Baltimore bridge collapses into river after being hit by cargo ship
drphungky @ drphungky @lemmy.world Posts 1Comments 241Joined 2 yr. ago
Also, huge portions of first gen Latinos in America use Whatsapp too - because it's what they're used to, to talk to family back home, etc. I worked with a immigration org for a bit and everything was Signal or Whatsapp.
Yeah also just the basic concept of sacrificial parts and things designed to wear. The derailleur hanger on your bike, crumple zones in cars, plastic gears in your KitchenAid mixer - lots of engineering practices are designed around shunting failure to a particular piece or in a particular way, to avoid otherwise catastrophic or very expensive damage.
You: "There is not a structure capable of being created by man which could sustain that amount of force, head on, and retain its structural integrity.
Actual engineers in the linked article: literally describe how to build secondary structures to deal with giant ships and prevent head on collisions on bridges.
Feels like an army corps of engineer training exercise, especially after Biden committed to help rebuild. Be really interesting engineering coming out of both the cleanup, rebuild, and post accident analysis.
Kinda crazy how those same construction and civil engineers are going to be investigating if the normal means of protection for this very foreseeable event was done correctly, because we design things to avoid these head on collisions:
Also, not for nothing but even if they find out the dolphins in place were sufficient based on prior standards...this event will likely update the standards, same as the sun bridge in the 80s. Regulations and best practices are written in blood.
Sigh. Evergreen:
If you want to scratch that "players have their own genre" itch, you might look for asymmetric gameplay. There are a few video games, Death by Daylight being the most famous, but many in the "monster vs party genre". There's a shark one I can't remember the name of, and a few eothers. There's also Davigo, a VR game where the VR person plays a giant floating head that tries to smack a little person running around, played by your friend on a regular PC in FPS mode.
Sort of tangent to those game, of course there's your hero shooters and MOBAs, which are much more aligned objective wise but with very different gameplay per hero. I'm a sucker for DOTA which has very different heroes, and then there's your Team Fortress or Overwatch style FPSes too.
You've also got really expansive games where you have access to all the gameplay loops but people can pick what they want. Think like a multiplayer Stardew Valley. Elite Dangerous comes to mind as a game where you can go do space dogfighting, space trucking, exploration, or mining - and they all play pretty differently. You can even combo, like mine dangerous areas with a fighter escort to protect from pirates who want to fight.
Really outside video games, but closest to what you're talking about you might like the board game Root. It is a board game (though there's a PC version), but it plays VERY differently depending on which forest creature you are. Cats play a traditional conquer and control (think Risk), the Birds play an action chaining card game (think like a deck builder), the Racoon does his own like exploration game, etc. but they all interact in different ways when their goals come at odds with another. It's an awesome, super creative game. Big fan.
I think maybe the young folks haven't heard of cultural imperialism?
I don't necessarily agree with you but I'm upvoting you for adding to the conversation, because I think you have some nuggets of truth but miss some of the forest for the trees. Particularly, that they did make Falcon and Winter soldier that addressed some of the issues you're talking about.
Regardless it'd be cool if Lemmy were like old reddit before it got big, where even if people disagreed with you they'd engage and dispute your points rather than just calling you a racist and hitting downvote. Just makes discourse devolve into "both sides" screaming at each other with their fingers in their ears.
I bought a pack of trader joes smoked salmon to take to a brunch last weekend but I couldn't end up making it, and I ended up eating the whole thing myself over a few days.
It was a revelation.
DaE Le gUiLloTiNe? Eat the rich!! Everything is a conspiracy, nothing is a result of complicated systems and incentives!
Make sure to at least cross post it over at !makerstuff@lemmy.world. We haven't had content in a while and your stuff would fit perfectly.
Salmon, pistachios, cashews, fresh berries. Still wild to me that I can afford them as an adult.
Did no one read the article? All of his complaints are correct! Replacing old city pipes, that are almost assuredly covered in years of internal layers to mitigate lead leaking, will have a negligible to possibly even negative effect on lead at the tap. Even Brookings said so in their study! Buttigieg is getting a total pass here ignoring the real issues raised by just rebutting about how lead is bad, when they're both saying that. So tired of people scoring cheap political points on soundbites, and Buttigieg doesn't usually fall prey to that sort of thing.
Yes, the funding should have been higher, but if we've only got 15 million to work with, it might actually make more sense to do targeted fixes in low income communities in old residential buildings, where you're most likely to have lead effects actually being felt at the tap from (relatively) newer lead pipe still in walls. But that would be expensive and much harder than just replacing water mains, so they're doing the easy less-important work first, rather than getting the biggest bang for their buck.
The problem with that is there is a very clear policy purpose and interest in making housing an investment - the vast vast majority of people will eventually own a home, and it is a forced savings vehicle because people are REALLY bad at saving for retirement. Even if you fix our lack of a social safety net, home ownership is generally seen as a public good because it encourages people investing more in and caring about their community, being willing to pay higher taxes to support more services, etc. It's not a no brainer to make housing an investment (there are arguments against in a society with a good social safety net), but it is very purposeful through good public policy. It has little to do with the recent (very recent, relatively) buying up of single family homes by investment banks, etc, despite people implying all the time it's some secret cabal and shadowy wealthy figures doing it for their own benefit. Everyone sees conspiracies everywhere these days.
Of course, if we're going to say that home ownership is "good" and keep doing all the tax incentives for it, we do need to stop corporations speculating and driving up housing costs, and could do so by some targeted taxes on unoccupied properties in the same portfolio. But there's an argument to be made that that's a relatively small portion of the problem, since a lot of our housing stock issues can be traced back to single family zoning issues, as well as road and highway funding leading to suburban sprawl and unaffordable newly developed subdivisions while cheaper starter homes don't exist anymore...but either way affordable housing stock just hasn't kept up.
Wealth tax is a terrible idea. People think it will solve the problem with billionaires taking out loans collateralized with their stock and not paying income tax, but the solution for that is far simpler - just treat loans as income. You can even add an exception for an owner occupied mortgage if you want to keep encouraging forced savings into property. We have existing solutions that don't have the massive disincentives a wealth tax would create.
A wealth tax actually discourages investment through stocks, which is what keeps the economy moving (and before anyone says publicly traded companies thinking about short term profits is destructive, that's a separate, but serious, issue). Worse, it discourages savings of any kind. The problem with saying "oh we'll just start it only a billion dollars" or whatever is that allows for later expansion of the tax to 100 millionaires, 20 million, and boom suddenly you're taxing people with 5 million dollars which is what you'd expect a middle class elderly couple from a high cost of living area to have squirreled away for retirement. And if you don't think that would happen, you should look at the history of the income tax - because that's exactly what happened.
Also, a wealth tax is really hard to enforce, and would require a huge increase to the administrative state that itself would create a need for more taxes. That's not inherently a problem (obviously we have legions of IRS agents, etc) but we already have that infrastructure set up for income taxes and are just underutilizing it. Take how many lawsuits and hearings we already have JUST with tax assessors for property, and then try adding that to cars, boats, art, luxury clothes, appliances, privately held companies, anywhere you can hide money or that has a questionable value. It's a boondoggle we don't need to mess with when all we have to do is just reclassify collateralized debt as income because it is functionally the same as selling something.
I like taxes. I even like my high taxes because I know they pay for good services since I live in a blue state. But a wealth tax is a bad idea when we already have income taxes and can add VAT taxes for luxury goods.
For example, each vote in the electoral college for California represents 703,000 people. In Montana, on the other hand, each electoral vote represents closer to 250,000 people.
On the other hand, more conservatives voted for Trump in California than in Texas. That's a LOT of conservatives who are having their voice drowned out. This is also why a few red states have signed on to the national popular vote amendment. So many people in deep blue and deep red states stay home on election day, we don't actually know how the popular vote would play out. People like to say we have way more democrats but that's not necessarily true - it's just a matter of current vote totals.
Well for one, this isn't newly released: this is from 2016.
But to address your point, the reason it isn't hypocritical is because (like he said in the article) power and culture and conventional wisdom flows from the cities. It's the difference between punching up and punching down. Yes, rural people often have shit attitudes about cities, but it is culturally nearly homogenous to have negative opinions about rural people. The amount of people and the weight of the opinions they hold are not even close to balanced. Plus, and this is the more important bit: it's not just their shitty attitudes. They also have, as he outlines in the article, legitimate complaints and cries for help that we wrap up with their shitty opinions and ignore. It's not helpful.
I liked this article when it came out, and I still like it. I too moved from an area just like his to the city, and I couldn't agree with his points more. I have friends that have spent their whole lives in cities that continually miss the mark on this stuff because they have no concept of what rural people are like or actually think.
Atlassian is flashy?!? Jira is soooo bad.
I know you stopped responding but I'm piling on because I'm apparently in an impish mood:
From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/26/how-key-bridge-collapsed-baltimore/