uniqueid198x @ uniqueid198x @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

2

Comments

253

Joined

2 yr. ago

This is fantastic. I hope to see their success, and that others follow their lead.

Scapegoating isn't the "oh shit" emergency tactic of the right tho, it's the first move they play.

Why not both? Far right movements, at least as far back as the transition of the Tories into the conservative party in the early 1800s, have been lead by the interests of the ultra rich. Far right "philosophy" has always been to their service, whether its regressive "economics" of Malthus or the complete fiction of scientific racism. Almost definitionally, there isn't a far right movement without a ruling class that it supports and is supported by; that's what they are trying to "conserve".

Part of this is having a permanent underclass. Or more than one. Just as the "middle class" is under the ruling class, the under class must be beneath them. This is part of the conservative mindset, which again is created and nurtured by the ruling class for this purpose. The difference between garden variety conservatives and fascists, in this regard, is simply that fascists want the elimination of the permanent underclass.

That's quite true. And they get it because enough people are cycling that there is demand for it. Mandatory helmets laws actually discourage cycling. The data on that is clear. The data on whether mandatory helmets laws increase safety is much less clear, however.

When it's a matter of public policy, one should consider both these factors... A clear cost for an unclear benefit, and change policy as our knowledge continues to evolve.

That's quite true. And they got that via sustained policy to encourage cycling. It's been quite demonstrated that mandatory helmets actively discourage cycling, leading to both a disinvestment in infrastructure and drivers being less comfortable around cyclists (thus more dangerous)

I am not making a point about individual choices. Anyone should feel free to wear a helmet. But public policy is a different beast, and the data on mandatory helmets laws are inconclusive as to benefit and clear as to cost.

Except that mandatory helmets discourages bicycling which causes disinvestment in safe infrastructure, and keeps drivers unfamiliar with cyclists. This makes cycling much more dangerous. Note again that the mass cycling cultures do not have mandatory helmets laws and are also much safer than Australia.

Also, it's weird that cycling is singles out for mandatory helmets. Fully half of all head injuries from individual transport happen on automobiles, yet nobody is suggesting mandatory helmets for car occupants. Even walking creates a larger number of head injury hospital visits. The arguments for mandatory bicycle helmets apply there too.

Ultimately, at a time that we need greater investment in mass cycling than ever, for individual safety and for the environment, mandatory helmets laws are counterproductive

As a cyclist, I rarely wear a helmet because there is enough data out there to show it may be more dangerous to do so. As a motorcyclist, I wear all the gear all the time, and won't even get on the bike without a helmet. Personally, I'm really following data and research as much as I can. Low relationship between helmet use and bike safety, high relationship between helmet use and motorcycle safety

Naw, all injuries go down. It's not survivor bias, it's a solid inverse correlation.

Yeah, fatalities also go down. All hospitalizations do. It's not survivor bias, it's a solid inverse correlation between helmet use and injury. Netherlands, Denmark, Japan all have very low helmet use and very low injuries.

It depends. Often the Indian guy (or equivalent) is giving specific knowledge on how to use a piece of software or library. That's something the professor cannot and should not be focusing on. Too transitory.

We can think of it like cooking... If you understand emulsification using starch, it unlocks the ability to create many kind of sauces, but it won't really help you with the specific recipe if Sauce Merchand du Vin. Fundamentals and tutorials are both good info, and the mistakes come from applying them to the wrong situations, or not having enough context to use either

I actually think you've misinterpreted what I'm saying, unfortunately. The data consistently shows that head injuries are the most common form of injury for all forms of individual transport, that present in hospital. That includes modes where helmets are common like cycling and motorcycling, and modes where they are not common such as walking and driving.

The data further show that out of all modes of individual transport, cycling results in the least hospital visits per unit distance traveled.

Further, various studies suggest but can not conclude, that various policies which increase helmet use also contribute to higher rates of hospitalization for cyclists. The data also shows an inverse correlation with unknown cause in populations with lower habitual helmet use and bicycle hospitalization.

The actual point I would like to make is that the study of bicycle injury and helmet effectiveness is young, and the data are inconclusive at best.

I certainly don't want you to not wear a helmet while cycling, but when we talk about public policy, that might be another question entirely. Unfortunately, the received wisdom based on emergency ward studies on the early 80s was itself not comprehensive, and has only become less clear over time.

This may be the case, but may also not. Concussions are pretty tricky... If we look at common causes, many are activities done without helmets, and people do survive them, and conversely, many of them happen in spite of the presence of the helmet.

So it's harder to link concussion safety to helmet use, and as the summary mentions, head injuries are currently more common in walking and driving than in cycling, so, again, it's quite difficult to study and most conclusions have quite a bit of uncertainty.

Huh. The timing of the formation overlies that of the Deccan traps and lacadive ridge, which runs right through the geoid low. While the current model for the Deccan traps proposes the reunion hotspot, it would be interesting if anyone does further integrative research to see if the the two phenomena are related

There's a long term debate about the effecacy of helmets. this article from 2014 summarizes it pretty well. All the studies, both in favor and against are relatively weak compared to what we might expect, but this is epidemiology, not biology.

The biggest indicator is simply that countries with heavy helmet use have more head injuries per 100,000 miles ridden than those with low helmet use. Even that is a correlation, but causality is unclear.

So, the professor gives you the knowledge to fully leverage it and take it in any direction.

Your friend gives you a single option that might help.

The Indian guy presents a straightforward path to a solution you might not want?

It's not really good to compare the different situations of information sharing, because they have different goals. The professor isn't needlessly complicating it, they are giving you fundamentals to build on.

My baseball team plays God Bless America during the seventh stretch, and people stand up for that, and then make comments when I don't. I'm a vet, and I only stand for the star spangled because people make even more comments. I did my duty, I'm done with jingoistic bullshit

They redefined motorcycle YouTube

Nick Zentner (@GeologyNick) has been delivering college level lectures and seminars in geology for years. He has several lecture series ranging from 101 level, senior College level, to breaking research. He also has many shorts and onsite presentations.

Noraly (@ItchyBoots) has been traveling around the world via motorcycle for 6 or so years. She's currently traversing western Africa, and has hundreds of hours of backlog. She has previously traveled from India to the Netherlands, and then from Argentina to Alaska (with a break for COVID).

This sounds like a lot of good reasoning that could have been used to respond to the original poster of this thread ; ¯(ツ)_/¯

My initial reaction is that this is a "both sides" stance that punishes the victim, but I'm interested to become more nuanced. Would you mind expanding on why this would be best?