mcpackieh

> regular ASL gestures for the work in question. If you're not native English-speaking you'd look up the gestures in your specific region/language's sign language:

It probably doesn't matter either way for babies, but fyi ASL isn't a sign version of English; it is its own language. In fact American Sign Language is more closely related to French Sign Language than to British Sign Language. The Australian and New Zealand Sign Languages are largely derived from British Sign Language, so there isn't really a correlation between English speaking regions and ASL. Canadians mostly use American Sign Language and French Canadian Sign Language.

Why struggle with where other people draw the line? Draw the line yourself and don't concern yourself with the line other people draw for themselves.

> If I wander a few videos too far away I start seeing videos about reptilians controlling the world on channels with 8M subscribers and they show "footage of people shapeshifting caught on camera", completely fabricated alternative history, flat earthers uncovering the grand conspiracy of the globalist etc.

If you click on that kind of shit, of course youtube is going to show you more. I don't know how people think youtube works but it seems like it should be obvious. If you click on nonsense "ironically" just to laugh at it, youtube doesn't know that and is going to show you more. Even if you dislike and "don't recommend" the video/channel, youtube doesn't know why you disliked it. Maybe you disliked it because the video said the aliens are from Venus but you know they're actually from Alpha Centauri. Youtube doesn't know why you disliked it, all they know is that you clicked on it in the first place, so they'll try to find more to show you.

All I click on is videos about ships, airplanes and trains. That's all youtube recommends to me. No wacky shit in my recommendations because I never click on anything even remotely wacky, not even just to laugh at it. Youtube is a mirror that reflects your viewing habits back at you. If it recommends trash it's because you watch trash. Btw I don't even use an account, just a cookie.

Well yes, that's precisely my point. A grocery store being a mile away doesn't make a neighborhood unwalkable. This is contrary to what Sohcahtoa82 said, citing a grocery store a mile away making that neighborhood unwalkable.

> "It's not even close to anything. Even the metro line is about a mile walk. The nearest grocery store is over a mile away."

If you want to take advantage of a walkable neighborhood, then you shouldn't be complaining about a mile. A mile is nothing. Before WFH I was walking two miles to work and two miles back every day, and that doesn't count all the other places I walked to every day (another one or two miles for lunch, and another one or two miles in the evening.) And I still managed to gain weight with that routine.. Somebody complaining about one mile sounds like a joke. If you actually want a walkable neighborhood, you should be prepared to walk.

Check the username.

All of the reasons cities sucked are relevant to the decisions people made to leave cities as soon as cars made it practical for them to live outside of cities.

They left as soon as it became practical to leave (introduction of cars and suburbs) because of crime. The crime rate back then was inconceivable to anybody living in America today.

I am certain the list of concerns in the article is not the entire grab bag of conservative concerns as you claimed. It's not even most of the bag, most of the things in that list don't even have a conservative tint. If I'm wrong, then point me to the worries about abortion or gun control in the article. If you can't do that, then what's your basis for saying this is the entire grab bag?

I don't think you can give me a substantive response to this, but give it a shot. You could at least try.

It's a list of things young people are dissatisfied with. They're dissatisfied with work and don't believe they can get ahead by working harder. They're dissatisfy with app dating and don't believe they can find lasting happiness with it. These are not conservative concerns; they're anybody concerns.

> Having [an] entire grab bag of [concerns] listed like this is undeniably conservative.

Ridiculous. Anybody who has multiple concerns in their life will have a list of concerns. Articulating this isn't a conservative trait, it's just basic self reflection. If you don't have a list of concerns with your own life then you're obviously doing very well. But just because you can't relate to people who's lives aren't as great as yours doesn't mean those people are conservative.

(You see I swapped out "the" with "an". Because that list is not The entire grab bag of characteristically conservative concerns. There's no mention of immigration, guns, abortion, voter IDs, crime rates, fear of carbon taxes and corporate regulations, drag-queen story hours, critical theory and progressive school teaches or really anything like any of that. It's clearly not "The" list of conservative concerns. You're characterizing it that way because that's what you want to see for some reason. Maybe you tripped over the mention of religion, but if you put stereotypes aside and look at public opinion polling, you will find that religion in America is largely bipartisan. Even the denominations that lean strongly one way still have millions of adherents who lean the other, e.g. 28% of evangelical protestants who lean Democrat. 55% of American Democrats report that their belief in God is absolutely certain and an additional 21% say their belief is fairly certain.)

A mile on foot isn't far either. The people living in those much vaunted walkable European cities think little of walking a few kilometers in a day; it's the American tourists who balk at that.

If you want a walkable city lifestyle but you also think walking a mile is unreasonable, your need a reality check. I'm going to walk to the park today to see the ducks, it's 1.5 miles away one way. I'm going to get groceries on the way back. I do this often, it's literally no big deal.

Quiet-quitting is a conservative value? I thought the conservative value was that hard work and having dedication to your employer is the way to get ahead in life. That's what conservatives have always told me.

And you certainly don't have to be a conservative to become dissatisfied with internet dating. It genuinely sucks for a lot of people who just want to find somebody who understands them. Getting your dick sucked is great but wanting something more than that doesn't intrinsically make you a conservative.

I think you're just seeing what you want to see. These are the kind of things anybody with liberal or progressive political opinions can find themselves feeling.

We already have an outright ban for children under 13 and that hasn't been shot down on First Amendment grounds. I don't see why that number couldn't be bumped to 18.

(Technically it's not a complete ban because it has an exception for parental permission, but it's a de facto ban because companies don't want to deal with it.)

You can walk with rhythm and still not spill if you hold your arm loose to decouple it from your body's motions. Let the cup have it's own inertia and have your arm follow your cup.

Yeah, I searched "lawn mower deaths" on DDG and that was the first result. I had to do a double take, uncanny relevance.

From what I understand most of those "house brand" products are made by the same factories of the on-brand stuff, probably but not necessarily with the same recipe and QC standards.

Product branding has almost no relationship to which company actually made the product, consumers are intentionally blinded to this information. I would appreciate regulation requiring products to be branded with the factory that made it; I think this would be a huge win for both consumers and workers but it would be firmly counter to the interests of major brands with a lot of political influence. Also many consumers would probably oppose this against their own rational interests because they have personal attachments to brands.

There's a lot more healthy competition between grocery store brands than in e-commerce. If Amazon weren't so dominant then they wouldn't be the target of this kind of regulation.

Lawnmowers also kill people outright, about 90 people a year which is way more than bears: https://www.newsweek.com/lawnmowers-kill-more-people-bears-s...

I actually went to school with a kid who was run over by a lawn mower. He survived but it chewed up the side of his leg and left him with a limp. I think he was lucky he could still walk at all.

Some snakes can certainly kill you, but it's rare. Partially because rattlesnakes are courteous enough to warn people who get too close (rattling) and partially because North American hospitals all know what the native venomous snakes are and have antivenom for them. Most people who get bitten by venomous snakes were deliberately messing around with them but there's a small chance that you might accidentally step on one that wasn't rattling. Copperhead bites are more common than rattlesnake bites, probably because they don't rattle as much, but they're less likely to kill.

There are only one or two kids killed by snakes per decade in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_snake_bites_in_t...

Spider deaths are even more rare. Brown recluses are pretty spooky though.

Even if the police make an earnest attempt to do their jobs well (which is a pipe dream) coming to the scene of a lawn worker using a gas blower will be very low on their priority queue and is unlikely to happen most of the time.

If the homeowners don't like being fined and don't want to do the lawn work themselves, they can specifically hire lawn companies that use electric tools. You still haven't given me any reason why my proposal isn't a good one. The homeowners are the ones paying for these gas tools to be used, so they should be the ones fined for it.

There are international standards for representing dates, but none exist for names. Names do not abide by any scheme or set of rules, therefore the only appropriate data structure for storing names is a unicode string. Anything else will exclude people.

Siccing police on landscapers using leaf blowers is like trying to get rid of a hornet nest with a napalm bomb. Fining the property owner is far more appropriate.

> You would let a small child just run around in the forest?

Yes of course! My entire childhood was spent running around in the woods. Bears and mountain lions are rare and most of them are more scared of you than the other way around. No more than a small handful of people are attacked by those across the entirety of North America, the last time a child was killed by a mountain lion was about 25 years ago. There were only two or three fatal mountain lion attacks against kids in the 90s, two in the 80s, and three in the 70s.. there are less than 20 of these kind of incidents in the entire 20th century across all of North America. Why the hell would you bring up such an unlikely risk? And fatal bear attacks are only marginally more common, they're still incredibly rare.

Your kids are many thousands of times more likely die from choking on food than by getting attacked by an animal in the woods, do you ban grapes in your house? How did you become so cowardly? Forbidding kids from playing in the woods is absolutely pathetic, reading your comment left me with a feeling of visceral disgust.

Ridiculous, kids love trees. But also, rats and therefore snakes love leaves, as does fire. If you live in the woods the kids will love it, but you still have to keep leaves away from the perimeter of the house.

I think he means that everybody should be made to live in apartments or condos, without any sort of garden, patios, etc. Dense urban living for everybody.

When a landscaping company uses a gas leaf blower, enforcement of the ban should be targeted at the property owner instead of the landscaping company. Most cops aren't particularly excited about bullying a hardworking landscaping worker so if you call them they won't even show up in time to give the landscaping company a ticket. On the other hand, if you could simply submit a video of the offense to local officials they could easily tie the offense to the property itself, and fine the property owner. No cops necessary.

Then property owners could weigh the cost of eating these fines against simply raking their yard themselves.

I also know Americans who go by their middle names because everybody in the family has the same first name, with the first name turned into an initial before their middle name. Usually software can handle this by entering "J Bob" in the first name field, but not always. Sometimes software asks for first name and middle name separately, and then you know you're going to have trouble because another system thinks "J Bob" is your first name and the two won't match.

I think a single field for the entire name would be ideal, with an optional second field for "how should we address you?" so that the software doesn't have to play games with asking gender and breaking out the last name to fill out a form letter with "Dear Mr. Smith, ..."

Yandex Translate gets it wrong in the same way, suggesting that they also go through English instead of Russian, or something else is going on.

I'm not saying a company should never be permitted to accept an acquisition offer. I'm just saying that getting acquired shouldn't be Plan A or their "only exit" as you put it. They should foremost try to make it as their own company, and if that was never going to be feasible for them, then maybe society is better off without that sort of company in the first place.

Maybe companies should try being profitable instead of being acquisition bait.

That decision was downstream of another mistake: selling a feature before the feature actually worked. They wanted to sell their cars as having all the hardware for FSD before FSD was actually implemented, and they wanted to make a tidy profit while doing it so they were strongly incentivized to conclude that the hardware needed for FSD would be cheap (excluding lidar.)