I noticed this posts doesn't link back to !neptunia@lemmy.world.

Cross-posts on Lemmy work by detecting whether someone has linked to the same thing, so to allow people to find their way to the original post, you can simply copy the image URL from your first post and re-use it in any further posts instead of re-uploading the image.

Clients that support it will then show "also posted to" and link to the other communities to which something has been posted, allowing people to discover other communities they might like through the posts on communities they already sub to.

Aww. She can stab a pencil in my eye any day.

Gateway drugging their players. Makes sense.

I respect the hell out of that!

The car, when used for all transport, is wildly inefficient. Multimodal transport where whatever mode is most efficient is used, isn't applied enough.

You like driving. If the goal is to enjoy the pleasure of driving, then no other option serves that purpose. Hence, driving is what YOU should be doing.

But cars are used to achieve so many other goals that do have more efficient options, simply because it is the existing standard.

There are people who VEHEMENTLY HATE commuting by car. They shouldn't be driving, but doing so might still be the least offensive option. Providing these people a way not to drive, also fits the description of "discouraging" car ownership.

Cultural knee-jerk reactions like yours, as well as the barrier of existing infrastructure, make improvement difficult. OP is specifically asking how to change things in a way that would make people want the change, rather than have it be forced on them.

They didn't ask how to stop people from owning cars. Discourage means discourage. If you'll never sell your car no matter what, that means you're one of the people who can't be discouraged, but that doesn't mean people who can, and even should be, don't exist.

You admit to using transit systems, when applicable, which means you're already accepting the solution. Would it really be so bad if you could use transit to get more places, and more people could use it for all their needs, even if you aren't one of them?

No-one who seriously considers the issue thinks all cars should be done away with.

Cities designed for pedestrians can still be made to accommodate accessibility vehicles, and even more importantly, emergency vehicles.

Right, and we built tracks out to every building anyone might conceivably want to visit.

Wait, no we didn't. The popularity of the car in some countries is VERY artificial. Driven by early auto-industry advertising that solidified into culture.

But it didn't take hold world-wide.

There's a train station in Tokyo through which the entire population of my country passes DAILY.

A design for a highway interchange that can get 5 million people where they need to go within less than 24 hours, does not exist.

It's hard to drive what I don't own.

How does your neighbor no longer needing a vehicle, stop you from owning one you do need?

And talking subsidies, my city burns through $150 million annually to build out 400+ miles of bike lanes that 3% of the population use. (Actual stats published by the city)

Car infrastructure is measured in billions. Infrastructure that is used by 100% of the population can still be less cost-effective, if its costs are great enough. Spending 100 billion so that everyone can drive makes no sense if everyone as a whole can only afford 80 billion.

Diverting at least some resources then, so that at least some people can get where they need to go for less, only makes sense.

At least part of the problem is cultural momentum. Even as more cost-effective ways to get around are built out, people will continue to drive because it is what they are used to. The benefits of shifting transport systems also have a severe lag time because a complete transit system is built over decades, not months.

150 million a year is nothing, no shit it's only useful to 3%. That number only reaches the nineties of cities like Amsterdam when you've been doing it for generations. The same was and is true for cars.

but understand when you try to pinch casual drivers, you got us too

Not in my city. Getting around in a car is better than ever. In fact, getting around using every possible mode of transport available is better than ever.

This policy can't reduce casual vehicle use without harming workers.

Then it's bad policy, and your local planners don't know how to change things efficiently. But the cities where it works for everyone LITERALLY EXIST. I live in one.

It is extremely easy for planners to spend money on half-measures that only make things worse, as is happening all over, but that isn't a reason to stick with something the math proves is broken.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach here.

Exactly. Yet the entirety of humanity has congregated around the car as if that is that one-size-fits-all solution you're admitting doesn't exist.

No.

discourage ≠ stop

In the same way that "discouraging" someone from over-eating for their own health, doesn't mean starving them to death.

As a society, we get places with, and design entire cities for, cars. A lot of people who wouldn't mind either way, own a car simply because "it's just what everyone does".

Suburbia and personal vehicles aren't sustainable, because suburban infrastructure literally cannot pay for itself. It's built on subsidies, and then maintained by subsidies, except countries like the US are finding that now that most people live in suburbs, there aren't enough profitable urban areas to take those subsidies from.

Car ownership has to be reduced. So how do we achieve that? How can we change things so that FEWER (not none) people want or need cars?

As a bonus, that means the remaining people who HAVE to drive get to do so on more open roads than ever.

I threw together a helper tool using python. Whenever possible, it automates all the various steps of creating posts, such as crediting the artist, including links to their socials, shrinking large image files, uploading the image to a host...

It also doesn't actually post at the same rate that I find things to post. I was having to stop myself or I would go on spammy posting sprees when doing it manually, because I usually find hundreds of pieces worth sharing at a time. The tool lets me queue up all those posts with very little of the tedium of copy pasting links and artist names, and instead of me making a hundred posts all at once, it spreads them out over time.

It's freeing, relaxing, and I find a meditative quality and peace when I drive in the mountains. You want to take that away.

We literally don't. No-one is out to stop you from driving as a hobby.

We're specifically out to make that the only reason anyone needs to drive.

You could always contact Lego. That seems like a problem with the production run or color.

And while somewhat blasmephous, if it's a display piece, you could consider glueing the things.

Yes please

I really wish they'd have info available somewhere, where you could check starting at which date new prints of volumes fixed which known mistakes.

But there's nothing. Makes me suspect they're still printing volumes with misgendered "Sissel".

It would be tragically hilarious if this box set just comes with the first draft of the translation, changing the pronouns on a character midway through.

Or, from a different perspective, too many.

Not a single death on either side of the Ukraine war, has been necessary. They've only been unavoidable due to the murderous delusions of a single damaged man.

The whole thing is a pointless waste of human life and earthly resources.

And while there's an argument to be made that some of casualties of the war are deserved... A war where the fates of figters are determined by little more than random chance, isn't justice.

Been looking forward to this.

Always up for another bonkers comedy anime. The world needs more Hinamatsuris, Sabagebus and Asobi Asobases...

Here's hoping this one joins the club.

Doesn't say if this printing will correct YenPresses many egregious translation errors.

If it does, instant buy.

Otherwise, hard pass.

UuuuuUUuu

These aren't even enough.

The tag for this particular problem would be something like "mildly suggestive" because it's literally just skin that some people don't want to see.

As maybe the main culprit behind such content, I can comment.

I'd love to err on the side of caution. Unfortunately that isn't how the NSFW toggle is used, and erring on the side of caution any more than necessary comes with drawbacks in terms of post visibility and community growth.

Posts like the one you linked perform orders of magnitude better when not marked NSFW, which means they reach more people who want to see them when un-tagged, than didn't want to see them.

And tagging them, in fact achieves the opposite.

This is because people scroll past content marked NSFW regardless of what it is. Because they can't see what it is. Except when they are looking for porn.

So while I didn't stop using the NSFW tag, I pushed the needle a bit and stopped marking everything even slightly revealing as NSFW "just in case" because it was literally hiding it from the people who wanted to see it, and leaving just the porn enthusiasts to check the actual images, who'd then down-vote it because it wasn't actually porn.

I am myself completely uninterested in actual pornographic content on Lemmy, yet as someone who doesn't mind it, I actually do not hide NSFW content, and even disable blurring it by default.

Because the binary tagging of NSFW is utterly useless as a tool for curating away content I do not want to see, as a SHIT-TON of content I DO want to see would go with it.

Instead I use the list view in Thunder with its small thumbnails, making the occasional porn very difficult to spot over my shoulder, but allowing me to much more properly vet what posts I open and view in full size.

I am fairly certain that a lot of the people who engage with my many "moe" communities, are, like me, quite uninterested in actual explicit content. As such they do not engage with posts marked NSFW, or perhaps even disable it entirely on their accounts.

The NSFW toggle isn't enough, and its purpose and exact threshold varies wildly depending on your sensibilities.

This content isn't porn, yet if I run my communities as if it is, they don't get traction.

If I run my communities like they're for porn, they'll mostly be frequented by people who post and look for exactly that. But they won't fit in because I don't allow nudity, and the stuff I do allow isn't the kind anyone settles down to actually get off to, despite some of it being arousing. So, my communities don't belong on that side of the fediverse, but at the same time they don't entirely belong on the SFW side of a lot of people's feeds either.

Yet, to reach the people like myself, but who unlike me don't make the insane effort of checking every NSFW post to see if it's not porn, that's where they have to exist.