Yeah but this is a “needle in a haystack” problem that chatgpt and AI in general are actually very useful for, ie. Solutions that are hard to find but easy to verify. Issues like this are hard to find as it requires combing through your code , config files and documentation to find the problem, but once you find the solution it either works or it doesn’t.

It’s the trans women in sports of veganism, it’s such a small part of the issue and no one in the group will usually bring it up. But people who are against them will use it to discredit and divide them even though they don’t really care about the underlying issues they claim to be for: women’s sports, cat nutrition and the way larger problems with them.

I mean a lot of people are feeding there cats cheap dry kibble that has almost no resemblance to the meat it was rendered from. If your argument is that it’s abuse if you aren’t feeding your cat what it wants then there’s a lot of cat abusers out there.

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.

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.

Lol, love how French Guyana is “Europe”

Idk, the colonists had a vested interest in expelling the French from the Ohio territory, so that they could expel all the Indians and take the land. Also most of them still considered themselves English, and therefore despised the French so public support for the war was probably pretty high.

But what if there’s taki dust on them?

… But no one is being thrown into the woods with a random stranger or a bear. Like the original question this is a hypothetical meant to prove a point. The original point seems to be “the average man is dangerous” , this is meant to show that point can be prejudiced/sexist. It’s meant to show that the argument that some people are saying they’re afraid of a group therefore we must validate that fear can lead to some bad places and shouldn’t be used. This argument is at the core of what the comment I replied to.

Would you say the same if the argument was about the inherent danger of black men? If a bunch of white women were online saying black men are dangerous we wouldn’t say that black men calling it out were “magically claiming false victimhood” we’d say those women’s fears, even if they are truly felt, are a product of prejudice and unfair and they’re spreading of these ideas is damaging.

Car prices haven’t gone up, the average purchase prices of cars has gone up but that’s because people are buying more expensive cars, Large trucks, SUVs, luxury sedans, higher trims etc.

If you look at lower end sedans there price hasn’t changed much and has even gone down. For example if you look at the Chevy Malibu the current base price is $25,100 , in 2014 the base price was $22,340 or $29,400 adjusted for inflation, in 2004 it was $18,700 or $31,067

Auto workers wages have gone down but they’ve steadied in recent years in 2004 hourly wage was $21.71 or $36.07 adjusted for inflation, in 2014 it was $21.38 or $28.17 adjusted for inflation now they are around $30.

So since 2004 the price for a car has gone down 24% and auto wages have also gone down 20%. The recent UAW contract wage increases with little to no increase in price shows there is some room for workers to get more out of that $25,000 cost pie, but there would be no room if that pie is shrunk to $10,000 to compete with Chinese manufacturers.

The average purchase price has gone up because people are buying more expensive cars, eg. Large trucks, SUVs, luxury sedans, high end trims etc. not because cars are getting more expensive.

If you look at lower end sedans there price hasn’t changed much. For example if you look at the Chevy Malibu the current base price is $25,100 , in 2014 the base price was $22,340 or $29,400 adjusted for inflation, in 2004 it was $18,700 or $31,067

None of those are close to the $10,000 cars coming out of China because you just can’t make a car for that cheap in a country with high labor costs like the u.s., or even Japan or Germany.

Lemmy:

Go UAW, fight for higher wages and better working conditions

Also Lemmy:

I demand the cheapest car possible, I don’t care if its built by slave labor in xinjiang. If western companies can’t compete with third world labor costs then they’re obviously inefficient and don’t deserve to exist.

Where did you get this from? Yeah KiB means 1024 and KB is 1000 but that’s not a difference between metric and imperial, judging from the Wikipedia article it seems it was just a matter of using 1024 for technical purposes and 1000 for marketing / simplicity. If anything the article says the metric systems(SI) rule of kilo meaning 1000 means KB is metric.

If anything this shows some of the weakness of metric and it’s use of base 10. Yeah it works great in science and some math when we’re usually talking in base 10, but that’s not the only base you can use. In base 2 some of the imperial measurements are easier to deal with and convert between then metric for example

1 liter = 1111101000 ml 1 gallon = 10000000 fl oz

1 kg = 1111101000 g 1 pound = 10000 oz

The reverse of the above metric conversions, and all base 10 negative exponents, is a repeating number in binary which has to be truncated and leads to inaccurate calculations.

Systems of measure are arbitrary, there’s no superior logical one because different systems of measure work better in different systems of math.

Yes, if rail were so good all the families and normal people who value there lives could take it, meanwhile the interstate could go turn into no speed limit chaos where all the rich people with huge egos and small dicks can crash their Porsches into each other without killing an innocent person whose just trying to get to work.

I do care about pedestrians, I walk way more than I cycle, that’s why I’m proposing a solution that will make both safe. The city would maybe spend a bit more money up front to put down some paint , but long term it would save money because cars wear down the road much more than bikes. Cars are the thing that’s draining the city budget by forcing constant road maintenance.

I don’t understand what you want , if you want bikes to stop being on the sidewalks and for the city to save money along with a bunch of other benefits put down a bike lane, unless you have some better solution. You haven’t suggested any solution though which makes me think you want to just be mad at cyclists and stew in your anger without doing anything, which doesn’t sound like a good way to live.

If you do want to get mad at something get mad at cars which are an exponentially larger threat to you as a pedestrian then a bike. Unless your main means of transport is a car and you can’t get mad at them so you take it out on cyclists instead.

We both agree that bikes on the sidewalk are a problem that needs a solution. Making it illegal to ride on the sidewalk isn’t working so the way I see it there are three other solutions:

1. Increase enforcement so that bikers will get consequences for riding on the sidewalk
2. Restrict e-bike use
3. Add more bike lanes

The first one will cost more than the third and could lead to chases that further endanger pedestrians. Theres also no guarantee it will work as long as there’s gaps in the polices views. This also will discourage e-bike use which gets us to two. Restricting e-bikes could stop them from being in the sidewalk but encourages more car use which is bad for the environment and you as a pedestrian. That leaves three which solves the problem and encourages alternative transport which we need to do if we want to stop climate change.

When there’s a problem with a viable solution you have to find out what system is preventing that solution and direct your anger there. Getting mad at the individual only disperses your anger away from the underlying forces that are making that individual do something that will remain. If you report that cyclist and the police actually do catch them and give them a ticket that’s not going to stop them. Even if they confiscated there bike some day another person’s just going to zip past you.

If your boss fires you in favor of an undocumented immigrant who they can pay under minimum wage, getting mad at the immigrant and having them deported isn’t going to help your problem, your boss will just hire a different one and laugh as they watch the poor people fight each other. You need to have solidarity with that immigrant and realize the boss and the immigration system are harming both of you and direct your combined anger towards them.

Was there a protected bike lane next to you when they zipped passed you? It doesn’t matter if there’s a bunch of unused bike lanes in the city if they aren’t where you need to go. There are tons of sidewalks and car lanes that sit unused most of the time but we keep them open because people will eventually use them.

If we treated bikes like we treat cars and pedestrians and give them they’re own lane on every street none of this would happen, cause bikes don’t want to ride on sidewalks just as much as pedestrians don’t want them on the sidewalks. Weaving through pedestrians slows you down and is dangerous. You may be just as scared of bikes as the bikes are of cars but the cars aren’t nearly as afraid of bikes as bikes are of pedestrians. If your in a car and you hit a bike your going to be fine physically cause your surrounded by a metal box meant to protect you. If your on a bike and hit a pedestrian , you may come out better than the pedestrian, but you are way more likely to be physically injured or dead then if you were a driver. There’s a shared stake in avoiding collisions between pedestrians and cyclist that cars don’t have.

The solution has to be more bike lanes and not less e-bikes because e-bikes are better for the environment and people’s health than cars. Even looking at it as just a pedestrian your better with an e-bike riding in a lane next to you then a car, there less dangerous, quieter, and don’t emit a bunch of toxic fumes and brake pad dust that you have to breathe in. The cars are the enemy, not the e-bikes.

Blame the city not the biker. An person riding an bike will always choose a protected bike lane over having to weave through pedestrians on the sidewalk. If you want to get mad at someone get mad at the city for not putting down a bike lane instead of the biker just trying to not get hit. Pedestrians and cyclist need to have solidarity to take back the road from there dominance by cars. Fighting between each other over the scraps they give us only helps them, we need to demand more.