Showroom7561 @ Showroom7561 @lemmy.ca

Posts

60

Comments

2,791

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes, Bazzite and Bluefin are more popular for sure. But I like Aurora as a daily driver (more for power users), and have Bluefin installed in other laptops and our TV's miniPC for its "Chrome OS" feel and simplicity.

But any option is better than Mint, IMO. Mint feels unfinished and was not very stable. Aurora and Bluefin are the only linux distros that I haven't broken in 24h. LOL

Mint feels a little sloppy, though.

I would much rather suggest Bluefin, which is from the same group as Bazzite. And if you are a fan of KDE (or a more Windows-like UI), then Aurora is an excellent one, too.

They are all atomic, so users can't really mess them up.

😂😂😂 Can't pay a fee if you don't go! 🤡🤡🤡

Our cameras directly benefit the community, so people who destroy them here are criminals with no redeeming justification.

No, but $100+ to a poor person could be the difference between literal life and death.

Sure, but nobody is compelling someone to break traffic laws. Someone who can't afford a fine will probably drive way more cautiously.

But very few poor people can even afford a car these days, so this doesn't seem like a real concern.

The solution to this is sliding scale fines. The better off you are the more you get fined.

I do agree with that. And more than that, the consequences should include lost time. Imagine some rich asshole who has to do 40 hours of community service. They'd look like a total ass in front of their boss or employees.

You get less frustrated on a road with no posted limits anywhere that jsut naturally nakes you want to drive a speed that feels safe, and happens to be 30kph.

Nah, I don't believe that's what happens, because we've had so many single vehicle crashes because people have no idea what feels safe. They drive like they're behind a screen, like a video game. Except that screen is a windshield and their face can go through it.

Someone going 100km/h in a 40 zone is an asshole who has no regard for human life. No road design will make them care, and the solution to that problem is to not allow certain people to drive.

Equip vehicles with behaviour sensing tech, and if someone is routinely driving aggressively, not stopping when they should, speeding, and parking in areas that put others in danger, they should lose their license.

but they punish the poor the most

Does being poor compel people to speed or something?

The problem is two-fold: one is that our roads are designed to encourage bad driving behaviour, and drivers feel entitled to drive in a way that's convenient (but not safe).

Have you ever tried to get traffic calming measures implemented in a community, especially around school zones? It's excruciatingly difficult, and a few complaints from NIMBYs will have those measures removed, wasting taxpayer money and not solving any problems.

It's infuriating that low powered micromobility devices like e-scooters are so severely restricted, but multi-ton weapons can be operated with almost no enforcement or consequences.

This is the way, but good luck getting that implemented. NIMBYs and "frustrated motorists" will push back, and it only takes a few to ruin good ideas.

"It highlights the bigger problem, such as the frustration that the motorists have," Lacroix said.

Frustrated that they can't speed??? Frustrated enough to commit a crime because they can't commit a different crime??? 🤔

Since it was installed in April 2022, the camera has issued over 65,000 tickets and more than $7 million in fines, according to Safe Parkside.

This highlights the bigger problem, such as the complete lack of care that motorists have. 🤭

Keep fining them. And catch the people or persons who are vandalizing the cameras so they can spend the rest of their life paying for the damages.

"ICE agents unlawfully trespassed ERUSD school grounds and did not exercise sound and respectful judgment with the risk of exposing themselves to minors and committing a public offense under California law."

Yeah, they should be in a registry, and lose their jobs. Anything less would be special treatment and a double-standard, since they were clearly breaking multiple laws.

What is your question?

Society should be structured so that billionaires cannot exist.

Wealth should be redistributed so that a hand full of people aren't worth more than everyone else.

Profit sharing should be law in all businesses, so that trillion dollar companies are paying all their employees (and their supply chain) enough to make a very comfortable living.

No single individual should ever be allowed to have so much wealth that they can control governments. The fact that we do points to a massive problem in our society's structure.

There are 101 ways that we can fix this problem, and it's not going to happen until we actually get serious about fixing this problem.

And by we, I mean the 99.9% of us who are struggling to get by because a handful of people "need" to have every single dollar in existence.

I don’t understand how to achieve it though, a tax on net worth, with brackets starting at 100 million?

Implementation isn't a consideration until society gets serious about doing it.

Wouldn’t they just move their money over a place that would hide it?

Make that a crime. Tax evasion or worse. Jail wealth hoarders if they don't comply, because they are destroying lives and don't deserve to play games.

Wealth hoarders are the problem. Millionaires aren't wealth hoarders, and any multi-income home that lives a frugal lifestyle can become millionaires before they retire (and they'll need to, if they don't plan on working into their 80s).

But there should be no such thing is a billionaire, let alone, a billionaire with HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of hoarded wealth.

Sure, we can tax them more (and should!), but we should also design a system where wealth hoarding isn't incentivized. It should be actively discouraged, and punished at a certain point.

The Long Dark.

Ontario didn't have to cut energy off, but they could have added extra fees to the delivery charges. We had leverage, and never made use of it.

We can do minimal trade, and only when absolutely necessary, with Blue states.

Everything is 2 weeks Friday for this guy.

He waits until the last possible moment before the weekend to drop his bi-polar outbursts on social media...

Assuming he gets to Friday. Shit changes every few hours with him.

There seems to be some benefit to having a formal deal in place.

Yes, but the "in place" part is what's in question. You can sign a deal, and the next day Trump can say it was a bad deal and it's off the table... again.

Much of the stuff he's bickering about now are things HE negotiated during his first term! He'll never be happy, and we have to stop wasting time on this baboon and seek partnerships with leaders who aren't complete assholes.

He already flip-flopped on energy going to the states, and that was months ago. Maybe if he kept his word, we wouldn't still be playing this game.

What's the point? Even if we reach a deal, it's not like Trump is stable or trustworthy enough to honour it.

We MUST keep our threats in place for at least 30 days after Trump's last threat, or else this off-and-on bullshit will just continue indefinitely. And we should extend that delay every time Trump plays his games.