Hint: reasonable liberals are already labeled "alt right" and "fascist" by hard leftists who took over that side of the isle about a decade ago. Shitting on them from the other side is merely going to alienate potential allies.
Estimated reaction time for even a simple automotive scenario is 2.5-3 seconds. That's time from event that needs a reaction becoming visible to the driver to reaction causing action.
In this case, the time from detection to impact seemed to be less than that. Human driver had no chance to apply brakes.
There's a reason why Peterson was "accidentally" banned from google entirely for a short period. The message you're implying to be good is seen as the greatest evil by the far left ideologues (note - not left leaning but far left leaning), because it implies that people have agency and should use it for personal betterment.
In far left ideology, personal betterment can only come from the collective. Individualism is the original sin, and cause of all evil. That is why many of the people who were sent to gulags and in front of NKVD firing squads went voluntarily, even if they knew that they were innocent of crimes they were accused of. They were indoctrinated to view their individualism as evil, and their sacrifice necessary for the collective, which is the source of all good. Therefore to submit to the collective and get enslaved in the gulag or killed by NKVD firing squad is preferable to trying to stand up for yourself as an individual against the corrupt system.
It's a problem of chicken and egg. To get content creators, you need things like daily users, so that they can market their content to many people. To get people, you need content creators.
Youtube is the place where both exist. There are plenty of "alternatives to youtube", and none of them have the two aforementioned things. That's why youtube is a de facto monopoly and should be regulated as such.
I must say, this latest bout of inane hysteria in mainstream media has been funniest to date. "He did the exact same thing that pretty much every European leader did, must be collusion/treason".
Never seen such a direct admission that European leaders are also colluding/treasonous if narrative spun has any semblance of reality. Literally, everyone is guilty. Can it even be termed collusion if everyone does it? The proper name for universally accepted standard is usually "cooperation".
That is a good point. Buy implements that have spying tools that will spy on your for someone who has minimal impact on your life and is likely to block or at least hinder attempts to spy on your by those with most impact on your life.
I can't help but notice that you switched topic entirely to vent about something that happens between two drivers of motorized vehicles that hit each other in a developing country.
In developing countries, legal code and it's interpretations tend to be so bad, that any interactions with police will be detrimental to all parties involved. That's a story of its own. And discussion suddenly went from pedestrian to a biker. An interesting topic certainly, but not one being discussed in any way, shape or form.
He does. That's why driver doesn't get convicted of whatever version of vehicular manslaughter there is in legal code of your state if pedestrian is at fault.
Driver does get increased responsibility because his ability to cause damage to the pedestrian is massively higher than vice versa. With great power comes great responsibility, and commanding a heavy metal cage with immense amount of kinetic energy is very powerful in relation to a human being wearing nothing but clothing for personal protection.
No idea where people you're citing getting their ideas. For example the second link literally limits itself to "private market only" ignoring the fact that primary form of rent control in Finland is ARA building affordable rent-controlled rental housing which gets priority in zoning. Private market then has problems with keeping tenants beyond short term if government sponsored actors consistently provide cheap housing across the area. Focusing on just one aspect makes you ignore reality as a whole, as that study does. ARA is still there. Asumistuki is still there and is in fact biggest ever in history this year, mainly due to compensating for increase in low wage earners who need it to afford rent. Laws regulating apartment rentals are still there. Mandated building of cheap rental housing in big cities in the same place as expensive property housing is still there. It's the main reason why Finland hasn't followed Sweden in the ghettoisation of the muslim immigrants. They don't get isolated because cheap rental apartments for which people in worst social position, i.e. migrant families are in the same area as expensive private properties and rental buildings.
Let's not forget that Helsinki metro area is growing very fast, and free market rental pricing is growing so fast, that KELA uses literally a separate pricing chart to determine the size of asumistuki in the region, and separate pricing for other major cities, and separate for everyone else. So yes, rent is high because of the growth in private sector. But at the same time Helsinki is a case of insiffucient rent controls, and there have been political moves to tighten rent controls through increase of public offerings and legal restrictions on what can be offered for rent.
Your continued insistence that rent control can only be legal restrictions on costs is simply silly. Rent control is a process of limiting both pricing and rights that private land lords have over tenants. Direct legal limitations are the "tool of last resort". Before that there are things like subsidies on more new construction of buildings that receive assistance from government and get preferential zoning treatment that have capped rent for example, or various forms of monetary assistance to the poorest to push them to the level of others in rent-paying ability.
Then you build the fish bypass corridor, which is frankly a good idea to do regardless as it enables fishing-related economic activity upstream, and you remain as profitable as before after the costs are sunk as fish corridor requires almost no maintenance once in place.
Thank for you for sharing the more politically correct interpretation. My medical education, as basic as it is is from 2000s. And I genuinely don't care about political correctness, so psychopathy it will remain.
If you view driver as a predatory animal and pedestrian as a prey animal, you're demonstrating clear signs of psychopathy - inability to comprehend emotional state and motivators of the driver nor the pedestrian.
Pedestrian has the right of way where law of the land dictates so. In other cases, they don't. However a reasonable person driving a vehicle understands that he is commanding a heavy and well protected metal cage on wheels, which will maim an kill even if pedestrian makes a mistake that was fully his to make, and as such will invest heavily into actions that will avoid maiming or killing the pedestrian.
I like how you come off as a psychopath in your statement of "it doesn't require a psychopath", by doing things like conflating an accident and suicide.
The issue is that of differential of consequences. Driver gets bent fender. Pedestrian is maimed or dies.
The differential between consequences is so large, that it would take a psychopath to formulate the idea that pedestrian is the perpetrator and driver is the victim. The most extreme thought that remains reasonable for a person with working sense of empathy is that pedestrian caused his/her own death through his/her own actions, and driver was innocent. Death being present in the formula simply makes it unbendable towards the outcome you're trying to bend it towards when any human empathy is present.
Your entire early tirade can be summed up as "it's not 100% certain, therefore they have to guess".
I have news for you. Even in engineering analysis, where you know every bolt and every weld, and where you have access to detailed plans, troubleshooting is still not 100%. Medical profession is ultimately engineering for a body that you cannot just shut down and disassemble, and must treat while it's functioning. It's fairly obvious that it's never going to be 100%. Nor does this interact with my argument in any way, shape or form.
Pathologist is the specialist who analyses the data set. His data set is the biopsy sitting in front of him. He is NOT the person making the call on treatment plan, which is where "looking into the future" comes in. That would be oncologist, who will consult with pathologist, just like head engineer will consult with low level workers and engineers who were responsible for bolts and welds when troubleshooting the building having problems, or how the military leader will consult with intelligence operative before executing force projection.
These people have very clear areas of responsibility, and place where pathologist does treatment plans, base level engineer does plans for entire building, spy also does shootouts and so on is the realm of Hollywood. Not reality.
You just literally quoted this in relation to your wife. Yes, specialist in the welding will be asked for recommendation in relation to how the weld will handle under various stresses. Yes, specialist in pathology will be asked how specific tumour will handle under the knife. Yes, military leader will inquire with intelligence operative on known factors he should take into account when planning the next force projection. No, this engineer will not make the plans on how to make the entire building. No, the intelligence operative is not going to grab the gun and go execute the force projection part of the operation. No, your wife will not be making treatment plans. That is the realm of Hollywood. Not reality.
In reality, deeply specialized people will handle their own niches with excellence, which is why they are paid very well. And they will stick to their niches, because that's where they are excellent and stay outside large general collations, where they are out of their specialized depth. Sutor, ne ultra crepidam.
Slashdot Mirror
Hint: reasonable liberals are already labeled "alt right" and "fascist" by hard leftists who took over that side of the isle about a decade ago. Shitting on them from the other side is merely going to alienate potential allies.
http://www.croberts.com/respon...
Estimated reaction time for even a simple automotive scenario is 2.5-3 seconds. That's time from event that needs a reaction becoming visible to the driver to reaction causing action.
In this case, the time from detection to impact seemed to be less than that. Human driver had no chance to apply brakes.
You forgot the #1 subject that is haram in progressivism today. Human biology.
There's a reason why Peterson was "accidentally" banned from google entirely for a short period. The message you're implying to be good is seen as the greatest evil by the far left ideologues (note - not left leaning but far left leaning), because it implies that people have agency and should use it for personal betterment.
In far left ideology, personal betterment can only come from the collective. Individualism is the original sin, and cause of all evil. That is why many of the people who were sent to gulags and in front of NKVD firing squads went voluntarily, even if they knew that they were innocent of crimes they were accused of. They were indoctrinated to view their individualism as evil, and their sacrifice necessary for the collective, which is the source of all good. Therefore to submit to the collective and get enslaved in the gulag or killed by NKVD firing squad is preferable to trying to stand up for yourself as an individual against the corrupt system.
FPSRussia is long dead. They demonetised it completely, and it hasn't been updated in years.
It's a problem of chicken and egg. To get content creators, you need things like daily users, so that they can market their content to many people. To get people, you need content creators.
Youtube is the place where both exist. There are plenty of "alternatives to youtube", and none of them have the two aforementioned things. That's why youtube is a de facto monopoly and should be regulated as such.
I must say, this latest bout of inane hysteria in mainstream media has been funniest to date. "He did the exact same thing that pretty much every European leader did, must be collusion/treason".
Never seen such a direct admission that European leaders are also colluding/treasonous if narrative spun has any semblance of reality. Literally, everyone is guilty. Can it even be termed collusion if everyone does it? The proper name for universally accepted standard is usually "cooperation".
That is a good point. Buy implements that have spying tools that will spy on your for someone who has minimal impact on your life and is likely to block or at least hinder attempts to spy on your by those with most impact on your life.
They can't, because doing so would endanger the software included in the next Shadow Brokers leak prior to it being leaked, remember?
I can't help but notice that you switched topic entirely to vent about something that happens between two drivers of motorized vehicles that hit each other in a developing country.
In developing countries, legal code and it's interpretations tend to be so bad, that any interactions with police will be detrimental to all parties involved. That's a story of its own. And discussion suddenly went from pedestrian to a biker. An interesting topic certainly, but not one being discussed in any way, shape or form.
He does. That's why driver doesn't get convicted of whatever version of vehicular manslaughter there is in legal code of your state if pedestrian is at fault.
Driver does get increased responsibility because his ability to cause damage to the pedestrian is massively higher than vice versa. With great power comes great responsibility, and commanding a heavy metal cage with immense amount of kinetic energy is very powerful in relation to a human being wearing nothing but clothing for personal protection.
So in your view, child in this case is "perpetrator"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Hint: no reasonable human being shares this view.
No idea where people you're citing getting their ideas. For example the second link literally limits itself to "private market only" ignoring the fact that primary form of rent control in Finland is ARA building affordable rent-controlled rental housing which gets priority in zoning. Private market then has problems with keeping tenants beyond short term if government sponsored actors consistently provide cheap housing across the area. Focusing on just one aspect makes you ignore reality as a whole, as that study does. ARA is still there. Asumistuki is still there and is in fact biggest ever in history this year, mainly due to compensating for increase in low wage earners who need it to afford rent. Laws regulating apartment rentals are still there. Mandated building of cheap rental housing in big cities in the same place as expensive property housing is still there. It's the main reason why Finland hasn't followed Sweden in the ghettoisation of the muslim immigrants. They don't get isolated because cheap rental apartments for which people in worst social position, i.e. migrant families are in the same area as expensive private properties and rental buildings.
Let's not forget that Helsinki metro area is growing very fast, and free market rental pricing is growing so fast, that KELA uses literally a separate pricing chart to determine the size of asumistuki in the region, and separate pricing for other major cities, and separate for everyone else. So yes, rent is high because of the growth in private sector. But at the same time Helsinki is a case of insiffucient rent controls, and there have been political moves to tighten rent controls through increase of public offerings and legal restrictions on what can be offered for rent.
Your continued insistence that rent control can only be legal restrictions on costs is simply silly. Rent control is a process of limiting both pricing and rights that private land lords have over tenants. Direct legal limitations are the "tool of last resort". Before that there are things like subsidies on more new construction of buildings that receive assistance from government and get preferential zoning treatment that have capped rent for example, or various forms of monetary assistance to the poorest to push them to the level of others in rent-paying ability.
Then you build the fish bypass corridor, which is frankly a good idea to do regardless as it enables fishing-related economic activity upstream, and you remain as profitable as before after the costs are sunk as fish corridor requires almost no maintenance once in place.
Have you tried interacting with the topic of dicussion instead of just spouting random phrases that bear no relationship with the topic of discussion?
Thank for you for sharing the more politically correct interpretation. My medical education, as basic as it is is from 2000s. And I genuinely don't care about political correctness, so psychopathy it will remain.
The fact that you equate "nightmares" with "life sentence" demonstrates severe lack of human empathy.
Have you tried reading the second paragraph in full yet?
If you view driver as a predatory animal and pedestrian as a prey animal, you're demonstrating clear signs of psychopathy - inability to comprehend emotional state and motivators of the driver nor the pedestrian.
Pedestrian has the right of way where law of the land dictates so. In other cases, they don't. However a reasonable person driving a vehicle understands that he is commanding a heavy and well protected metal cage on wheels, which will maim an kill even if pedestrian makes a mistake that was fully his to make, and as such will invest heavily into actions that will avoid maiming or killing the pedestrian.
Basically, this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Let's assume that you're right and this is 100%, rather than a fairly rare occurrence as it is. So nightmares and therapy for them vs death.
Tell me how they are close enough to be directly comparable in this context in your view?
Reading all the way to the second paragraph would help you.
I like how you come off as a psychopath in your statement of "it doesn't require a psychopath", by doing things like conflating an accident and suicide.
The issue is that of differential of consequences. Driver gets bent fender. Pedestrian is maimed or dies.
The differential between consequences is so large, that it would take a psychopath to formulate the idea that pedestrian is the perpetrator and driver is the victim. The most extreme thought that remains reasonable for a person with working sense of empathy is that pedestrian caused his/her own death through his/her own actions, and driver was innocent. Death being present in the formula simply makes it unbendable towards the outcome you're trying to bend it towards when any human empathy is present.
Your entire early tirade can be summed up as "it's not 100% certain, therefore they have to guess".
I have news for you. Even in engineering analysis, where you know every bolt and every weld, and where you have access to detailed plans, troubleshooting is still not 100%. Medical profession is ultimately engineering for a body that you cannot just shut down and disassemble, and must treat while it's functioning. It's fairly obvious that it's never going to be 100%. Nor does this interact with my argument in any way, shape or form.
Pathologist is the specialist who analyses the data set. His data set is the biopsy sitting in front of him. He is NOT the person making the call on treatment plan, which is where "looking into the future" comes in. That would be oncologist, who will consult with pathologist, just like head engineer will consult with low level workers and engineers who were responsible for bolts and welds when troubleshooting the building having problems, or how the military leader will consult with intelligence operative before executing force projection.
These people have very clear areas of responsibility, and place where pathologist does treatment plans, base level engineer does plans for entire building, spy also does shootouts and so on is the realm of Hollywood. Not reality.
You just literally quoted this in relation to your wife. Yes, specialist in the welding will be asked for recommendation in relation to how the weld will handle under various stresses. Yes, specialist in pathology will be asked how specific tumour will handle under the knife. Yes, military leader will inquire with intelligence operative on known factors he should take into account when planning the next force projection. No, this engineer will not make the plans on how to make the entire building. No, the intelligence operative is not going to grab the gun and go execute the force projection part of the operation. No, your wife will not be making treatment plans. That is the realm of Hollywood. Not reality.
In reality, deeply specialized people will handle their own niches with excellence, which is why they are paid very well. And they will stick to their niches, because that's where they are excellent and stay outside large general collations, where they are out of their specialized depth. Sutor, ne ultra crepidam.