What makes you think homeschool kids never deal with assholes?
Assholes are a dime a dozen. Homeschooling doesn’t exempt your kids from learning how to deal with them.
118 karma · joined August 29, 2021
Assholes are a dime a dozen. Homeschooling doesn’t exempt your kids from learning how to deal with them.
If you think homeschooling makes kids grow up to be prejudiced, you should just say that, instead of insinuating it.
Payback period for me would be 7+ years with my electricity rates.
Anyone who thinks money is the limiting factor in education is either delusional or is receiving a chunk of that money that never makes it into the classroom.
Countries all over the planet provide superior education to students for a tenth of the cost.
Your right wing friends are correctly but ambiguously stating that if we can’t have a gifted program at these funding levels, there will never be a gifted program at any funding level.
Why are you so irrationally anti-nuclear?
Bag in/bag out was developed for labs handling infectious micro-organisms. It involves a complicated bagging system, which, if done properly, isolates a contaminated filter from the environment during filter change outs.
But for nuclear the bag only protects from alpha particles and electrons. It has zero impact on photon dose. If workers are wearing bunny suits and respirators they are already protected from alphas and electrons. The extra change out time required by Bag In/Bag Out increased the worker photon dose.
This regulation actually increases workers’ exposure to radiation.
“Industrialization contributed greatly to the elimination of typhoid fever, as it eliminated the public health hazards associated with having horse manure in public streets, which led to a large number of flies, which are vectors of many pathogens, including Salmonella spp.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_fever
I appreciate the compliment, but no, I’m not an LLM, just an ordinary guy who has more understanding of these issues than you do.
Here’s a wild idea: fact check the stuff you claim I’m making up before you make a fool of yourself.
I think this conversation is over. You’re clearly an angry, closed minded person. Have a nice day.
I know that’s not really what you were getting at with you comment, but it’s worth noting when people try to demonize cars, as cyclists are wont to do: they’re the least bad and most versatile mode of mass transportation available.
The context in which the automobile met horses matters: contrary to your portrayal of roads, very few of them were actually paved in any meaningful sense. They were mostly compacted dirt, sometimes gravel. Lanes existed in a less explicit way, and speeds were much slower because pedestrians were always mixed in as well.
Cars were a vast improvement over this situation along every meaningful axis. They’re faster, don’t leave manure on streets, and are safer when you consider operation. Horses get spooked and buck their riders, they can kick, they weigh hundreds of pounds and can crush you. And most importantly, they were cheaper than owning a horse. People didn’t switch overnight for no reason.
To the heart of your comment, the reason why we have the infrastructure we do is because cars were so much more capable than horses. Traffic signals, lane demarcations, signage: all of these things came about because cars were so much faster than horses. Congestion doesn’t matter if you can get there in half the time.
When you need to get to the hospital, do you ride a bike? When you want to buy a couch at the store, how do you get it home? When you need to visit your grandparents the next state over, how do you get there?
Overwhelmingly, the answer is a motor vehicle. Unfortunately, the value of that vehicle is proportional to the infrastructure available to use it.
Here’s the rub: cycling is a luxury. Access to a motor vehicle when you need it is a neccesity. When you need to get to the ER, the last thing you want to do is be fighting a bunch cyclists to get there. When it’s snowing and -20F outside, you’re only taking the bike if you absolutely have too.
Your freedom of movement depends on infrastructure built for motor vehicles. Your ability to really do anything beyond get to work and back in a city depends on reliable and efficient access to a motor vehicle.
We should stop wasting money on bike lanes and build real public transit in our cities. The reason people feel compelled to use a bike is the alternatives are too awful to be competitive.
If you think that’s hypocritical, I don’t know what to tell you. Cyclists degrade infrastructure built for motorists. Infrastructure you need. Infrastructure they contribute to the upkeep of via gas taxes.
Not sure about the answer to your question without looking it up, but probably “car crash” given the context of our conversation.
Dog owners are the motorists. Dedicated infrastructure was built specifically for them to use.
Parents with kids are the cyclists. They want to restrict how that infrastructure is used so that they can enjoy it in the way that is most convenient for them, at the expense of the dog owners.
Initially, dog owners used the park freely without any interference from parents with kids. But at some point, parents with kids felt they were entitled to use the dog park in ways it was never intended to be used, and changed regulations to restrict dog owners enjoyment of the park.
I intentionally left out any discussion of how these things are paid for to highlight the unfairness of this situation. It doesn't matter how it's paid for, since the infrastructure already exists for a specific purpose and is being used for that purpose.
To include the finance side of things in this analogy, it would be like funding the dog park with a special sales tax on dog food, which increases the unfairness of the whole situation when it's taken over by the parents with kids, who paid nothing to maintain or build it.
In case you don't understand how analogies work, they highlight critical similarities between two situations that are otherwise dissimilar to help understand the underlying concept. They aren't parallel in all respects, nor can they be.
If your best argument against my analogy is to introduce irrelevant dissimilarities to distract from the obvious point of the analogy, I'll take that as an endorsement it was effective.
Thank you for sharing that. I hope you feel better now.
> Allowing cyclists to run red lights significantly reduces mortality. Waiting at an intersection is provably one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists.
The second sentence of the abstract of this study would imply you're ignorant, but I won't stoop to name calling:
"Red light running violation of bicyclists is the major contributory factor to the crash involvement of bicyclists worldwide."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22143...
> Your "obvious" example is something that's unknowable to you as an individual. You have no knowledge of the effective throughput of the road ahead of you.
If I'm following a cyclist who is going 20mph in a 30mph zone, they're contributing to congestion. This is obvious to every human, even those who have never even seen modern infrastructure or the vehicles that operate on it. It happens when walking in hallways or on stairways. When someone is slow and people can't get around them, you get congestion.
> The disdain you have for cyclists seems bizarre and misplaced
I don't have any disdain for cyclists, only those dumb enough to try and coexist with motorists and arrogant enough to try and change traffic laws and infrastructure to fit their needs at the expense of everyone else.
I ride my bicycle at the park with my kids, and partly why I feel so passionately about this is because I don't want my kids riding in situations where they are very likely to get themselves injured or killed.
You're absolutely right, waiting at an intersection is one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists. This is because riding on roads with motorists is the most dangerous moment for cyclists.
There is no way to make it safe for cyclists to coexist with motorists. Mixing the two results in more people getting injured and dying. This should be reason enough to ban them from roads with motor vehicles, putting aside every other issue I've raised.
Allowing them to run red lights is a recipe for disaster. Use your brain: motorists reasonably and rightfully expect to have the right of way when the light is green. Literally every other moving object yields to them at intersections with a signal. Making an exception for cyclists will result in more people running red lights, and more corresponding injuries and deaths.
> The idea that it's a double standard is wrong — the standards are set to minimize harm and maximize effective throughput.
Go look up what the phrase double standard means. It is by definition a double standard. You can defend the double standard, but that doesn't change the fact that it is one.
> If we subsidized the lifestyle of cyclists as much as motorists, this would be a non-problem.
If by this you mean we should reduce the amount of subsidization to zero for both, I agree completely. Infrastructure should be paid for with use fees. If cyclists want to use it they should pay for it. If motorists want to use it, they should pay for it. Currently motorists contribute, while cyclists do not.
There were no bike lanes in the city I live in until ten years ago. They took lanes on roads that were never designed to accommodate cyclists and and made them bicycle only lanes. The result is increased traffic congestion and more accidents.
The reality is that very few roads in America were ever designed to accommodate cyclists and in order to please a small but very vocal minority of people, lanes were stolen, in the literal sense of the word, from motorists and given to cyclists.
That is what it takes to keep cyclists safe on roads: redistribution of property from those who funded it and for whom it was designed for originally, giving it to cyclists. And even doing that can’t truly protect them when they do dumb things, like run red lights.
The truly unfair and dangerous thing here is propagating the illusion that cyclists can coexist with motorists. They can’t, for all of the reasons you yourself stated.
Obviously I’m discussing things as I believe they should be, not as they are, so I’m not sure what evidence you want me to provide, short of the logic inherent in the arguments I’m making. Feel free to point out where you think there are gaps in the logic.
By your logic, this is fine because the kids aren’t pooping in the park which degrades it less.
Never mind that the park was created for dog owners, and their enjoyment of it is impaired by these new restrictions placed on them by people who shouldn’t even be there.
Roads deteriorate whether they’re used or not. If cyclists want to use them, they should pay to maintain them. I don’t know why you find this idea so controversial. Adjust the fees commensurate with their weight if you want, but by definition those fees should not be zero.
Roads are obviously expensive, hence why it is repulsive that cyclists pay nothing to build or maintain them, but actively increase the danger on them and degrade the efficiency of using them.
Pollution? In what world do cyclists not require fuel to operate? Cyclists use the most expensive fuel possible to operate: consumable calories. We burn fuel to operate machinery to produce food, then transport it to stores and then transport it home, cook it, and then use only a portion of the available calories to operate a bicycle because the human body isn’t 100% efficient.
You’re delusional if you somehow think cycling is good for the environment.
You can’t have it both ways. If cyclists are going to use roads designed for and paid by motorists, they should be subject to the same rules, regulations, taxes, and enforcement.
You’re welcome to defend a double standard for cyclists, but it won’t change the fact that it is indeed a double standard and is inherently unfair.
Road wear is not the main issue. Roads will deteriorate whether they’re used or not. They will deteriorate faster with heavier traffic, sure. But deterioration from temperature cycling, road salt application, and weather happens whether they’re used or not. If cyclists want to use this infrastructure, they should contribute to its upkeep.
If cyclists have a car and contribute by paying these taxes and fees, then let’s build a regulatory regime that exempts these users from cyclist fees and taxes. The point here is to make those using the infrastructure pay for their share of upkeep and their contribution to congestion.
Deer are only a danger to themselves too, right? People never experience damage to their vehicle or personal injury when they hit a deer? The damage and risk is not proportional to both parties, sure. But it is false to say that drivers experience no risk of damage or bodily injury when in an accident with a cyclist who disobeys traffic laws. Cyclists should be insured at whatever rate is necessary to protect against this risk.
Your school children example is not really applicable here. We’re discussing cyclists who want to be treated like motorists but refuse to act like them and obey common traffic rules. That is about as far as you can get from from an innocent group of school children crossing the street with the flashing red stop sign on the school bus activated.
For the record, I support closing that gap, in addition to taxing the odometer on electric vehicles which don’t contribute to gas tax revenue but use roadways like other motorists.
You’re absolutely right, roadways are insanely expensive. That’s why it’s infuriating to see entire lanes expropriated for cyclists.
“Yes I’ve been in an accident on my bike Mr. Poll Taker.”
“What? Of course it was the other guy’s fault!”