reddit_refugee3

Many (not all) of those things were results of the criminalization of drugs, as well as our refusal to take care of people with mental health issues.

Most overdoses could be avoided by knowing exactly what you're taking, at what dose, and maybe even under supervision (like at safe injection sites; places that have gone years without a single person dying on premises).

The homeless people thing is a failure of our healthcare and housing systems.

Fentanyl only exists on the black market because drugs are illegal. Fentanyl is kind of a shit high compared to other opioids, it's only a problem because dealers are cutting their illegal drugs with it.

Well I'm not sure that's the point I would have taken away from your comment, but oh well...

What it comes down to (which is what it always comes down to in capitalism), is capital. Accruing (and facilitating the accrual of) and protecting capital is the main function of the state, so it's only natural that regulations to protect regular people at the cost of a fraction of profits of the bourgeoisie, would take decades to be put in place. If ever.

Same thing goes for social media and AI. We sit back and watch as it corrodes and destroys our societies, so a handful of multi-billion dollar corporations can report profits to their shareholders every quarter.

This isn't anything new, there are people way smarter than you and I that figured this out a long time ago... Just don't say his name or else nobody will take you seriously.

I wouldn't say it went terribly in terms of rights, necessarily. The French Revolution was a massive influence on every other post-enlightenment democracy that came after it. Without the French Revolution (and yes, that includes its failures), we very well could all still be living in different versions of feudalism.

The French Revolution paved the way for just about every pro-worker reform in the modern world.

I think the artist (unless they're like Radiohead or Taylor Swift or something) is always going to be at a massive disadvantage in any negotiation with a label (massive corporation).

This is just the nature of capitalism. The more capital you have, the more leverage you have.

The people who actually create the product are always at a disadvantage compared to those who own the means of that production.

You can try pooling resources together to negotiate collectively (unions), but without government intervention to put a thumb on the scale to try to even the playing field for unions vs corporations, even that would usually end poorly for the people who produce the actual product (see: union busting, the Pinkertons, etc.). Historically, they may actually even straight up just kill you for trying.

Capital also equals political power (even moreso since Citizens United), and corporations use that power to do everything they can to prevent that balance from tipping any direction but theirs.

>Space and the deep sea are the extreme limits, I think ‘regulation’ is really difficult because it is risky no matter who does it.

But this is why regulations exist in the first place. That's like saying we shouldn't regulate surgery, because it's always risky.

We should require certain credentials and safety measures for people who want to take civilians to the ocean floor in a tiny sub. I don't think that should be a controversial take.

The onus to make sure that a service they are going to use isn't any more dangerous than it has to be, shouldn't be on the consumer. I don't want to live in a society that thinks it's acceptable to hand-wave death and suffering away as if human lives are acceptable collateral in the "free market" correcting itself.

Customers would still understand that the thing they're going to do is super dangerous, but they should be able to rest easy knowing that the company they're using for this meets some minimal level of safety.

Perhaps "back in the day" means something different to you than it does to the person you're replying to.

>If this was common advice in lab science 50+ years ago then why is it even an issue today?

[...]

>this paper ought to be a hypothetical as such exposure should not happen.

Of course it shouldn't happen. We all wish bad things didn't happen...

I am having trouble wrapping my head around this comment. I don't think people are purposefully exposing themselves to the chemical... Like yeah, of course everyone hopes that they won't need to know what happens when someone is exposed to benzene, but that doesn't mean we don't study it anyway. I don't think "hypothetical" is the word here since the possibility of benzene exposure is very real.

The implication here seems to be that, as soon as you discover the negative effects of exposure to a certain chemical, that chemical is instantly no longer a threat to anybody. Just because we may have known about this ~50 years ago, doesn't mean that we can just stop worrying about it.

It also isn't reasonable to expect "normal people" to be experts on every single thing so that they even realize they are taking an extreme risk in the first place.

You are making quite a few generalizations that I don't think are necessarily accurate these days. Indie games don't always "rely solely on gameplay". That's just not true.

In fact, I would say one of (if not the) greatest narrative games I have ever played, Disco Elysium, would absolutely be considered "indie" by just about every metric.

Yeah, I think it is important to distinguish worthless shovelware with quality indie titles. Both still exist.

"True" indie games are far from dead, there are just different degrees of quality and success. Yeah, there is a lot of shovelware, but there are also tons of amazing indie games coming out on a regular basis.

Super interesting video, thanks.

The drills they were doing in the beginning were fascinating. It seems like each person had a responsibility that only lasted a few seconds before running back to safety and letting the next person run up, so as to only potentially expose themselves to radiation for very brief amounts of time.

After seeing them struggle during the real thing, it seems like maybe they should have had more obstacles with those drills. Regardless, they did a pretty good job all thing considered.

Edit: I just got to the end of the video... Yeesh.

If you decide to start a business somewhere with a VAT, then you have to factor that into your pricing model, or else you're going to have a bad time. If you can't make a profit anymore, then your profit margins were never big enough in the first place, and you shouldn't be running a business.

We live that way because we have no choice, and the majority of people here are still comfortable enough to not even realize that we're constantly getting screwed over in nearly every way.

Even if Kissinger had done nothing of note since the 80s, he would still be an irredeemable psychopath.

I'm curious, what would be some examples where conservatives warned that some "lack of principles" would lead to a "breakdown of society," and were actually correct? Certainly not same sex marriage, abortion, or any thing that conservatives have fought against during my lifetime.

It sounds, to me, a lot like the "degenerate" label that the Nazis loved to throw around.

It can also be used to treat benzodiazapine withdrawal.

What would a few examples of "stoner societies" be? The only possible one I could think of (and it's a stretch) would be Jamaica, but I'm pretty sure the issues they've had are more related to the whole slavery thing.

What platforms? No, seriously, what platforms, I'm looking for a reddit alternative.