NeptuneOrbit @ NeptuneOrbit @lemmy.world

Posts

14

Comments

359

Joined

2 yr. ago

No one is making low cost housing. Yes sure making more houses might stop the bleeding on cost.

But no developer is like "yeah I want to build some affordable housing. Something those stuck in the slums aspire to".

They make the shit with the best margins.

Better than squirt guns

(sad story, I know, but oddly similar to the story out of Barcelona this week......)

Fark

It's also the FIXED portion. Everyone has seen people est and enjoy some times of red cherries. Yet, presumably, if you got new data showing drivers do actually pay attention and being a pedestrian was relatively safe you would adjust your beliefs.

A belief based on unbiased data ("being a pedestrian where I live is dangerous and this may be due to a lack of awareness by drivers") is not the same as an unfounded, fixed belief based on no data, unrepresentative data, or data that does not reflect the root cause.

Main, branch, little free.

It went from a patriarchal normative, to being reclaimed. Are people down voting over the ambiguity of "polite"? Or because rediscovering the term "reclaimed" isn't really a shower thought?

OK. Yeah. Those are sacrifices. Shorter commute and no pests? Huge upgrades though. It sounds worth it, unless you really really value your privacy.

Commute of fifty minutes? The max for me.

And I feel something like pests would be a great reason to spend more on housing. But in this case spend less.

Definite market failure there are not more housing options at more price points in more locations and quality.

I'm failing to see what's wrong with the cheaper place.

This is called racism

Sorry, I don't think "driver" is a "type" of person for this purpose.

Maybe if you decided drivers are foolishly for being drivers and therefore in a different arena, say gambling, can easily be buffed against. "Drivers are risk takers and therefore it makes sense to bluff against them in poker". That's a stereotype.

To say drivers, while they are driving, don't look cautiously enough, or whatever, you are simply making a statement about drivers. Not about drivers in a different context. Not about a type of person who in the situation is a driver.... I don't think it's a stereotype. You'd either have to be unjustly discriminating against a type of driver or judging drivers in a context outside of driving.

From Oxford:

a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.

Is a driver a type of person? Maybe. I think it's generally prudent to be cautious as a pedestrian, regardless of the rationalization or mnemonic. I don't think assuming drivers don't see pedestrians is a stereotype. Maybe it is.

Fixed and oversimplified seems to be doing a lot of work here. "Don't eat red berries, many red berries signify poison". That's an oversimplified idea.

"Asians are good at math". An example of a positive stereotype, which are also corrosive to the people they are applied to.

a woman driver probably doesn't see pedestrians

A negative stereotype that makes you sound sexist but also probably makes you more cautious as a pedestrian, but not as cautious as assuming any given driver could end your life.

Tldr: do you know what a stereotype is?

I have gum recession. All year I make cold brew. Any whole bean will do, in my opinion.

I'm Online and This Is Deep

A snow branch? A sleet twig? A tornado trunk? I just can't

Bad words just become extreme. The modify the emotion. They often don't mean anything literally. You have to look for other clues or just memorize the terms.

Biden should get on the floor and force a debate. Bring a nerf gun and just start shooting people who disagree or email in an end of debate.

https://archive.is/2024.07.05-003218/https://www.wired.com/story/us-state-department-diplomacy-school/

Only if he says I DECLARE AN OFFICIAL ACT first. Otherwise, it's a sparkling personal act.

Average season 2 episode of the Wire