What do you mean?

His other videos are much more forward-thinking, it’s true. I have not seen the “strong towns” ones so I’ll have a look later.

The planning of cities is, among other things, tied to the willingness to accommodate huge, wasteful vehicles.

I look at this the other way. If cities were properly designed, people would no longer need SUVs. Right now they need them to feel safe, and it’s okay for people to want to feel safe. If cities were developed a bit more soundly, people would no longer feel this need.

You don’t need to push people out of SUVs by making cities more hostile to them. You just need to make cities less hostile to cycling and buses, and everyone who can will use them. Cities should accommodate everyone, including cyclists and SUV users, whereas right now the accommodate neither.

But I understand the other perspective too, that SUVs are more dangerous and therefore should be banned. But I don’t find the video convincing at all, unless you were already convinced about that before watching.

It’s a very American perspective. By focusing on car design, he is missing out on the important issues.

Nothing in the video matters. If all the SUVs were instantly replaced by Igos, society would still have all the same problems, maybe 10 or 20% smaller. It wouldn’t solve anything.

Focusing on the differences in car design is a distraction from the important changes, which are mostly about city planning. The need for cars (among other things) disappears once city planning is done properly.

Or tags!

Thanks. I have made many feature requests and you always consider them seriously (but usually reject them).

I should do one of those things.

Although there are many flaws, and we do complain, Lemmy is still the best (or least dysfunctional) forum in existence. So yous must be doing something right.

That might not matter. Language is not always a barrier.

And anyway, there is a kit you can learn from people you don’t understand.

I’ve spent too much time explaining currency theory to purple who aren’t really interested. So if you have a specific question I can answer it. But not many questions and not a debate.

Show me the right parts!

IMO it’s an american thing. The society there is obsessed with race.

No matter what the issue is, somehow somebody will make a connection with race. It’s really striking once you listen to enough conversation from there.

The word master has a lot of meanings, but one of them has racial connotations, in a context unrelated to git branches.

Bitcoin should have led to global currency reform, for a start. That failed. It could still lead to energy reform and other important societal progress. But regulation and other factors are killing it.

In general we are open for constructive feedback

My one big fear right now is that a mod could delete my words, and they would be lost forever.

Sometimes I write long essays here. They are ideas that I think are important and original. I write them so people will be able to read them many years into the future.

It’s important that anything deleted by a mod or an admin can be saved by the creator afterwards.

I’d argue it’s necessary that nothing can ever be fully deleted, if you want people to ever write anything important here.

That’s why historically most of the most important world-change essays were written to newspapers. Once a newspaper is published, it is available forever. It can never be expunged.

Are there any plans to improve vim? it is so close to being great. but most of the key mappings are difficult to reach. i understand they made more sense on 50 year old keyboard designs.

it’s missing a couple of great features like pycharm’s “expand context”.

It just needs a few tweaks to be usable.

You got me. I need to adjust the question.

Can you think of a perspective more extreme, more anti-russian than your own? (And not just massacring everybody, obviously)

I like your “bully” analogy. Russia’s problem is that it’s a small bully in a world of big bullies. It needs to steal food from smaller children or it will die. But the top tier bullies are afraid it will become a big bully and a threat if it stays healthy. They are stopping it stealing the food so it will die.

Even more accurately, you could say Russia used to be a bully but is now poor and starving. It needs to steal a dock so it can fish. But the top tier bullies…

Google, Facebook or Microsoft can buy it if this is likely. If can’t buy it they can get it banned.

I’m not here to answer your question (though TBF most of the other commenters didn’t answer it either) but I’d like to ask you about burnout.

I find that in times where there is a lot going on, both at work and at home, I am multi-tasking all day, juggling many so many different urgent jobs that I can’t think about any of them, think about what I am doing now or doing next, or think at all.

When go to bed I have fought many fires, but have accomplished nothing, and still have just and many frustrating jobs waiting for the next day. After several days of this I am continuously anxious and irritable. My mind is a fog.

Is this burnout?

What helps? Writing down all the jobs in a list and going through them sequentially. Just refuse to do anything not urgent or that someone else can do. But any job that takes less than 5 minutes just do immediately without even writing it down.

Taking a 20 minute nap. Sometimes that doesn’t help, so sit alone in a dark room for as long as it takes for the mind to clear.

Prolonged intense exercise helps. So does spending time in a new place. Talking socially with other people. Maybe drugs, but for me neither beer nor spirits help at all.

But these solutions all consume time. So you need to get through all the jobs first. When you reach the end, you have enough free time to do those things. To heal your mind after the burnout.

That’s an interesting interpretation. I’ve never heard it before. Would be interesting to re-read with this in mind.

Everybody interprets Lord of the Flies the same way - as a dilemma between whether people are naturally civilised/cooperative or naturally violent/selfish.

Here is the first link I found, for example. https://bookanalysis.com/william-golding/lord-of-the-flies/themes-analysis/

Your interpretation is radical.

About NET, that’s reassuring to hear. It’s what I already believe. Ubiquitous narrative of people turning savage in an emergency is just cynical propaganda. I’d like to read more evidence to properly test it though, if I come across any.

They’ve done it before.

Can you think of a perspective more extreme, more anti-russian than your own?

It’s a test of whether your view is an extreme view or a moderate one.

Well the most common and effective way of destroying local cultures, is to force the people to speak the common language.

For example in France, the UK, and many other places, there used to be many local regions, with their own languages and strong local cultures and loyalties. The rulers wanted to kill the local cultures, so that the people would have no local identity. This stops disloyalty or independent thinking or independence movements.

They did this by forcing their subjects to speak a common language.

This policy was perfectly effective.

A province speaking its own language can easily maintain its own identity and push for independence. Without its own language this is more difficult, even if it keeps its own customs.

I think I’ve been too vague. So I can elaborate about these policies in the UK or France, if you like. For other territories (Spain, Italy, etc) I believe the same thing happened but I’m not the expert.

Interesting. After getting more familiar with the French system, I am starting to think the market-based system is the best way. Or at least, it’s a good start. The perfect system in probably fully state run. But it’s so difficult for incompetent governments to create. A good market-based system is easy and quick, and works fine, as an interim solution.

I guess it depends what you mean by “progressive” though?

In paper, the democracies in the world are Ireland, Berlin, Switzerland, California. IMO in practice they are also the most progressive.

I’m not sure they’re really the same question. Be careful of making a false equivalence.

Your questions are very loaded. Most people would answer “there shouldn’t be ANY racism at all!”

In that case, if the questions are really equivalent, everyone’s answer to the original question should be “there shouldn’t be any censorship at all” or maybe “there should be complete censorship for everyone”.

But I don’t think that’s the right conclusion. Therefore the questions are not equivalent. This is too simplistic.

Because you’re taking a very technical rhetorical stance, I’ll try to answer the same way.

Racism is a damaging thing. There’s no good side to it.

Censorship is also a damaging thing. But it can sometimes be a necessary evil to prevent worse evils. There is a sweet spot where it prevents more damage than it causes.

Racism is a natural feature that arises in groups of people, but censorship is a political measure. So if there is a damaging amount of racism in lemmy, censorship can be used to reduce it. While there is no underlying racism problem, then censorship causes its harm while producing no benefit.

These things are hard to measure, so censorship is normally a matter of very careful consideration.

For example you could only take away 50% of the extra pay

That’s basically what UBI does. It is the optimal solution to that problem.

why should all the other welfare Programms be only viable when you earn no money at all

I didn’t want to complicate the argument by talking about other welfare programs. But maybe I should. I’ll make an edit.

Yes but nobody will tell you your real salary. You have to calculate it yourself. Employers instead tell you your salary before tax, because it looks bigger.

The article many diverse claims. It’s a scattergun argument, where the author doesn’t have a single good point, so he make many weak ones. So I’ll just address the first point.

Calling for “Savings in health, justice, education and social welfare as well as the building of self-reliant, taxpaying citizen,” clearly means social cuts and privatization.

This is wrong. The savings are from lifting people out of poverty.

• health: This is because the destitute save money by postponing medical care. In the long run they end up with much more expensive illnesses. This becomes a financial burden for the state. So it’s pragmatic to lift people out of poverty with UBI.

• Justice: Reducing poverty is expected to reduce petty crime.

• Education: I don’t know about this one. Maybe people predict a healthier job market so people don’t need so many qualifications to get a good career.

• Social welfare: Because UBI increases employment by removing the welfare trap.

You might not agree with all of the above points. But they are all probable consequences of UBI people might reasonably expect. Saying it “clearly means social cuts and privatization” is shockingly stupid. The article was written by someone who doesn’t even understand the basics.

It don’t have time to refute everything in the article. But really, it is all bollox.

If working with live wires, do the whole thing standing on a wooden stool. You must have a thick insulator between you and ground. You will probably touch a live wire at some point, and the size of shock you get depends on how well insulated you are from the ground, walls, and other objects around you.

Don’t bother wrapping wires around you.

If you connect the live to the earth wire, you will blow the fuse, and probably destroy the wires too. Then you’ll have to rip out the plaster to lay new wires.

This is not difficult if you are careful, not tired, and have good common sense.

Wrap the live in electrical tape first. Only unwrap it for the few seconds where you are putting it into its connector. That’s the only step you need to do carefully.

Good idea. https://lemmy.ml/c/ubi

This is a straw-man argument. Nobody would ever (I hope) try to implement UBI that way. It would be a disaster.

But this is a general problem. Proponents and opponents of any thing, are usually talking about very different versions of the thing. If not, they have incompatible perspectives on the thing. I can explain more about this if you like - you really need to see examples to see why it’s important.

There aren’t really serious doubts about whether UBI would work, or what its effects are on society. But there are many misunderstandings about what UBI is.

I can axplain later about UBI if you like. But for now, what kind of revolution are you thinking of? What is the political goal of the anti-work people?

Are you talking about UBI? Or communism? Or something else?

But after UBI much more charity work will start being done. There will be a critical mass of people who have time and funds to build up their own communities.

I would keep doing the same job, but also some community work.

As someone once told me, “cycling is a warmup excercise”.

Oh got it.

In a lot of the world people are car-dependent. So we must force manufacturers to stop making tyres that wear excessively fast. Which is easy for governments but difficult anyone else.

And reducing car-dependency obviously would be the longer term solution.

A big problem in cities. Is already known to cause serious diseases in humans, and the research is only beginning now. We don’t know anything about the effects on wildlife.

Try it. Run an experiment.

The second one is zoomed in, to make it look worse. Being able to see that there is solid ground on the left is important.

The example I know is where you take a random healthy man. Then you find five people who are waiting for different organ donations. Is it right to kill that man and harvest his organs, to save the five.

I find it a much more insightful example.

Will there be a “debate vegans” type sub? I still have so many questions, but don’t know where to ask.

On the other hand, electrolysis could be a good use of electricity supply peaks. There aren’t many others:

• pumping water up dams and towers
• mining bitcoin
• charging batteries
• anything else?

Very good article though. I learnt a lot.

“That’s a nice shirt” is generally taken as a sincere and high complement. Anything else at all will get funny looks.