The left lane is for passing. If you’re not passing somebody, move over to the right lane. It’s not that hard people
Left lane… on the highway maybe. In the city it is definitely usable for navigation purposes, getting to the intended destination.
In the city it is definitely usable for navigation purposes, getting to the intended destination.
So is the right lane. If you’re driving the same speed as the car in front of you, you have no reason to use the left lane. Unless you’re making a left turn. Right?
I dont agree, I use the left lane frequently to not have a car in front of me. Increases visibility and security a lot, and just gives a nice feeling of not being blocked.
I do drive a bit faster than cars in the right lane almost always though.
It is better to have angry drivers behind you?
No I drive fast enough to never have cars behind me. :) So Im actually not part of the problem the thread was discussing, with drivers just driving the same speed in the left lane. That is really frustrating when people do that.
I would go as far as saying that this behavior of driving faster in the left lane helps to make traffic flow a lot better and avoid congestion. But it’s not legal.
God isn’t real. No deities exist. Stop being delusional.
American cars having their brake lights and turn signals be the same light is stupid and dangerous.
“Homeopathic” does not mean organic, or good for you, natural, wholesome, effective, or inherently safe to consume.
It is, in fact, a code word for no active ingredient.
A little while ago, people were complaining incognito mode didn’t do what they thought it did.
All rich people became rich because people like you and me are paying more for services and things than they’re truly worth, which means we pretty much never get our money’s worth even when we feel like we do.
There are no good rich people.
Poor people are just rich people without money
Tall people are short people that are tall
There are no good tall people
It was all fun games until the comment above.
And dead people are just alive people who stopped living.
There are no good alive people
No true alive person would be caught dead.
Or, the creation of economic value is actually possible and we aren’t just fighting over the same scraps of wealth that have always existed.
You cannot achieve any good by hurting people.
People are so convinced that if we’re more cruel to criminals, they’ll stop committing crimes, or if we’re harsher to workers, we’ll work harder, or if you’re tough on border controls, immigrants will go away. It does not work and it cannot work.
Idk, if someone’s trying to do a mass shooting, a little intervention could do some good.
Less good than helping the shooter before they went over the Rubicon…I think that’s the point.
Alright but there are people who currently exist who are already over the Rubicon. Ideal future utopias aside, force must be met with force.
That the “give heroine to pregnant women and cigs to kids” era of the 18-1900s is the same as the “artificial food additives and lab grown meat” of today
What is in lab grown meat that you reckon is harmful?
Most notably the fact that it grows so quickly by utilizing cancer cells, also that this is the exact same scenario as the cigarette epidemic, no one knows what exactly are the side effects since this has never been done before. Also it’s ironic how most people stay away from preservatives and artificial chemicals because “theyre bad” but will happily down man’s attempt at playing god
What’s the actual difference between a cancer cell and a normal cell, aside from the fact that cancer cells don’t kill themselves? Is cancer from a cow transmissible to humans?
People knew the effects of tobacco for centuries, actually. But also, it became widely known as soon as it started being widely investigated. I have the same argument about vapes all the time. Within like 2 years cigarettes went from being something prescribed by doctors to something that everyone knows gives you cancer. When something is as heavily scrutinized as vapes or lab-grown meat, you can be damned sure the effects will be widely understood within a couple of decades
What’s the actual difference between a cancer cell and a normal cell, aside from the fact that cancer cells don’t kill themselves
You answered your own question
Is cancer from a cow transmissible to humans?
Who knows? What’s the whole point. Were playing god without knowing the consequences.
People knew the effects of tobacco for centuries, actually
Wrong. Doctors lied about it for years when it first came out and long after
Within like 2 years cigarettes went from being something prescribed by doctors to something that everyone knows gives you cancer.
Again, wrong. Early warning signs didn’t show up until the late 50s by then it had been 20-30 years to late. And Dr. Luther Terry didn’t come in for another 14 after that in '64. Even despite this evidence, the tobacco industry went to massive lengths to discredit the research and downplay the health risks by funding biased research, launched propaganda campaigns, and used public relations strategies to create doubt. It wasn’t until '98 that the Master Settlement Agreement came into effect. A whole 68 years before they paid for their crimes.
When something is as heavily scrutinized as vapes or lab-grown meat, you can be damned sure the effects will be widely understood within a couple of decades
Decades? You mean the 7+ decades it took for tobacco? After which everyone had died already? Idk about you but I’m not waiting 10-20-30+ years to find out if I get a new disease named after me.
The fact is people who advocate for this shit don’t understand science and just believe what their told to, just like what everyone believed when big tobacco ran those propaganda campaigns for 70 years, or what some still believe about global warming from big oil’s propaganda campaigns.
Just because we don’t know something today doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, humans arent as smart as we give ourselfs credit. And just be we did it in the past, doesn’t mean we’ve learned from those mistakes because clearly you all are still buying the shit they feed you and begging for more.
Wrong. Doctors lied about it for years when it first came out and long after
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Counterblaste_to_Tobacco
Some doctors may have been wrong, but that doesn’t mean nobody knew cigarettes were dangerous. I’ll save my time and assume that if you’re this unabashedly wrong about this, you’re probably as unabashedly wrong about everything else too
Wow, Ignoring quite literally the entire commet and using a “nuh huh” argument. Classic bootleg reddit user tactic
I’m ignoring it because you don’t really have anything to say besides “we don’t know what the health effects of lab grown meat will be” when it’s quite literally exactly the same as normal meat. It’s like complaints about GMOs. The process of producing it may be different, but the physical material that you consume is literally identical on a chemical level. It’s nothing like cigarettes.
Related to the current election, that OG conservatives, or Reagan and Bush conservatives (referring to George H. W. Bush) are the same thing as MAGA conservatives.
The difference is, the old guard blithely preserved the kind of policies that shredded social safety nets and business regulations in favor of tax cuts, leading to precarity and the rise of paranoia that led to the Trump takeover in 2015.
The OGs just wish they had another mile or two of altitude to plummet, and are freaked out about the ground looming so close and rushing so fast. But they will still keep the same policies, and will still lay a ground of Ayn Randian, Reagan-worshiping Mitt Romney / Jeb Bush / Ted Cruz candidates until some other charismatic narcissist Mussolini-wanabe rushes in and plucks the whole party from their hands again. And they’ll get all butt-smoochy with the new guy like Lindsey Graham did with Trump (after predicting how this loose cannon will end the Republican party).
They didn’t just buy the ticket to ride. They bought stocks in the railroad line, and insisted that fascism-backed one-party autocracy was the destination. They knew it since Reagan. By George W. Bush it was showing serious signs even before the PATRIOT act.
So when people freak out today because we’re on the brink of losing our democracy, I have to wonder where they’ve been the last two decades. How is it after George W. Bush, and torture and Iraq and the pig lagoons and Abstinence-Only sex ed, did you think another Republican president was a good thing? I know Clinton was scary, but did you take even one look at Trump?
deleted by creator
If the point of getting a job is so that you can eventually retire one day, and you know what you want to do when you retire, you should start doing what you want to do now while you can enjoy it.
Similarly, If you feel like the place you were born in makes you unhappy, move to a different place. There are so many places.
The problem is that the one thing I want to do that I’m not already doing is “not work”
I don’t have any grand plans to take up new hobbies or anything in my retirement (though I’m sure I’ll continue collecting hobbies just as I always have) I just want to be able to do them on my own schedule
That was my focus too, finding a way to have more time to myself on my own terms.
I usually suggest teaching English abroad if you’re a native speaker.
You could chant primary colors at kindergarteners online line for a maximum of 20 hours per week, or in person for a maximum of 10 hours per week and clear $400 easy.
You could also teach 20 hours a week for 6 months and then live off the savings for years.
That’s minimum wage 400 bucks a week, we’ll say you spent $400 for monthly expenses wherever you are, tje other 3 weeks are all your necessary expenses for 3 months without working, or one month partying.
Want to boost your pay? Take an internationally accredited tefl course online for a couple days, pdf tests, that costs 40 bucks and you’ll instantly be paid more than the minimum wage($20 an hour’s the usual minimum) they pay teachers at any job you apply for.
If having your own time is really the most important thing to you, as it is to me, the process is very simple, especially for native English speakers.
You don’t need to do it the rest of your life either.
Work part-time for a few months and then take a year off to figure out If you’re doing what you want to be doing. At least you won’t be wasting time and money figuring it out.
Do you want to keep vacationing? Then you have already done it and have experience with that.
The next year you vacation it’ll be even cheaper and easier than it was the first time.
Do you want to pursue a hobby professionally? You have time to set that up. Or you can pursue the hobby for fun, indefinitely.
You could chant primary colors at kindergarteners online line for a maximum of 20 hours per week, or in person for a maximum of 10 hours per week
That may work for you, and if it does I’m happy for you, but for me, as much as I want more time for myself and my hobbies, one thing I want even more is to not ever spend any amount of time doing anything even remotely like that.
I also have no real interest in working abroad even if I didn’t think that job sounded horrible. A week or two of vacation, sure, but by the end of week 2, I’m ready to go home, and that’s really the point here, I want to be able to just stay home, and only leave when it’s to do something I want to do.
So youre sure you don’t like the situation you’re in, but equally sure you don’t want to leave that situation.
You have a lot of company.
Teaching is not the only option, and no, that’s not what I do.
It doesn’t sound like you’re really looking for solutions yet.
He doesn’t want to leave that situation for a nightmare shitshow of a downgraded situation.
He should try something easier that fixes his problems instead.
It’s surprisingly pretty rare when someone wants that either.
Because your suggestions are all completely deluded.
They’re not better. For pretty much anyone.
That you need to wash your hands after going to the bathroom. I’ve seen too many grown men walk straight out of the restroom after urinating.
Well, urine is sterile, and if only touch the door in and out of the bathroom, washing doesn’t always seem necessary. If you get pee on your hands, then by all means. But if the only option is air blades for hand drying, you’re better off not washing. Those literally lace your hands in fecal matter when used in a public restroom.
I bet you also refused to use masks because you couldn’t breathe.
I told folks to start buying masks in March 2020 and found a new gig as the one I had didn’t enforce any mask requirements. But I’m also a backpacker who knows bacteria and the immune system pretty well. I don’t read much research on urine, so again, please forgive that oversight. But funny how people aren’t easily categorized, ah?
So you only trust science sometimes? There are contradictions on whether air dryers are more or less hygienic than paper towels. But there’s no contradictions on whether you should wash your hands.
This study from the American Society of Microbiology specifically demonstrates how air driers at least add 3 bacterial colonies, and up to 254 colonies, when using an air drier in a public restroom: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/aem.00044-18. In addition, a Harvard review of the research also identifies that the chances of picking up a serious pathogen in the bathroom are quite small.
So, having little chance in general yet using the air drier, which has shown to add bacteria to your hands in every single test, doesn’t make sense after understanding this data. I’m a man of science, and this involves assessing all available data regarding the topic at hand. This being the case, the data provided above highlights how just not touching your face and washing your hands at the next opportunity after leaving a bathroom with only hand driers is the most logical move. But to each their own, I know microbiologist and virologist who are much smarter than I that refuse to use air driers, so I took note and make moves accordingly.
Urine isn’t sterile. While it’s true that paper towels are better than dryers, drying your hands (even with a dryer) is better than not drying. Washing your hands is, obviously, better than not washing your hands.
If you don’t wash your hands you’re already in the worst case. It makes no sense to complain about the methods of drying available.
Other peoples fecal matter will contain many forigen bacteria, and these microbes are proven to coat the hands of people after using air driers. My apologies about the sterile urine comment. Nonetheless, you’d be in a better situation with bacteria on your hands from your own pee vs from a strangers feces. One’s apart of your microbiota, while the other is entirely foreign. IDK, I’ve seen many cases where washing your hands after a piss made no sense due to cleanliness issues or a lack of a sink and never heard anyone around ever having any issues. Yet many pathogens are spread via the fecal oral route. So I’ll take my chances of maybe having some of my urine vs having someone else shit on my hands everytime in that situation.
I’m not sure I follow your logic here. You believe you’ll come into contact with other people’s piss and shit less often when people don’t wash their hands?
Air hand driers cover your hands in other peoples fecal matter. That’s a massive biological risk, especially with how many pathogens are transmitted from poop to mouth. Using a urinal will most often result in no backsplash, keeping my hands pretty clean. To wash off that minor, if any, urine which got on my hands and end with others poop on my hands from the air drier has put me in a much worse position. That’s all I’m saying, is there’s 100% situations where washing you hands makes no sense after a piss. But it’s good practice for sure, unless an air drier is involved.
Genders aren’t real. Stop bothering me with how you think people should act regarding their ugly bits. I don’t need to know about your sex life and how proud you are for the way you get your happy sensors wiggled.
I’ve heard of “Only 2 genders”, “More than 2 genders”, and “Only one gender, It’s Nerf or Nothin’!”
“Genders aren’t real”? That’s a new one. Lmfao.
Genders are absolutely real though, and it doesn’t automatically mean it’s about sex, there’s so much more to it that’s absolutely non-sexual, lol.
“Real” in that they are just a social construct, like race.
This information was incorrect, and I rest my case. Here is the comment with sources: https://lemmy.one/comment/10802073
Race is skin color and the region of where someone was born or inherited traits passed down through children.All of which is entirely arbitrary. Why didn’t you include hair color, or eye color, or height?
I simply just didn’t think of it. I also said “Gotcha.” to the other dude, acknowledging their side is (from what I can see and understand) is right. I rest my case. I’ll edit my messages too.
I simply just didn’t think of it
Nobody would consider hair color, eye color, or height among people with the same skin color as part of their “race” – that’s the point I was making.
Fair enough. They still have some correlation though, important to note that.
Gravity is a social construct
Mmm nope. It’s a fundamental force.
I shouldn’t have left my previous statement without any elaboration — that was a pretty inflammatory comment to make and I apologise.
When I say “gravity is a social construct”, part of what I’m getting at is that the natural world is distinct from scientific knowledge we create when attempting to model the natural world, and that our scientific knowledge is, by necessity, socially mediated.
I like gravity as an example of this because of how fundamental it is: even animals have some level of intuitive understanding of gravity — they don’t need to understand what parabolic motion is to be able to demonstrate it when they jump over things.
But also, our understanding of gravity has vastly changed over the years. In the 1800s, astronomers had measured Mercury’s orbit so precisely that they found it to be inconsistent with what Newton’s Law of Universal Gravity would predict, so they figured there had to be another planet closer to the Sun. Turns out there wasn’t though, and it was only after Einstein’s theory of relativity that Mercury’s weird orbit could be explained.
They had good reason to guess that another planet was responsible for Mercury’s orbit though, because the same guy who made that guess (a French astronomer, Urbain le Verrier) had actually predicted the existence of Neptune just a few years earlier; he had used Newtonian gravity to analyse the orbit of Uranus and found that it was slightly off from what observers had been measuring, and deduced that there must be another planet that nobody had seen yet that was causing these perturbations.
These two examples show two different ways that we can respond to experimental observations not matching with our theoretical understanding: sometimes it’s productive to assume our current theory is correct and that our observations are wrong or insufficient in some way, and sometimes we fix the disparity between what we see and what we know by amending our theories, like we did when we learned the limits of Newtonian gravity. Choosing which hypothesis to investigate is how science (and scientific knowledge) is socially constructed.
Disclaimer: I’m a biochemist, not an astrophysicist, so talking about gravity isn’t my primary domain. Many of these ideas are articulated far better in this video essay by Dr Fatima (and I suspect some of my phrasing is subconsciously borrowed from this video — this is bad citation practice on my part)
Neat, but none of that makes gravity a social construct. Race and gender are.
What is your understanding of a social construct? I wanna make sure we’re on the same page about definitions
Ooooh that’s a controversial one, good job! 👍
It shouldn’t be. If gender roles are bad, and it’s not about genitals, what the fuck else is left for the words? There’s no physical or metaphysical meaning to apply.
I know it shouldn’t be, I’m just mentioning that it’s controversial because there’s some pretty obvious stuff that people mentioned as a reply to the original question.
Russia will not stop warring if Ukraine surrenders. Russia’s war will stretch to every corner of the earth.
The fact that we’re giving you crane the bare minimum means we are perfectly happy with them being chewed up to burn Russia’s resources before they can reach anybody that we’re contractually obligated to defend is kind of fucked up
Even worse, the USA is on the verge of electing a Pro-Russia president who wants to end NATO.
The pursuit of “equity” is a tribalistic and often racist effort that rebuilds and reinforces the systemic racism we’ve been trying to dismantle for decades.
What? Please elaborate
The “equity” from "Private Equity (has consumed America by Sam “Wendover Productions”)? or which one? If you mean equality (also known as equity): do you mean how insisting on equality of e.g. external conditions (taxes, school curricula, etc.) is ableist or something?
Equality and equity are different, as it has been defined by various movements in the US. This definition has been adopted in mainstream usage for a while now. I’m surprised by your question, I feel this would be common knowledge to most people in western societies by this point. But I’m happy to answer if you are asking in good faith.
Equality is sort of the color-blind approach to treating people equally, with little to no regard for their race. It looks at their individual circumstances, not making broad assumptions based on their racial background. For the record, color blind doesn’t mean we dont seek to identify and correct racial issues, it just means we typically do so without creating race specific policies and instead apply the policies to everyone. My deep appreciation of equality as a fundamental principal is why I oppose equity and the strategic equivocation with which it is used.
Equity is contrasted to that by putting race front and center, and often above all else when making decisions on resource allocation. It’s how we get policies that broadly focus on racial groups. It’s not always advertised but equity is opposed to equality, so that specific races can be selected to receive benefits, or excluded from receiving benefits.
Speaking to the movement more broadly, In order to justify equity, anything that can be measured through the lens of race will be(deconstruction) and any difference in outcome will be flagged as racism, but only if white people are on the advantagous side.
Why is this bad? Don’t POCs need help?
They often do, but our racial based policies to correct them are often counterproductive, discriminatory, or even harmful. Our need based programs already disproportionately benefit them, and will continue to do so more if we bolster them. Here’s some quick examples of equitable efforts, just to give you an idea of how it manifests. These are extremely condensed, but I could pull links later if you want them.
- Misguided attempt to remove sat scores from college admissions because of claims it’s inequitable.
- Despite overwhelming evidence that helmets save lives, helmet laws were cut because some demographics didn’t wear them as often.
- College students giving free covid masks to minorities but saying white people must pay.
- There was an attempt to create a math framework that attempts to deconstruct mathematics into a racist construct.
- When a professor did a comprehensive study of police violence and found no disparity in some aspects of policing, he was advised not to publish the results.
