That’s an imperial war where local knowledge is extremely limited and your relying on sympathetic locals to let you know the terrain and who the enemy are. If that sympathetic population is low like in Afghanistan or Vietnam then you’ll walk into every ambush and never root out the enemy. In this environment guerilla war with small arms can work

If tyrrany comes to the u.s. though it’ll come with at least 30% support if not more, ironically most likely by the 2a nuts. They’ll happily point out every enemy of the state on there block and warn you about every ambush, hell they’ll probably shoot them for you.

Read “insurrections” as slave revolts and you can get a real sense of what the 2a was for.

I mean openais not getting off Scott free, they’ve been getting sued a lot recently for this exact copy right argument. New York times is suing them for potential billions.

They throw the book at us

Do they though, since the Metallica lawsuits in the aughts there hasnt been much prosecution at the consumer level for piracy, and what little there is is mostly cease and desists.

Depends what you mean by in SF. That is a study of the entire bay area asking how they get to / around SF. That makes sense, most people in the bay area coming into the city are suburbanites who drive in. You’d probably see the same for NYC as well, barring Manhattan which is more or less hostile to driving. People who live in the city though primarily get around by walking transit. The same study says :

San Francisco residents still used priority modes twice as often as non-residents for trips within San Francisco.

So it’s the dominant mode for people traveling in / through SF but not for people who live in SF.

In my original comment I put an edit in with a link to the original and SF is orange, along with DC which you can’t see on this either.

White? There is no San Francisco on the map. There’s San Mateo county but the tip of the peninsula where SF city / county should be is just blank.

Did San Francisco sink into the bay? It looks like the map didn’t include it, shame since that’s probably the only place outside NYC that may be a different color.

EDIT:

Looks like someone else noticed it to and did a close up on the original. It shows SF is public transit and also shows that dc is missing on this map as well and also is more public transit then driving, so not just New York. You can also see it by borough in NY and Staten Island is cars but Hudson county NJ is public transit too.

It’s an easy target but also a near worthless one. What does the CCP gain from getting a bunch of terminally online Linux nerds on their side? No one making real decisions that could effect China is on here.

4chan is also a soft target but you don’t see parties or governments investing in propagandizing there because it’s full of basement dwelling incels who can’t do anything besides maybe shoot up a school.

If your defining yimby as a synonym for pro-developer then yeah I guess. If your defining yimby as just opposed to Nimbys and their exclusionary zoning policies like single family housing, parking minimums, etc. to keep there property values up then rent control is fine as it’s not Nimbys but working class people pushing for it, not to restrict supply but to just stay in there homes.

Yimbyism can be an effective political strategy if you keep it contained to attacking rich property owners on behalf of the working/renting class. If you start opposing things like rent control that helps large portions of renters who stay in a place long term then the movement falls apart in infighting.

It will eventually have to happen, cars, including evs, are not sustainable, at least at the current levels of usage. If you look at any climate report looking into it the choice is between Americans driving a lot less or severe climate change. I hope murica will make the right choice but the more we tie cars to ideas of freedom and peace of mind the harder that choice will be. It will be tough to fight considering the tens of thousands of hours of car ads most Americans are exposed to pushing that narrative, so it will require just as much reinforcement on the negatives of cars, traffic fatalities, CO2 emissions, airborne micro plastics from tires, maintenance and repair costs, obesity, sprawled cities, etc.

It may not happen in our lifetime, or at least when your healthy enough to bike/hike , but eventually we’ll have to transition away from personal cars. Id prefer to build towards that future now for the reasons listed above but if you want to delay that’s fine, you’ll just have to explain to your grandkids why you did.

Yeah maybe there are are 2000 mountains, but how many have mountain bike trails? If there are trails then there is probably some organization maintaining them like the state or national park service who can also run the shuttles. Shuttles are also pretty cheap and can stop at multiple trail heads based off requests. You can also rotate where the shuttles go each day / week so if there’s a more obscure trail/mountain then you can just wait until it comes up in the schedule. The towns would also probably want to run the shuttles as well since it will bring business to the area.

Ok, let’s assume we want less people on the mountain, what gives you the right to go to the mountain then? Because you can afford a car? That doesn’t seem fair. Also most people have a car so it’s not restricting that many people. If we say only 30 people should go to the mountain a day that’s way easier to enforce if we say only 2 shuttles of 15 are allowed. It’s also fairer as who gets to go is just determined by whoever signs up first, as opposed to whether someone owns something.

I think many people would like to socialize. There’s a loneliness epidemic and many people are looking for friends but don’t know where to meet them. If I was looking for friends with common interests like mountain biking the shuttle up would be a great place to meet them. Just because I want to get away from civilization doesn’t mean I want to get away from socializing, I hike regularly with groups of people and they mostly enhance the experience. If you aren’t into that that’s fine too, just put on your headphones ignore everyone and set off on the trail solo, nothing stopping you from doing that.

For the last point like I said usage can be controlled, even better then cars, but assuming the same usage a shuttle is less pollution then multiple cars. If like you said there are 5-6 cars at a particular trail head then one shuttle carrying all those people will cause less air and noise pollution and make it safer for animals.

No I haven’t lived in rural America but most Americans haven’t either. Most live in the suburbs, cities or towns. It’s like saying people need to eat less sugar and we should stop using it for every food and people saying “what about the diabetics who need sugar” yeah they do but that’s not the majority of people. We can make exceptions for them while also overhauling our food industry to remove this thing that’s causing health problems for most people.

As for the mountain bike scenario ideally you would take a train to a town near the trail and then the town can have a shuttle up to the mountain. If we did fully invest in public transit this wouldn’t add too much to your trip and has some other benefits.

• This would be good for the park and wildlife in general as less traffic would make it easier for animals to migrate. Less roadkill

• This would lower the amount of development needed in the park as parking lots wouldn’t be necessary.

• It would make mountain biking more accessible for people who don’t have a car or can’t drive.

• It would make it more social, you could meet people on the shuttle on the way up, if there are regulars then a community could form.

• It would reduce the amount of air and noise pollution.

It is a different level of scale, mastodon has about 1 million users spread over a bunch of instances. Threads has over 200 million users on one instance. also due to the network nature of social media the amount of connections and messages sent through those connections can scale exponentially with the amount of users.

That would work if we invested as much into public transit as into cars. This goes back to designing cities for public transit instead of cars. If we did that with the money we currently are putting into cars we could have high frequency metro lines where inner city interstate / highway routes and high speed rail for inter city interstate/highway routes along with frequent bus service in the cities/towns on the lines. We think public transit is inherently slow and unreliable but that’s because we never invest enough money to make it fast and reliable.

llms suck because they steal content and are unreliable since they don’t link back to sources

Open ai makes a deal to pay media org for there content and makes it so they can link back to original article

“Ars technica sold out”

As long as they aren’t using there platform to promote dumb reactionary views like Kanye or j.k. Rowling just let people enjoy themselves. To the extent that people view snoop as political it’s usually in regards to him representing weed / black stoner lifestyle and it’s broader acceptance and legalization, which I’m all for. Even the article you pointed to where he praised trump was for getting his friend off for a non - violent drug offense which is good, even if trump did it. It would be better if he was letting off the average lower class black person in jail for that but something’s better then nothing.

Because it’s totally possible to eliminate Hamas, just like how we eliminated the Taliban and the Viet Cong. Guerilla groups like this are fueled by war, especially ones with this many atrocities against civilians. If the war isn’t going to stop until Hamas is gone get ready to either genocide Palestine or get in a never ending quagmire, pretty easy to guess what netanyahu’s government prefers.

If it’s not the right way to go about it then how should we do it? Like I said in the beginning no politician is going to advocate for public transit when all there constituency drives, and the only thing that’s going to get people to not drive is to add more friction to driving, which will require making drivers lives more difficult.

Also this isn’t insurance companies profiteering, they are currently in the red due to increased claims caused by severe weather events from climate change. To lower insurance costs would require subsidies, which we shouldn’t be using on a means of transport that is destructive to the environment.

As for the sweatshop argument let me spell it out since you seem a bit dense: the western lifestyle, including the working class, is subsidized by the exploitation of both the working class of the third world as well as the environment. Stopping that exploitation will require increasing the cost of living for westerners. If you stop sweat shop labor that working class mother of 3 will have to pay more for her kids shoes. If you end gas subsidies and add a carbon tax that working class mother of 3 will have to pay more for gas. If you don’t subsidize car insurance that mother of 3 will have to pay more for that. All of these would add to the burden of that mother but they will also alleviate the suffering of those in the third world and future generations significantly more. There are also ways to alleviate the burden of the mother too: universal childcare, paid maternity leave, affordable public housing, federal jobs guarantee etc. that don’t require incentivizing destructive lifestyles and forms of production.

So much name calling and so little argument. This same “what about the first world working class” argument can be made about ending gas subsidies or adding gas/carbon taxes. It can also be made about increasing labor standards, and thus costs of goods produced, in the third world. “If we don’t use sweatshop labor to produce shoes than a working class person in the u.s. might have to pay double for there shoes, and if you don’t feel bad for them then your heartless”. Not everything that is good for the first world working class is good for the working class as a whole.

The “corporations are actually the problem” argument completely ignores the fact that those corporations are emitting that much to meet western demands for consumption.

The fact remains westerners and Americans especially need to drive way less and consume way less if we want to prevent climate change. That means if your lifestyle relies on driving and consuming that amount you’ll need to change your lifestyle. That will be painful, but not as painful as the horrors the people of the third world will suffer if we don’t.

You have to have a pretty limited view of humanity to think this is uncaring. Higher insurance costs and people driving less is mostly just inconvenient for people in rich developed nations. Meanwhile the climate change mostly caused by the excessive pollution of those people is and will cause even more suffering due to severe weather events, drought, famine etc. This will disproportionately effect the most vulnerable people in developing and poor countries which have contributed way less to climate change. Look at a map of per capital emissions then look at one for countries that will suffer the most due to climate change and tell me how that is fair or humane.

But yeah, I’m unsympathetic, go on and tell a person dying of heat in India whose never even driven a car how I’m inhumane for not feeling more sad about you paying more for car insurance, cunt.

Report says a large part of it is due to increases in severe weather events due to climate change so I guess you reap what you sow. Still doesn’t begin to capture the costs of car usage but at least it’s a start. Sucks for lower income people who need a car but we need things like this to push people away from car ownership and onto public transit otherwise the inertia of car dependence will stimy any efforts to improve public transit.

Inb4 “but public transit sucks right now I need a car”, yes it does but no politician is going to invest in making it better if everyone’s driving. We need to push people onto public transit so they can experience how bad it is and pressure there representatives to improve it. If we don’t the status quo will remain, the planet will get warmer, more severe weather events will happen and people will die.