shikitohno @ shikitohno @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

213

Joined

1 yr. ago

At this point, you're just being disingenuous. Like, where have you been? Two seconds searching will give you article after article after article on this very topic. This has been a subject of public commentary since before people fell for trickle-down economics, and to pretend otherwise is to be entirely dishonest.

I would have more sympathy for them if these were new issues, but they've been perennial problems for more than three decades at this point. There comes a point where it's either willful ignorance, or being so woefully stupid you probably ought to be declared a ward of the state and get a minder to make sure you don't get caught off guard by your own saliva and drown in it.

Like, it's utterly stupid on its face. If you have the right to vote, you're struggling to afford to keep a roof over your head, yet you keep voting for the politicians who block the very affordable housing that your continued ability to live in your community depends on because it'll let the "wrong kind of people" move in, or "dilute the character of the neighborhood" and bring down property values, yet you cannot understand how this is voting against your own interests without someone breaking it down for you, you make a very compelling case for the shortcoming of democracy with universal suffrage. Even then, these are topics that have been gone over to death

Blaming the public for voting against their best interest when no one’s telling them that’s what they’re doing is a little silly.

Emphasis mine, but the public has been told over, and over, and over again. At what point does it stop being everyone else's responsibility that they just don't want to hear it, or are willing to ignore it if it hurts someone else?

Individually, no, but this is the decision people have been making in aggregate for decades with the people they vote into government to represent them. You can still see it happening when people oppose any attempts to build out public transportation when they believe it would either personally bother them in some way, or give poor people an easier way to access their communities.

Heck, you saw it earlier this year where municipalities around NY have fought and ignored the mandate to build up more dense housing, or the congestion pricing being walked back now. Housing costs being unaffordable is a serious issue when it impacts them or their acquaintances, but that's a sacrifice they're willing to make if it keeps poor people and minorities from also being able to afford to live in their town. Something needs to be done about traffic and air quality in Manhattan, right up until it means they would either need to pay up or take the train.

The governor is taking most of the heat for these policies, bud meanwhile, people keep reelecting the same local and state officials that aggravate the problems that the public is chronically complaining of. They'll shoot themselves in the foot if it means they can hurt others too.

I would wager most people don't actually have no choice but to make a massive commute. Often it just comes down to policy choices. As a country, we've made deliberate decisions to ignore developing mass transit, just as we've decided homes should be treated as investment vehicles. If we built out and maintained more trains, buses and light rail, congestion could be cut down and more people could travel much more rapidly and efficiently. If we didn't obsess over the idea that property values must go up without fail and encouraged building affordable housing, people could actually afford to live closer to where they work, rather than being pushed ever farther into the suburbs and countryside in search of a place they could afford to live in. Some people make insane commutes chasing higher pay in a neighboring region. I knew of people at one company who commuted from Philadelphia to Brooklyn every day, because NYC pay was higher and Philly rents lower. That said, that's absolutely a conscious choice those people make.

Likewise, not every job is capable of being done from home, but many are, yet workers are still forced to come into the office anyway. This is a choice by company execs, not an inevitable fact of life.

I'm sure there are some jobs that are relatively remote, yet need to be done in person despite the long commutes. Let the people doing them be compensated accordingly, but this is absolutely not something that should be normalized for the population at large.

Keep a special lookout for pear- or almond-like scents, which can be evidence of cyanide.

Maybe get a few other people to smell it, for this one, bonus points if they're entirely unrelated to you. Not everyone can smell it, and there may be a genetic component to it.

Perhaps, but they could minimize the damage from that if it was paired with a comprehensive plan to improve living standards that people actually believed would get passed, and following through on that. Meanwhile, the longer they go on denying the reality voters are experiencing daily, the more they undermine their credibility. At best, they come across as out of touch or incompetent, at worst as outright malicious.

If you read the article, it's defined purely in terms of income:

The poll, commissioned by the National True Cost of Living Coalition, found that around 65 percent of Americans who are considered “middle class,” earning above 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), are in a financial struggle.

In a way, it kind of proves the point that we need to reevaluate what the actual cost of living is in the modern age. For a family of 4 to be considered middle class by this metric, they would have an income of $62,400/year or higher. For a single individual, it's just $30,120/year. I don't know anywhere in the US where making $15 an hour means you're in the middle class, yet the federal government wants to keep acting like it's the 1980s and you can live it up to an extent on such a meager income.

That being said, financial struggle doesn't necessarily mean they're one step away from being destitute. It could just be a struggle to maintain their current standard of life, where is used to be taken as a given that this would improve over time.

Not just work life balance, but also the cost of living. I can barely afford to take care of myself, so I'm completely disinclined to go and create a whole new person that will be absolutely dependent on me to provide for it for years. If people can afford to live reasonably comfortably and conditions give them confidence that conditions will remain stable for the next 10-20 years, I bet you'll see them start having kids. When they're worried they could be homeless next year if things worsen and their retirement plan is advocating for the right to end one's life on their own terms, it shouldn't be a shocker that people don't want to add kids into the mix.

Also, perhaps decades of social stigma that said having a bunch of kids is something only poor, ignorant people do that represents a moral failing amongst the upstanding daughters of decent society is a bad thing to maintain when you want folks to keep cranking out more kids to feed into the meat grinder of the workforce.

I hope they come through for him, because the video of a bunch of his fans being arrested and him hauled out would probably be hilarious.

They don't even need to worry about looking good, all they need is to be patient and wait it out for people to get pissed off enough at Republicans and for things to swing back their way for a term or two.

I can't understand why anyone would expect most people to want to have kids. I can hardly afford to take care of myself, things look like they're only likely to get worse, and all indicators are that if I did have kids, they would be facing an even worse future when they hit adulthood. Why would I do that to them?

It really just needs to get annoying enough to use. In my case, I enjoyed it for music discovery, but then its recommendation algorithm got like YouTube where one stray listen just wrecked my discover weekly playlist for a month. I have one friend who's really into jazz, and maybe once every few months, I would click on one of his recommendations to see if he had found something that clicked for me. It got to the point where I stopped clicking on pretty much any recommendations, because Spotify would see that one song a quarter and go "Hold up,I think this guy wants nothing but atonal Yugoslavian free jazz in his playlist for the next month straight!"

The article the screenshot is from links directly to a case of an elderly woman being hit and killed by someone on an ebike. It also links to a story of another woman has suffered brain damage and lasting effects after being hit by someone riding a moped.

They don’t really go that fast.

You really can't say that, categorically. Part of the issue is that when people speak about e-bikes, there is a huge range of vehicles that fall under that category. You have ebikes that hit 80mph these days, yet generally are sold no differently in terms of registration or licensing than a pedal assist bike that cuts out the engine at 20mph or if the rider stops pedaling. A lot of these delivery drivers in NYC are riding illegal electric mopeds that go at high speeds and weigh much more than a normal bike, but are sold as though they were equal to an e-bike that goes much slower.

Even a lighter e-bike, like a Citi Bike, weighs about 45lbs. That's 15lbs heavier than my regular bike, which will make a difference if you get hit at higher speeds. Something like the Surron bike mentioned in that video is advertized as street legal, but according to their specs page, their bikes clock in at 47 kg, or 103.6 lbs! Sure, that guy could be riding a slightly different model, but there is an absolutely massive difference for a pedestrian between getting hit by a 150 lbs rider on a 30 lbs bike doing 20 mph, and getting hit by the same rider on a bike that's three times as heavy and going at four times the speed. Heck, there's a big difference for the rider themselves if they just eat it on their own.

Sure, all other factors being equal, it would be less severe with everyone on bikes, but your initial post read rather dismissively to me. Rather than, "Well at least it wasn't a car and they didn't die," it came across to me like "Nobody was in a car and it was unlikely to kill them, so it's not a problem." Perhaps that wasn't your intent, but it's certainly how I interpreted it. We can advocate for a safer mode of transit while also calling out dangerous behavior by people using our preferred mode.

Unsafe behavior isn't made okay just because the risk of death is minimal. The mother could have been concussed or had a broken bone, for all we know. If things go pear shaped and the trailer tips over, you could have the kids dumped out into traffic on one side, or down a ditch on the other, for all we know. This line of thinking, that it's okay as long as it's not equally dangerous as it would be in a car, makes no sense.

Yeah, some of the e-bike circlejerk sounds like it's from people who have never been in a major city where they get used by people with no regard for others. I've nearly been run down by app delivery drivers on ebikes and mopeds turning onto the sidewalk going the wrong way down one way streets at 30+ mph, people riding both acting crazy in the bike lanes, running red lights and cutting through traffic with no regard for their own safety or anyone else's. You'll have to excuse me when I lack sympathy for the guys on souped-up ebikes doing 30mph over a blind hill with no lights or helmet that get mad and start threatening me because they had to swerve to dodge since they were riding in the wrong lane.

Some of it could be app delivery drivers struggling to make ends meet while being subject to unreasonable and dangerous metrics, along with unlivable pay. I feel for them, but their struggle to earn a living doesn't give them carte blanche to put other people's lives at risk. On the other hand, a lot of people I see riding these tricked out ebikes and mopeds are the same people I know that were riding dirt bikes on NYC streets a few years back and moaning about how misunderstood they were and how the cops are picking on them just because they want to ride 40 deep down Third Ave and do wheelies while the streets and sidewalks are full of other vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians.

I'm all for encouraging people to use other modes of transportation, but people are being assholes and demonstrating why there's going to be a need to regulate the ebike and moped industry more rigorously, and probably introduce some sort of licensing requirement to enable tracking dangerous riders and enforcing safety rules. You have people riding devices rigged up to go at highway speeds, being careless while riding and disregarding pedestrians, riding the wrong way, and just generally being reckless and putting other people at risk. This is also ignoring the issue of people being cheap and buying aftermarket batteries that cause some nasty fires.

If you're on an ebike, scooter or moped that exceeds 25mph, I don't think you have any business being in the bike lane. Yes, it's riskier for those riders to be in vehicular traffic, but even ignoring the mass of the bike, just a person's body hitting you at 30mph or more can do some serious damage. If you're riding at a massively higher speed than those around you in the same lane, you're a safety hazard to others in your lane, whether you're on a moped doing 40mph in a 15-20mph zone, or in a car doing 70mph in a 45mph zone. People still need to be held accountable for putting others at risk with dangerous behavior, too, whether it's a car driving erratically, ebikes going down one way streets the wrong way, cyclists taking blind corners at speeds that don't let them stop for pedestrians, or even just pedestrians doing stupid shit like insisting on walking in the bike lane, rather than using a perfectly good sidewalk or pedestrian path right next to them. That said, they need to be enforced across the board, not just singling out people on ebikes or cyclists, while ignoring others.

People are wild these days. My wife and sister have both, working in different industries and companies, come home and informed me they were freaked out and a bit repulsed to discover coworkers in the bathroom, audibly having a bowel movement of some sort, with an iPhone on the floor of the stall facetiming their partners. These were both work places that skewed younger, but people have just been going feral. My last job, I walked into the bathroom and heard what I assumed was the Smack, smack, smack of somebody jerking off, only to find out it was a guy near his 60s doing clap push-ups in front of the urinals.

The exam software my uni uses for instance only runs on Windows & MacOS.

I would say this segment of @Iceblade02's post would be the issue, in that people are locked into these systems even if they prefer to use open source software. For example, my university based in the UK requires I submit my assignments in an MS Word format that supports Microsoft's annotations for the tutor to do all marking up and correcting/commenting on the paper there. There are ways to do the same thing with PDFs, but at least on my modules so far, it hasn't been an option at all. That's just for papers and such.

When it comes to exams where you're supposed to be answering the questions and submitting them as you go, there are schools that insist on you installing monitoring software so they can make sure you aren't cheating, which only tends to be available for Windows and Mac. I don't know how common that sort of software is outside the US, but it's certainly a thing.

I'm sure it won't happen, but there's a part of me that would just love to hear that when the negotiations get to Idaho, Idaho is just like "Nah, hard pass, we don't want you either."

Yeah, talking about jobs being created without any context on the types of jobs being created is meaningless. Great, there are now more part-time jobs paying minimum wage with no benefits and erratic schedules near me, just the sort of job creation I was waiting for so I could regress in my career.