frazw @ frazw @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

187

Joined

2 yr. ago

You assume your proposal is an "easy" solution. The main reason I live here in the first place is because the surrounding cities, that do have amenities and public transport, are much more expensive to live in. Is not that the town I live in is large in area, it's quite walkable, it simply doesn't have much.

It also reminds me of a guy I used to know who said he didn't need a watch. Claiming he didn't need to know the time that often. But what did he do? He asked everyone around him what the time was instead. Quite often. Oh and he was usually late to class.

Why am I telling you about him? Because it is the same sentiment as "I don't need a car, if I want to see my friends (and relatives) I simply ask them to travel to me."

Well I do drive electric now but I could not get by without a car. Honestly I would love it if public transport were viable for everyone. In London and Zurich I have experienced public transport that worked. Where I live a 1 hour car journey can mean a 3 or 4 hour trip by public transport and only if you are travelling at the right time of day. Unfortunately I don't necessarily get to choose when I make some of those trips because it is part of my job. Unfortunately here, public transport is slow, expensive and unreliable here.

I know electric cars don't solve everything, and maybe this meme is not exactly what I'm responding to, but for a lot of people, public transport is just not a viable alternative.

Like I said I know it's not going to be a popular sentiment here.

I'm sure this is unpopular this community but I feel like "fuck cars" folks are either living in a dream world where public transport can answer everyone's transportation needs. If you live in a city with all the amenities you need where public transport is good and economically viable sure, "Fuck cars", but if you don't...

Murderer put to death. Don't do eye for an eye. Hmm OK America.

P.s. If the trend hadn't changed, we'd have been on track for around 16 billion in 50 years.

You are not the only one. We stopped at one because there are too many people. When I was born there were almost half the number of people there are today. I'm 43. In 1980 I don't think there was an "oh my god we don't have enough people" vibe.

Especially in a time where we are all worried about our future on this planet, more people means more sources of pollution. More people want a car, more people getting on planes, more people consuming goods and throw away items.

Seems like sometimes less is more.

I'm sure the answer would be: "Yeah but they couldn't have foreseen how the modern world works 2000 years ago. We need to adapt to the ti... Hang on did you say we can have slaves again?"

"Politics of me" beats "politics of we" once again.

Agree that if an incident happens in a particular jurisdiction, the local court should handle it. That makes sense, no argument here. But here they get to choose the set of laws because there was no physical location? That just feels wrong somehow. Anyway there is a physical location and if anything, the incident was 'perpetrated' by a person who was physically located somewhere at the time. It should be handled by the court local to them at the time. In the case of organisations, I guess this would mean where the defendant company operates from. Or if we accept it is virtual and everywhere then, it should be governed by federal laws not state laws.

I'm sometimes baffled by people. My dog is a member of my family not a pet. My job is to protect her not hurt her. Surely a tall enough fence and a solution to prevent digging under are better than a torture device???

Are you guys all locking your dogs outside for long periods unsupervised?

Why is it OK for an American company to headquarter in one state then cherry pick another in which to file a lawsuit? Surely a company should be governed by the laws of the state in which they are based. It seems weird to choose the set of laws you want to be judged by when the defendant cannot do the same.

I'd call 'actual adulting' having responsibility for another's welfare. Whether a dog, cat or human, they are all varying levels of "if I fuck up, someone else suffers".

I still don't feel fully like an adult, but I do feel the responsibility of ensuring there is food on the table and a roof over our heads. My partner is also responsible for these things so it is a little less pressure.

All said I do not feel as adult as I saw my parents when they were my age. They seemed very grown up and very responsible compared to how I feel today. I was 11 when my dad was my age.

I did online dating for many years. I used match, eharmony, tinder, pof, okcupid.

I fully understand the 'soul destroying' comment. For me it was a lot of work for little return. I started off being selective. Messaging one person at a time so I didn't end up getting two responses and having to put someone off or turn one of them down. That was naive it turned out as I got very few replies. So I started messaging multiple people at once. I always tried to personalise things but my effort varied with how optimistic I was feeling about online dating.

Ultimately I think I got responses about 10% of the time. From them, 10% turned into a date, from those maybe 50% would get to a second date.

So overall it every hundred messages I'd write , 1 would end up in a date. I went on quite a lot of dates over the years, but I had to devote so much time to getting them it was, soul destroying.

I never thought i was unattractive, but online dating made me question if I really was. I never thought I was an ass, but online dating made me question if I really was. I would sometimes have very long conversations before meeting to find there was no chemistry in person. Sometimes I would like them when we meet and they would ghost me. Sometimes they liked me and I didn't like them, but I always tried to be honourable and tell them, not ghost them since I didn't like it happening to me.

I am male in case my experience doesn't make it obvious. I often spoke to some of the women I got on better with about how online dating was for them and their experience was pretty awful for different reasons. Generally they were bombarded by messages and a good number of them were obscene. Guys trying to hook up rather than date. To manage their inbox was a real challenge and they probably missed out on good matches because of the noise.

My overall impression of the whole thing is that it generally sucks regardless of whether you are the one doing most of the messaging or whether you are receiving messages. I also think it makes it more like shopping than dating, dehumanising people. Do I want the 8K 42 inch TV or the 4K inch TV? Actually, can I even afford it?

All that said in the end it worked for me. Over 6 years since I last logged in and I think it was a bit of an addiction, or perhaps desperation born of loneliness.i also have a daughter now and there were times I thought that was never going to happen.

So for me online dating was years of frustration, difficulty and upset, but in the end I'm glad I did it but it took a long time.

Ask yourself what winning the game gains for you and what losing costs you. Then ask yourself what behaving like an ass when you win or lose might gain you or cost you. No one will remember you won that particular game in a month except maybe you. It is not going to be something that other people findly remember about you when you aren't around. However if you act like a ass, they definitely will remember and what you will gain if you repeatedly behave like that is a reputation, and not a good one. Nobody else really cares if you win or lose. It says literally nothing useful about you in day to day life.

What do you prefer to win, a board game or a lasting relationship.

Now that's said, when you are in the midst of losing and you can feel the tension. Remind yourself what is really at stake as above.

If you start losing and winning graciously you will hopefully come to realise the above naturally.

100% agree. While I think it might be easier to get to a relevant result more quickly in certain cases, I've never needed to suffix reddit to my searches to find what I need. Often reddit hits crop up but not because I looked for them specifically.

If you are scared of being questioned by those with differing political beliefs you aren't cut out to be the leader of a country.

If you are scared of being questioned by a 15 year old, you aren't even fit to be leader of a high school.

1: "... and then we'll be able to stop terrorist attacks. Simple".

2: “ok but if you put a back door into encryption, won't others be able to find it?"

1: "no we'll be the only ones with the key. Great huh?“

2: "and you don't think the key will be leaked or be hacked?"

1: "I said we'll be the only ones with the key."

2: "so what's your plan to make sure the key stays secure"

1: "..."

2: "what's your contingency plan if the key *is * hacked or leaked?"

1:"..."

1: "I SAID WE'LL BE THE ONLY ONES WITH THE KEY. "

2: "..."

1: "don't you want to protect our children ??"

I'm not saying baby monitors are the only reason for improved SUID rates. I'm saying they likely played a role. Despite your sarcasm, you might also be right that lead could have adversely affected unexplained infant mortality. The point I was trying to make was that baby monitors are not useless devices designed to extract money from you as implied by OP, whose comments by the way, were anecdotal.

$400 is excessive though. As is a subscription.

And data on SIDS is freely available. https://www.cdc.gov/sids/data.htm

They've also not been fine.

SUID Death rate for infants has decreased even since 1990. Baby monitor likely had a role in that.

FYI not supporting subscription for features a device has in hardware, just saying I'd rather have a monitor that never went off than no monitor and a dead child. There are plenty of alternative devices without subs that cost a lot less to begin with.