EhForumUser @ EhForumUser @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

318

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well, naturally. What would be gained from posting something that is hinged? That which is hinged has nothing left to talk about. Discussion fundamentally can only take place around that which is unhinged.

Canada should join the Fediverse en mass

We've had NNTP since the 1980s. What does the Fediverse offer Canadians that they didn't already have offered to them with NNTP? There is probably a good reason why they don't accept these distributed social networks en-mass.

If it turns out that infertility is the only problem, it might not be bad. We already go to great lengths socially to scare anyone young enough to have children into thinking it is the most horrible life choice they can possibly make. Once they are of geriatric children rearing age, then we finally tell them it's okay if they choose to have one, but by then it is often too late.

Is everyone supposed to live walking distance to their hospital/medical centers?

If the answer is no, why take up valuable urban real estate for hospitals in the first place? Why not stick them on country back roads? Transit can get the people there. If you have transit, it is not clear what you need cities for.

Thing is, Canada used to have transit lines between every little nook and cranny when the vast majority of the population lived in rural areas. Exactly what is being asked for. We eventually ripped it up because Canadians indicated that they didn't want to live rurally, they wanted to live in urban centres where they can walk everywhere, negating the need for those transit systems.

But now they want to go back. What's brought on this desire to live rurally again?

Are people expected to abandon their families when they move across town/to a different city?

Sure, I guess. I expect you will find that they do. Jetting off to lunch with your friend who moved to Tokyo will never be practical, save some fundamental shift in how we understand space-time.

Are people with disabilities that make walking/active transport difficult just expected to not go anywhere?

Why can't they use the tools that they already use to get around? If they don't even have that, transit isn't going to help. Transit will never stop in their bedroom.

and then privatized by a conservative government

If it is any consolation, said party never won again after that and eventually threw in the towel when winning even 12 seats proved to be a struggle.

trains don’t have tires

Oh?

Yes, that's right, he's saying our city planning is poorly done. And he's correct. A city should allow you to live out your entire life within walking distance and our cities do not. After all, that's the whole reason why would you want to live close to other people. If you wanted to have to have to get into a vehicle every time you do something, why not live out in the forest in the middle of nowhere?

Suburbia is rural living for those too poor to live in an actual rural area, but he's saying that cities should abandon the rural lifestyle entirely and embrace being cities – but misses that actual cities don't need transit because actual cities are, despite recognizing the need for densification, dense enough to not need them.

Having tractors to pull people around is a reasonable bandaid to deal with the cuts of cities wishing its inhabitants were farmers, but why would you want a city like that in the first place? If we are going to actively fix the problems of our poorly designed cities, as the other commenter suggested we should, then why not fix it right?

A big problem is now fixing our land use, zoning, and density to be serviceable by transit.

Of course, a well designed city has no need for transit. Everything is available in walking distance.

Yeah, yeah, I know, your friend lives an hour's drive clear the other side of the city and you don't have the personality to make new friends in your neighbourhood. That's fine, but that kind of activity alone would not bring enough ridership to support a transit system. Transit only works when a lot of people are all trying to get around, which wouldn't happen as 99% of life would take place within walking distance. A lot of people trying to get around is the outcome of poor land use, zoning, and density.

Fair that transit is a pretty nice bandaid if you don't want to fix the actual problems, though.

America means USA

It also refers to the combined area of North and South America. This the more likely usage here, as who would ask about whether or not the USA has such regulation in a Canadian forum? That would have no relevance.

How do you think scientists or science journalism should present the fact, that even small amounts of alcohol are detrimental to your health, to the general public?

Before we get too deep, is the intent to present the facts, or to guide behaviour? I always took it was the latter, but you could be right that it is the former. In which case, whatever we're doing is fine. The facts are out there. If people want to laugh at the facts, so be it.

Facts don't guide behaviour, though. Human behaviour is guided by emulation of those envied in society. More simply, whatever a rich person does, the general public will soon try to copy them. And, indeed, alcohol has shown be to central to fortunes. That data shows a higher rate of alcohol use amongst those who are considered rich. In fact, some studies suggest that fortunes are built on the social connections greased by the lowering of inhibitions caused by alcohol.

If the intent is to guide behaviour, scientists can develop something to see fortunes more likely to end up in the hands of the teetotallers. If sipping water in their mother's basement and not getting completely blasted at the Kentucky Derby was what rich people did, attitudes would change pretty quickly.

Of course, the data also shows a higher rate of alcohol use amongst those who succeed in academia ([1] i.e. the scientists themselves) ([2] something also correlated with being wealthier), so it may not be something they have an interest in.

and you are trying to convince me it’s right.

I'm not sure I see the logic in that. Of what value would there be in convincing you that it is right? I have no agency over your brain. It means nothing to me. I wouldn't try to convince a stone that I am right and the only difference between you and a stone is that you can speak back, hopefully offering knowledge when you do.

It’s okay for people to believe what they say.

It's okay, but what's the value proposition? It takes work to say things. The brain expects payment for the work it does. Knowledge can be sufficient payment, but if you have a belief no more knowledge can be acquired. It is final. I'm not receiving cash, a hug, anything. So, what is it that I have overlooked?

Well, no, I'm not settled on it. It is an idea, but it has not made it to belief status. I'm talking about it, after all. If it were a belief, what value proposition would there be in such an exchange?

Because we’re being robbed by their grocery stores

So, there was a short period of time during the height of COVID where some restaurants tried leveraging their wholesale networks to sell groceries to those cooking at home. It wasn't tried at my job, so I have no personal experience, but I'm assuming it never really caught on as I don't hear about it anymore (and if you can trust the food delivery guy, he's not seeing it either).

But, that was when the grocery stores were still cheap, comparatively speaking – That questions if you've tried knocking on restaurant doors to express your interest in starting that (back) up? They might be keen to expand into new opportunities, not realizing that people are growing fed up with the traditional grocery stores and are excited to try alternatives. It is not like grocery stores are the only place to get food.

That said, perhaps you actually prefer to be voluntarily robbed? I don't judge.

They genuinely believe the dumb shit they say.

It is unlikely that anyone believes what they say, as why would you waste time talking about something you believe in? You already believe it. Your mind has been made. There is absolutely nothing more that can be said. Discussion is only interesting when you can learn something new, which means exploring the things you don't (yet) believe in.

There is good reason why every comment isn't: "Hay guys, did you know that 1+1=2!?!?" – something you no doubt believe in. What are you going to learn by bringing it up again and again? Not much. There is no value in exploring what you believe.

When someone says something, they are seeking more information to validate an idea they have. With sufficient validation the idea brought forward may transform into a belief, but that transition requires exploration. Talk is how we explore ideas.

If you watch people, the pattern becomes quite apparent: Once something becomes a belief, interest is lost, and the talk about that subject will fade. They move on to something new that they want to find validation in. Sometimes people will get stuck on an idea that isn't believable. This is where you find conspiracy theorists and the like, where people build up a whole persona around an idea that they keep failing to validate.

AI as a field changed a lot since the 1960’s

Has it, though? In 1970, the second AI winter pushed in from the north after ANNs didn't become as revolutionary as imagined.

Guess what serves as the backbone of AI today? That's right, ANNs. We've been on the right track for those 50 years. But it took a lot of iteration to suss out the small details – and there is still a lot more work to do.

Canada is within the continent of North America.

And North America is located within America.

The concept of ‘America’ these days does not apply to continental plates

The thing is, we keep a record of how words are commonly used, and that record tells that it absolutely does refer to a set of continents. But, I know, let's not let facts and figures get in the way of random internet nonsense.

You know what I meant

Yes, I know you meant it in jest. Nobody would actually take time out of their day to write such a comment earnestly. We can all see that.

to be exact.

To be exact, I said that better working conditions and pay won't be enough to bring the antiques of retirement, nor will it be capable of outcompeting the jobs the people have moved on to do instead. Something I continued to repeat throughout the remainder of the thread thus for.

There was absolutely nothing said about better wages and working conditions not being a solution in a vacuum. I would find no reason to speak to that as the work doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Boomers want someone wiping their asses, they will need to start selling their mcmansions lol

Not likely. The "Me Generation" will just cry until their kids/grandkids give in and do it.

Why should working person provide medical services to bunch of mostly old clowns at reduced wage?

Not sure. I said the same thing in the beginning and got called a "bootlicker" for it. You tell me.

But if I were a gambling man, perhaps to avoid being called a bootlicker? I couldn't care less, but that might bother some people.