Meaning if you remove pitbulls and other "aggressive" dogs, people still end up in the hospital at the same rate from dog bites.
All this points to the simple fact that if you give an asshole a dog, that dog will be dangerous.
Also as an aside any claim to "per capita" with regards to dogs is baseless. There has not ever been a dog census nor would we reasonably be able to do one, so we can't make any claims about "this breed has a higher percentage of biters" or anything to that effect.
Point of order: That's not an appeal to authority. The other user was pointing out organizations that have actual expertise in the field. "Appeal to authority" is if they said "Bill Gates said pitbulls are fine"
He's an authority figure, but not expertise in the matter.
Whereas the CDC, the humane society, the American veterinary association etc etc are actually experts in at least some part of the argument.
Yeah I have to agree with everyone else. If this is a question you're actually asking, it's probably a question for your doctor, because the actual answer should just be "just breathe dude"
I mean you attacked me because you didn't like a logical, obvious, critique of something. Which again, I never said it was bad, I just said it could be improved. And you said things that I just repeated back at you, and now you can't handle your own words?
Of course the CEO equivalent exists in government. It's just a management position. Equivalent services will need equivalent management.
A CEO is not a manager. You're already embarrassing yourself here 😉
Perhaps you didn't read my comment. I've been a treasurer for a number of medium size charities. I know exactly how much money is needed to support the charities objectives.
I did read your comment, but I kinda assumed you either were lying or getting really defensive. There's a lot of waste that wouldn't exist if they were consolidated into the government.
Do you realize that there are multiple charities for the same thing, which just means more and more waste?
For example?
Yeah sure, since it's already been brought to. The red cross does blood donations, but they're only 35% of America's non profit blood donations, there's also America's blood centers and vitalent and more! So much overhead! If they were all one organization, you could eliminate much of the overhead and more effectively coordinate the blood donations.
Sorry mate, this is just an absurd thought bubble borne of naivety. Get involved in a charity and you'll understand why it exists.
Sorry mate, but you've got your head up your ass and you're getting defensive.
I have been involved in both charities and government.
A charity can loosely define what counts as their cause which means they can tell you that 95 cents on the dollar go to the cause, even if it's only 20 cents.
Furthermore, even from an innocent standing. When you have multiple charities working on the same thing, that's crazy inefficient.
Let's talk about the Red Cross, great organization. One of the things they do is blood donations. They're responsible for about 35% of the blood donations in the US, the rest come from other non profits.
That means there's competition among the non profit blood donation organizations to provide blood for emergencies. Whether they want to compete or not, they have to.
Just from a blanket statement, if you moved all of those blood donations under a single entity, you remove a lot of inefficiencies.
You don't need to advertise for multiple organizations, you don't need to coordinate with all those different organizations during a crisis, you don't have the same overhead for the same problems across multiple organizations. It's just by design, inefficient. It's not their fault.
So first off, you can totally volunteer for government things. I mean, I can volunteer at my local government library for instance, there's nothing about a government contract that removes the ability to volunteer.
But I wouldn't need to have volunteers if the red cross and all competing charities were swallowed up into one thing.
There are a bunch of organizations that do the same or part of what the red cross does. That's a lot of wasted time of resources, that would be better spent lumped together as a collective unit.
Charity is simply one of the places you absolutely don't want competition/capitalism. You want oversight and efficiency, that's the government.
I think ideally the point of charity organizations should be a stop gap measure that identifies issues the government needs to address, and then temporarily addresses them.
I'm not saying the soup kitchen shouldn't exist. It's absolutely necessary, it should just be part of the guaranteed baseline, provided by the government.
The CEO equivalent doesn't exist in government. Your entire argument is pointless.
Do you realize how little a CEO does?
Do you realize how little the actual money donated to an organization trickles down to the cause?
Do you realize that there are multiple charities for the same thing, which just means more and more waste?
In fact in pretty much every instance of a modern government taking over a service, it becomes cheaper and more efficient. That's why many governments run utilities, and healthcare.
Look I'm not saying your service is useless, but I am saying it would be more efficient elsewhere.
Kant had a point there, but I think he also fails to address the problem.
The existence of charitable organizations means that the government has failed that group of people. Charitable organizations are extremely inefficient and sometimes are prone to the exact problems he brings up with donating directly to individuals, or they may prioritize certain individuals with certain religious beliefs over others.
Charitable organizations need to be folded and replaced with government programs. We don't need to be paying CEOs salaries when we're just trying to help someone on the street.
I just blame alsamixer for that. There was a solid 6 months that I had to completely uninstall and then reinstall alsamixer on my Lenovo every reboot so I could have sound
You might have some GUI nonsense happen, but for the most part you'll be okay. I have exclusively used i3 for my Linux stuff over the past few years and have only run into a few problems with misc apps
The glasses are OP, everyone's like "the coin bruh"
Nah bruh, you know the power of speeches? Now have it so everyone's on your side all the time. There's no cooldown, it's just always active.
You can just talk your way into anything. You don't need money if you don't have to pay for anything, if you want money you can still talk your way into having it. You wanna be president? Why not! Etc etc. The glasses are unreasonable.
I haven't personally done this, but I'm more referring to the new tech that Ford is putting out for its f150 lightning (given the article was referring to new cars, I figured that's fair game). You can use the truck as a battery back up for your home, since it's an EV you don't have to worry about idle and alternators.
It wouldn't be able to do a big house's heating, but a small efficient heat pump would likely be fine.
Quick edit: I'm an idiot, the onboard controller in the truck automatically switches.
Even worse, let's say you are having a weather based emergency like what happened in Texas last winter... And the winter before and will probably happen again this winter... You've hooked up your vehicle as an emergency generator. But you can't turn it on because of this sensor.
You're not even trying to drive, you're just trying to get some power to your HVAC system so you don't freeze to death.
Sure, that's just one example and it doesn't happen every day, but this thing could prevent successful outcomes in multiple emergency situations.
We're better off investing in proper public transit rather than this shit.
So I'm not the other user but I'll go ahead and help you out.
AVMA quick summary of all the problems with trying to blame a set of breeds: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/literature-reviews/dog-bite-risk-and-prevention-role-breed
Study that shows breed doesn't impact behavior in any substantial way: https://www.aaas.org/news/dogs-breed-doesnt-determine-its-behavior#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20findings%2C%20breed,exclusive%20to%20any%20one%20breed. Basically a dog is a dog is a dog and the main indicator of how a dog is going to act is how it was raised.
Study shows that BSL doesn't work: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208393
Meaning if you remove pitbulls and other "aggressive" dogs, people still end up in the hospital at the same rate from dog bites.
All this points to the simple fact that if you give an asshole a dog, that dog will be dangerous.
Also as an aside any claim to "per capita" with regards to dogs is baseless. There has not ever been a dog census nor would we reasonably be able to do one, so we can't make any claims about "this breed has a higher percentage of biters" or anything to that effect.