For instance - my wife struggles to maintain an understanding of the story of whatever she’s watching unless she focuses completely on it, meaning if we want to discuss what we’re watching we pause the TV to discuss and then press play again. If we talk throughout something or she’s on her phone, she misses out entire pieces of critical dialogue or visuals that carry the story and so she ends up not being able to follow it and then therefore doesn’t enjoy it at all, or alternatively she has to ask what’s going on which kinds ruins it for both of us.

It makes no sense to make some weird inference that because of that, she’s somehow more susceptible to marketing or doesn’t know how to spend time with groups of people. Both are definitely untrue. I think it is fair, however, to assume that she probably wouldn’t be good friends with someone who is as judgmental as the previous poster, so at least they got that one right.

Welp, looks like it’s gonna be yet another Ubisoft cash-grab. Yay.

I can’t imagine how it wouldn’t have been. I’m pretty sure the rules around what is kosher and not were set a few thousand years before infant formula was invented, and so if it wasn’t kosher then literally every Jewish person would have been breaking Jewish law until they could move onto solid foods.

To be fair, forcing everyone back to the office and then giving them individual offices kinda makes less sense than forcing everyone back to the office to all work in one space together. At least that way it’s actually encouraging human interaction - if you’re working from a private office you might as well be working from your private home.

Not suggesting that any of that is a good idea at all though. Forced working from an office is now officially an antiquated idea.

Yeah I’ve never really bought into the whole ‘but they’re the only stable choice’ argument as that’s the exact thinking that leads you to a two-party system. Multiparty rule is far better than majority rule in my opinion as it represents far more discrete circumstances simultaneously. Personally I’m in favour of scrapping parties altogether, but that’s a far deeper rabbit hole.

I was always taught it was called a ‘fob pocket’, as in a pocket for your fob watch (the old name for a pocket watch) but I only knew that because my grandfather collected fob watches. I was also taught that the little pocket near the hip of the inside of a coat is called a fob pocket for the same reason.

Wait… what happened to the orifices?

“im”

I’m so glad that “ld Anarchist Grandma Vandalizin Bank” was highlighted, otherwise there’s just no way I could’ve possibly understood the joke.

Where I’m from, some people will still use feet/inches only for heights of human beings (weird, I know), but the most common response is in cm. For instance, if you asked me how tall I am I’d say 173cm, but I would say it like “I’m about a hundred and seventy-three” or “one-seven-three” - you don’t really have to say the units. Much the same as you’d say “I’m five foot seven” and you don’t need to specify “inches”.

It is listed as extinct in the wild.

At press time, sources added that the stupid lemon meringue pie Busby was filming herself baking had a shelf life of three days at best, compared to the several years she could get by salting and drying cod.

Absolutely savage.

Wow. That’s a bunch of great ideas right there!

I really like using federal government to set direction but pushing for local changes ASAP. Honestly that seems like the most logical way to cater to individual needs while moving as quickly as possible.

Obviously we also have to invest heavily in public transport, right? Not only do we need to beef up what existing but we’ll need to create new linkages in order to prevent transportation deserts. Part of the issue with that is it might require some compulsory acquisition of land. That’s always a super tetchy area because I don’t always ascribe to a utilitarian “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one” view.

I think another area that needs to be looked at is mandating some level of working from home in roles where that’s possible. Travelling to and from work causes the most congestion both on roads and in public transport, and it’s just silly to be forcing people to travel when they don’t need to all the time. That’s something that will need another top-down approach - probably set down either at State or Federal level and mandated legislatively.

Can I just say thank you so much for your considered and good-faith reply. This is what I come to Lemmy for - the ideas and the opinions that really spark debate and discussion!

That sounds like a good place to start to me!

A few other concerns that I have with a blanket ban are around implementation - if it’s done suddenly then public transport systems will be extremely overwhelmed and will underperform, leading to large losses in productivity across the economy. Do you think a staged approach or a fast approach is more appropriate, and what sort of timeframes do you think are feasible for enacting a ban?

You’re absolutely right - just about any action taken on a population-wide scale will have both positives and negatives, and they’re also not likely to be shared equally among stratified groups in that population. Just to be clear - I’m not discounting a car ban as an option entirely but rather trying to determine how it would actually work. In my utopia there would rarely be need for personal vehicles, but I’m not smart enough to know the steps to get there. I’m keen on discussing what those steps might be, and how we can engage them in a way that their impact on individuals is as equitable as possible.

I think you might’ve made an unfair assumption about my position just because I asked a question. To clarify: I am all for reducing car usage as much as possible by implementing high-quality no-cost public transport solutions. I am however concerned that a blanket ban on all cars will negatively impact already underprivileged communities, and so a more methodical approach that limits and disincentivises car usage for those who don’t need it, while still retaining options for those who do, would better address the issue with the least unintended consequences possible.