PraetorianGourd

I am not normally one to cry “ableism!” but seriously. If technology allows more people to enjoy nature and trails, awesome. Nature of all places doesn’t need your gatekeeping.

The way COVID responses developed augers very poorly for future emergencies. We responded to worst case scenarios with a chainsaw when a scalpel was more appropriate. This was heavily influenced by conjecture on social media. See the SVB bank run as another example of panic on social media being a virus itself.

My larger point is that if the dealers can make identical looking counterfeits, including imprints, then I am pretty confident they can make legit looking blister packs as well.

Wow I didn't know that grey/black-market dealers used blister packs in the EU. Unless you are implying that the bogus Vicodin he took was pharmacist provided, which is absolutely absurd. The US has a lot of problems, but the safety of legally-obtained medicine is not one of them.

SpaceX owns Starlink, it is a product of theirs.

Yeah, paying billions for something you currently get for free would certainly cut into profits by quite a bit. Ford would make a lot more money if they didn't need to pay for metal, plastic, or electricity.

That isn't the concern. The concern is that the "rules for appropriate content" have been moved to restrict views that, while outside the mainstream, are not hateful or violent. The most obvious example being the suppression of COVID origins or criticism of COVID response policies:

Saying that "I believe COVID was the result of a lab leak, here is my evidence" versus Saying "I believe COVID was the result of a lab leak, here is my evidence, and as a result we should [do something violent/illegal]"

See the difference? The former should _not_ be restricted under any circumstance, even if the "evidence" is bunk. Let the fact that the evidence is bunk sink the theory, not the moderators. The latter, on the other hand, contains a call to violence, so it should reasonably be restricted.

Of course, a privately owned platform like Twitter/X could say the former isn't allowed on their platform and they would be within their rights to restrict it. However if they restrict it because of pressure from the US government, that falls into a more precarious situation.

Of course the 1st amendment only applies to the government. Platforms can restrict anything they want with or without explanation. But the government can't pressure platforms to restrict things, that _does_ violate the 1st amendment, as the private company is then acting as a proxy for the government.

I didn't flag it. I don't believe that I've ever flagged a comment. I believe doing so removes the opportunity for dialog and only serves to give the illusion of consensus or harmony

This trope is getting tired. It is perfectly valid to ask why an author of a piece focused on one company and not another. It is perfectly valid to point out that while _x_ does a thing, _y_ also does the thing. It doesn't invalidate the original criticism at all, in fact "how would I feel if a company/person/country I admire did this?" is an incredibly useful tool to check against one's own biases.

Calling something what-about-ism doesn't contribute to a discussion, it kills it. And it doesn't support the point nor does it refute the counterpoint.. It just dismisses any opportunity for discussion.

I am very familiar with Portland ;), the green ways are cool for sure. Except if I am on Salmon or Clinton and want to go to Fred Meyer, I need to ride on 39th or Hawthorne at _some point_, which to a lot of people is a non-starter due to danger.

Besides, suburbs exist, and someone living in Sherwood who works in Portland, at this time, requires a car. And public transit would need to be either faster, cheaper, or more convenient (wifi, coffee etc) than driving for (most) people to adopt it over a car.

And Hawthorne is _super confusing_ now. Turning right from Hawthorne to 10th is a nightmare, you have a bus lane, a bike lane and a sidewalk to the right of you, all of which could contain someone. It is hard to accurately see all three "lanes" that you need to cross. Another example is the Hawthorne bridge onto 99E, the angle is below 90 degrees so you end up with a massive blind spot. I start looking for bikes/peds way before the off-ramp because I am used to it.. someone from out of town or who rarely drives in Portland is going to kill or injure someone.

My understanding was that Chinese consumers (generally) prefer cars with much longer wheel-bases than American consumers. While it is true that SUVs popular in the US may be taller than a long-wheel-base sedan, I am not sure the GVWR is that different between the two. Besides, the batteries are the biggest source of weight in an electric car by a lot,

What I can see as being a difference maker is the need (real or imagined) of a lot of American consumers to tow something. Towing _does_ require a lot more energy and thus batteries.

I would argue that it is less due to politics and "safe streets" being an extreme position and more to do with the fact that _entire metropolitan areas_ are designed around the car. It would literally require starting from scratch in many places to design a city around non-car ownership.

You can argue that it is a net negative that a lot of America, and most of the American west, was built and grew in conjunction with the car, but it is not entirely fair to say the only impediment is culture and politics.

While I understand your point, this comment is pretty close to trite comments like "downvote me if you want, but..." or "does anyone else..." or even the sinful "first!". It sets a negative tone for everyone else who clicks on the comments, and can immediately put people on the defensive (such as someone who wasn't planning on commenting, but now will to refute your point etc.)

Ignoring the hyperbole in the title (polio was pretty bad), the article itself claims that 17% of people have a high fear of developing long-term symptoms post-COVID. Now, assume one of those gets COVID, how much does every negative symptom or feeling trigger that fear? And how depressing and debilitating would that fear make you?

There are certainly long term impacts of COVID, like any viral infection. And people suffering from long-COVID, whether psychosomatic or not, deserve our care, respect, and support. But fear-mongering titles and articles aren't helping, and in fact could be exacerbating a psychological contagion.

To be fair, $2,500 for a hand-knotted Persian rug is actually a great price, unless it was a very small piece. That one anecdote didn't seem too absurd, or at least not at the same level as some of the other data points.

If you’ve not read it yet, I would recommend “The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis” by Jose Saramago. Of course not directly about Pessoa but he plays an important narrative role.

I honestly do not think it would matter much. Most folks in the South and Midwest are already accustomed to hot, humid temperatures. As such, it would be a matter of "hmm the AC is running more than normal" and then back to their normal day-to-day. Places where AC and other hot-weather mitigation tools are not common are the places where a suddenly-warmer environment would be immediately noticed.

Besides, getting folks to recognize the impacts of climate change is one thing, convincing them that the threat is such that any impactful fix would require fundamental and drastic changes to their comfortable lifestyle is a whole different conversation.

I did not mean it was not reasonable, but it was still childish. The more important point is that many anecdotes exist (with the low trust that we should have all in anecdotes) pointing to him never growing out of that.

At the same time, it does speak to an almost childish obsession with recognition and being seen by the outside as the "most genius". I think the extreme vanity demonstrated by Mr. Jobs was both a huge factor in his success but also the thing, in some ways, held him back. "Held him back" is of course relative. He had more success than almost anyone in the modern technological era, but could he have had even more? Who knows.

But I also don't understand why Reddit commenters, or anyone, would care so much as to be "up in arms" over this or any anecdote about corporate gamesmanship.

People can travel now, they can shop in person, they can eat out and drink at bars, they can attend shows.. there are a lot more things competing for their dollar. Combined with the ending of government largesse, this isn't really all that surprising.

I made this argument in response to people who called him out for calling Twitter employees back to the office. It is interesting, the response to the "well he owns it" argument seems to be correlated almost entirely with whether you agree with the substance of the action, independent of the righteousness.

There has been some more recent arguments that Nero wasn't all that terrible, but more so disinterested in the job. Coupled with two facts that the article mentions (upper class Romans despised him for acting below his station; Christians despised him for putting them to death), it is no wonder all the records of his reign are incredibly negative. The people who hated him wrote the history. This is not to say he was a morally "good" person, but he also doesn't appear to been the tyrant he is made out to be.

Both "Nero: Emperor and Court"[0] as well as "Rome is Burning"[1] are great reads on the topic

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Nero-Emperor-John-F-Drinkwater/dp/110...

[1] https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172316/ro...

Can you back that up with any study at all? Or are we counting smug anecdotes as facts these days?

Why does it need to be either/or? Some youths might be inspired by watching non-astronauts in space, some may be inspired by this climate activism. Others may be inspired by watching re-runs of Futurama. The important thing is the inspiration, not what triggers it.

I think NI is the outlier here. I am almost certain that if there was a multi-decade conflict where police officers were _directly targeted_ for assassination, there would be limits on access to this data in the US as well.

> German cars don’t have cup holders because you’re suppose to be focused on driving.

Every BMW, Audi, and Mercedes that I've driven has had cup holders. This seems like one of those tropes like "Russian cosmonauts just used pencils!" that is easily debunked with even the most rudimentary of searches, but somehow lives on in the zeitgeist.

Society has moved on. Independent of whether it is prudent that society has moved on, we need to recognize that it has. Does this mean that every individual needs to move on? Of course not. Individuals can, if they so choose, take any and all precautionary measures. I do not believe Mr. Lowe is advocating for societal intervention, however there will be a segment of the population who takes this (and Mr. Topol's linked article) and argues for a return to mandates, closures, remote learning, etc.

What I hope doesn't occur is a return to scare tactics and presenting the worst-case-scenario as the likely scenario. The amount of trust that the public health discipline burned through during the pandemic is massive. I am not arguing whether it is _right_ that this trust has vanished, just pointing out that it has.

Because this article is about ScreenTime on Apple devices. That is the same reason they don't talk about why back-up cameras in cars are so low resolution, or how you'd need to eat an insane amount of tuna to have mercury poisoning. It just isn't what the article is about.

You knew that, though. Apple is the market leader in mobile devices in the USA. Heavy lies the crown.

I wonder _why_ they would do something like this? It seems so very self-defeating to give ammunition to those who want to toss out all climate science. Yes, it is entirely unfair that people will use this as evidence that the entire science behind climate change is doctored. But we _know_ people will use any stumble to push that narrative, so why not be incredibly cautious, and ensure that your science is above reproach?

I seem to recall, but can't find the source, that the science behind talc causing ovarian cancer is, at best, suspect. That considering the darn near universal usage of talc in mid-century USA, finding people who both used talc and developed ovarian cancer is not at all indicative of talc being a causal agent in the development of cancer. Does anyone who is more knowledgeable clarify?

And I do ask this as someone who really misses talc on those hot summer days.