It’s pretty okay. Lots of engagement, also there’s something of a ‘block early and often’ culture that seems to have a way of really reducing the drama and nonsense
Late-diagnosed autistic, special interest-haver, dad, cyclist, software professional
It’s pretty okay. Lots of engagement, also there’s something of a ‘block early and often’ culture that seems to have a way of really reducing the drama and nonsense
Ehhhhhhh. 😒
For the ‘but sport has to be fair’ people, stop. Sport will never be fair, there are always people with better genetics, and with better access to training and equipment and the time to devote to developing their potential, bla bla bla.
The people trying to lawyer about who is or isn’t a woman here aren’t here to make sport fair, they’re using the fact you’d like sport to be fair as a way to get you to support their demand to be able to reduce sport into a thing they can pick winners with by disqualifying people on arbitrary standards they get to invent.
I mean, the people that have been insisting ‘you’re a woman if you were born with those parts’ are now insisting ‘you’re not a woman if I feel like you’re not a woman’. Your takeaway here is that the pretexts will continue to change in order to get or keep your support, the underlying thrust is they want to discriminate against people that don’t fit in to their ideas of what being a woman should mean.
It’s ABOUT TIME
Srsly, watching grocery chains consolidate and regional prices for staples like butter and cheese go up by 50% in a matter of months got me pretty mad- I mean, on the one hand those things didn’t become 50% more attractive or more expensive to make, they just didn’t have to compete on price. It was really the fact that they could do it and get away with it that hurt the most.
OK, so now I halfway-hope the vigilantes that try to do this will end up facing criminal charges for it
But, I also halfway-expect cops and prosecutors to look the other way if the victims of this kind of crime ends up being the kind of people they’d be disproportionately policing and convicting anyhow
While on the one hand I can agree there’s a place and time to be present and participate appropriately, on the other hand it’s so goddamned tiring to see politics that in situations of nuance zoom in on ‘control them’ as a thing everyone can rally to as if the solution of phone control was really going to be simple and accomplish its objectives.
I mean, criminalizing drugs seemed on its face to be a simple-enough thing to do, and a good idea- who could object to that, right? Who favors addiction, right? What could go wrong? Fundamentally, the ask for enough power to ban anything isn’t a trivial ask, and it shouldn’t be undertaken lightly.
…thus showing that the “Law and Order” party was never about law, they just want a particular kind of order- that is, a hierarchy wherein people below them on the status-ladder know not to try to hold them accountable to anything, including the law or even plain decency.
To them, the law is the cudgel to keep the poors and plebes in their place- low in the order- never to be applied to them.
When you have financial engineers overriding the decisions of mechanical engineers, you get crashy airplanes and eventually, caught up murdering people that might talk to investigators in order to defend those juicy profits
…sort of like how when administrators and insurance folk and lawyers and judges override the decisions of doctors and nurses, you end up with highly profitable hospitals and people dying for it
…all a bit like when the bean counters run your software company, layoffs designed to boost stock price by showing investors ‘fiscal discipline’ leaves your engineering teams shorthanded and forces them to de-prioritize bug fixes and dealing with technical debt and rigorous testing and you end up shipping lots of bugs when you release your product
…you really do need to be specific. Otherwise, it sounds like you’re claiming that “the production processes” (of what, everything? all products in the entire economy?) require PFOAs- and that’s plain bullshit.
Yes, there are some products for which there aren’t equivalent inputs, and you don’t need to be vague and generalize over all of productive everything in the economy in order to make that point- but given the opportunity to be specific, you specified “production of base chemicals that are used in various other follow-up products” and that’s not a straight or specific answer to a direct question.
there is no other material known to withstand the temperatures and pressures needed in the production processes?
Production of what, exactly?
One wonders what will happen to these schools’ accreditations, really.
I mean, if you’re teaching something you call history and you don’t teach students how to put the course content in its historical context and interrogate those sources critically, you’re not teaching them history, you’re indoctrinating them.
…tho to be fair, that’s honestly what passes for US History in most US schools. The more history I learn, the more I realize most of us aren’t taught
Welp. It’s time for Tesla workers to unionize, and hard
The torches, pitchforks, guillotine, tar, and feathers aren’t going to reach a billionaire. They’re going to be used on whoever is around.
The point, of course, is that the cost of being a billionaire is that you can’t go out in public- if the public is mad enough about it
The catch is that if they pay taxes and life gets better for other people we agree to not bring out the torches, pitchforks, and guillotines or tar, feathers, and such
Is there a possible way that both the NYT and OpenAI could lose?
Ok, that’s fair. The point I wanted to make upthread was that these sorts of impossible things are regularly made to work when making it work is worthwhile. Most of the ‘but this is a limitation of the technology’ talk here (about how EVs can’t work in the cold, etc) is defeatist bullshit that ignores that really if you want it to work it can be made to work
The main thing is that electric is the same way,
No, the larger point is that it’s a struggle to make diesel work at +20F if you don’t do the things to make it work, and yet these things can be made to work reliably at -50F. The obstacle isn’t the limitations of the technology, it’s whether or not the cost curve makes sense. Electric can be made to work cheaply, if it’s important to you that it work- just like it’s possible to make that diesel turn over at -50F
I grew up and rode the bus to school in Iowa.
I rode the bus in Alaska. The buses ran well below -50f. It turns out that it’s not that hard to keep your batteries and oilpans heated if you bother putting plug-in heaters (literally, electric blankets for the purpose) in your fleet vehicles, winterize your vehicles, and plug them in when it’s cold.
I get that it’s uncommon to be that cold-prepared in places that don’t expect to see temperatures below -20 for more than a few days in a given calendar year- at some point, it makes sense to just call it off when it’s that cold. After all, do all (or even most of) the kids have proper clothes to deal with real cold?
Really cold weather can be adapted to, it’s just that when you don’t need it that often it makes sense not to spend the resources doing it.
For those of you who haven’t been in a school bus in years, do you remember how loud they are? Reducing diesel pollution is a win, but being in a less-noisy environment for however long each day is also a win.
As a cyclist and occasional user of public transit, I really like the idea of most buses eventually being at least plug-in hybrid-electric if not entirely battery electric. I’m curious about the mass difference between a diesel, diesel-electric, and battery-electric bus (after all, the heavier the vehicle, the harder it is on the road). I expect some of the fuel-and-maintenance-cost-savings from the bus fleet will have to go to road maintenance in the end, but I’d rather spend money that way (locally) than spend it on pumping fresh hot carbon out of foreign wellheads
It’s as if they all think that they’ll be rewarded for their loyalty to him.