I totally get the point. But to be fair, the US has such a high GDP that it could afford all of this. But, it would require taxing the wealthy a bit more.
Design towns and cities that can only be easily traversed by car.
Just to reiterate, there is something you can do about this. Lobby your local decision makers. They're not waiting around to be guilted into anything, but they are generally happy to talk to residents and are open for reasonable arguments.
(That doesn't mean local politicians are reasonable people. 90% of the ones who run things where I live are a lost case. But there are always the odd exceptions who are willing to listen and will work hard to make a difference.)
I'm seeing numbers between 140 and 327 people having been killed at the Berlin wall and 153 people at the girls' school. That that's besides the point.
I'd say that suffering isn't measured in fatalities, neither is mortality. Groups can be oppressed resulting in enormous suffering, but with relatively few fatalities as a result. See for example the Taliban and women. There is also the factor of intentionality. The US likely didn't intentionally bomb a school, but the wall was carefully designed.
Nonetheless, the reason the Iran war started is of course exceptionally dumb than compared to the other wars that the US started. So your point probably still stands. Sacrificing lives for petty reasons is evil.
I don't live in the states, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable if no-one could just buy a gun. Republicans nor democrats. The US hasn't exactly shown that the second amendment has bigger upsides than the HUMONGOUS downsides.
Is that the best argument you've got, my god fearing friend?
^(non-native speakers are gone non-native speak. Appreciate the correction, but people make mistakes on the internet all the time. It's quite a job to take on to correct all of them.)
I think the hypothetical doesn't have much to do with morality. There is no moral reason not to. But there are other reasons.
Actions don't have to be immoral for them to be judged or questioned. People who'd have sex with a dead deer aren't hurting anyone, but they are making choices that would ordinarily lead one to be sceptical of them as a person and be weary of other choices they might have made you are not aware of and if the choices they will make in the future.
I've read the article already and I'm well aware. And like I said, it depends on what the law says on phone use. It's not as simple as 'oh she wasn't holding her phone so she wasn't using it'. It depends on case law, how phone use is defined and whether the law is using a kind of prophylactic rule.
You can get fined for texting and driving while you're standing still. It's not something that you'd be able to say makes sense based on an article like this, but looking at case law and how the law was written, it does make sense.
Personally I think it makes a lot of sense to have prophylactic rules in place for what constitutes phone use. There is generally no reason why a phone should be laying in one's lap while driving except to be used illegally whilst driving, so such a rule could help enforcement and save lives.
It depends a lot on what the law says I'd say. Just like having an open container of alcohol in your car is illegal in many places, it's not a bad thing per se if having a phone on one's lap is treated the same way as if it's being used.
Unlike what the article says, phone use in a car is not seen as a minor traffic violation in many places. In the US literally hundreds of people die each year due to phone use while driving specifically.
Sadly it's more theoretical than an actual option in many places.
Where I live (UK, not London) short distances can be done by bike or public transport. Although public transport isn't great. For medium distance, public transport is often non-existent. For long distance, public transport works well and you might be able to take your bike on the train too.
I'd rather cycle through the rain than pay an extortionate amount for a bus ticket.
They're exceptionally disability friendly and many age specifically adapted for people with disabilities. E-tricycles are used a lot for this purpose. You see them a lot in some countries.
E-bikes address the sweatiness and hills issue. But even without electric assistance, people in Germany and Austria have managed.
It doesn't always require new infrastructure to be built. Ideally infrastructure for cars is repurposed for walking and cycling. This is something that needs to be done anyway because lots of people don't drive, causing transport poverty.
My bike was $270 second hand and is awesome.
The range issue is fair. Consequence of designing exclusively for cars. Then again, no need to cycle every journey. Just the short journeys already helps a lot. Where I live most car journeys are under 5 miles.
I think there is a little bit too much randomness going on in the video to be AI generated. Messy details from the real world that AI doesn't add in, but too subtle to be the result of prompting.
If anything, this makes it more likely it wasn't written by AI. These are typical mistakes people make when they're overthinking their writing, while writing.
That sounds like a quote for a ground source heat pump. Air source heat pumps are far more popular and much cheaper to install.
Labour is the main cost. Ours was about €11k. Future replacements would cost as much as a boiler upgrade since the pipework and radiators are already there.
Hey don't make this about PS2. I still get a bit emotional thinking about:
Thanks for this post, because otherwise I would never have found out that someone recreated Red Ace Squadron in Unreal Engine
Those are all really good ideas. And on top of that I'd also suggest taxing the wealthy a bit more.
I totally get the point. But to be fair, the US has such a high GDP that it could afford all of this. But, it would require taxing the wealthy a bit more.
Sounds like Belgium?
Why? I really enjoyed Mankato while slowly breaking it (Arch is just not for people like me)
Excellent comment!
Just to reiterate, there is something you can do about this. Lobby your local decision makers. They're not waiting around to be guilted into anything, but they are generally happy to talk to residents and are open for reasonable arguments.
(That doesn't mean local politicians are reasonable people. 90% of the ones who run things where I live are a lost case. But there are always the odd exceptions who are willing to listen and will work hard to make a difference.)
I'm seeing numbers between 140 and 327 people having been killed at the Berlin wall and 153 people at the girls' school. That that's besides the point.
I'd say that suffering isn't measured in fatalities, neither is mortality. Groups can be oppressed resulting in enormous suffering, but with relatively few fatalities as a result. See for example the Taliban and women. There is also the factor of intentionality. The US likely didn't intentionally bomb a school, but the wall was carefully designed.
Nonetheless, the reason the Iran war started is of course exceptionally dumb than compared to the other wars that the US started. So your point probably still stands. Sacrificing lives for petty reasons is evil.
I get that you feel that way emotionally, but statistically it's nonsense. Your chances of being shot in the US are 22 times higher than in the EU.
I don't live in the states, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable if no-one could just buy a gun. Republicans nor democrats. The US hasn't exactly shown that the second amendment has bigger upsides than the HUMONGOUS downsides.
Is that the best argument you've got, my god fearing friend?
^(non-native speakers are gone non-native speak. Appreciate the correction, but people make mistakes on the internet all the time. It's quite a job to take on to correct all of them.)
I think the hypothetical doesn't have much to do with morality. There is no moral reason not to. But there are other reasons.
Actions don't have to be immoral for them to be judged or questioned. People who'd have sex with a dead deer aren't hurting anyone, but they are making choices that would ordinarily lead one to be sceptical of them as a person and be weary of other choices they might have made you are not aware of and if the choices they will make in the future.
I've read the article already and I'm well aware. And like I said, it depends on what the law says on phone use. It's not as simple as 'oh she wasn't holding her phone so she wasn't using it'. It depends on case law, how phone use is defined and whether the law is using a kind of prophylactic rule.
You can get fined for texting and driving while you're standing still. It's not something that you'd be able to say makes sense based on an article like this, but looking at case law and how the law was written, it does make sense.
Personally I think it makes a lot of sense to have prophylactic rules in place for what constitutes phone use. There is generally no reason why a phone should be laying in one's lap while driving except to be used illegally whilst driving, so such a rule could help enforcement and save lives.
It depends a lot on what the law says I'd say. Just like having an open container of alcohol in your car is illegal in many places, it's not a bad thing per se if having a phone on one's lap is treated the same way as if it's being used.
Unlike what the article says, phone use in a car is not seen as a minor traffic violation in many places. In the US literally hundreds of people die each year due to phone use while driving specifically.
It's called a cogwheel in English
Sadly it's more theoretical than an actual option in many places.
Where I live (UK, not London) short distances can be done by bike or public transport. Although public transport isn't great. For medium distance, public transport is often non-existent. For long distance, public transport works well and you might be able to take your bike on the train too.
I'd rather cycle through the rain than pay an extortionate amount for a bus ticket.
They're exceptionally disability friendly and many age specifically adapted for people with disabilities. E-tricycles are used a lot for this purpose. You see them a lot in some countries.
E-bikes address the sweatiness and hills issue. But even without electric assistance, people in Germany and Austria have managed.
It doesn't always require new infrastructure to be built. Ideally infrastructure for cars is repurposed for walking and cycling. This is something that needs to be done anyway because lots of people don't drive, causing transport poverty.
My bike was $270 second hand and is awesome.
The range issue is fair. Consequence of designing exclusively for cars. Then again, no need to cycle every journey. Just the short journeys already helps a lot. Where I live most car journeys are under 5 miles.
I think there is a little bit too much randomness going on in the video to be AI generated. Messy details from the real world that AI doesn't add in, but too subtle to be the result of prompting.
If anything, this makes it more likely it wasn't written by AI. These are typical mistakes people make when they're overthinking their writing, while writing.
Curb Your Enthusiasm. Pretty pretty good
That sounds like a quote for a ground source heat pump. Air source heat pumps are far more popular and much cheaper to install.
Labour is the main cost. Ours was about €11k. Future replacements would cost as much as a boiler upgrade since the pipework and radiators are already there.