cmh89

>Washington DC has some of the worst bicycle culture I’ve ever seen. Blowing red lights, asserting right of way over pedestrians and cars whenever it suites them, doing 50kmh on mount Vernon trail with pedestrians and small children everywhere. And a piss poor attitude to top it off when someone dares slow them down.

I can't tell if this is satire or not.

I've never heard of this, are cyclists in your area just sitting in the road?

There is a zero percent chance your city spent "hundreds of millions" to rebuild anything to be cyclists friendly.

> it’s also almost like being a cyclist instantly turns you in to an egomaniac with a death wish,

Cyclists are paying far far far far more attention than your average driver. Motorist kills 50k Americans a year.

>The paradox of tolerance is what I'm operating off of too. My conclusion is that you can't hate the hateful without being hateful yourself. What's your conclusion? That you're always automatically on the right side so it's okay to be intolerant?

You don't seem to understand what the paradox of tolerance is. You're also creating a strawman. No one thinks hate is inherently bad. Lots of people deserve to be hated for their actions. What people are opposed to is hate for people's immutable characteristics, backgrounds, or harmless life choices.

>You're speaking out here against a group. Why shouldn't you be deplatformed? Why should we tolerate your intolerance?

I'm not OP but it's because we're humans with brains who can make distinctions between groups that have odious opinion and those who don't.

Your arguments are really basic and if you're really curious you could spend some time reading about this subject instead of making arguments that would sound profound to a college freshman.

Threats are by definition not an action.

There is no chance that the state would cap rates, I'm not sure they even could. The real pull would be trying to expand Medicaid, which is free,creating a single payer system and raising taxes, or creating public health insurance, or some combination of both.

The public option would be the best in a vacuum, but if its truly affordable, we will still attract uninsured and under-insured people who come here when they get sick.

> If all the people who attended university remained influenced by those ideas over the years. Most of the people with higher income and influential positions in society would be overwhelmingly left but that has not happened

Uh what? higher educational attainment correlates with voting Democratic https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/23/education...

Universities are also not the leftist indoctrination camps that right-wingers have deluded themselves into believing they are. There are lots of conservatives on campus, especially the faculty.

I work in public health at a state government, in a western state. The biggest hurdle I see is that America has freedom of movement and residency. If my state creates truly affordable health care, we will of course have refugees from conservative states coming here for medical care.

We'll probably end up with a public option of some kind that will somewhat function like health insurance but who knows.

>It’s fundamentally different. Barring the fact that it’s lower friction to approach someone in person because you can read if they’re busy

I remember being approached all the time while I was busy. I don't think most people are "reading" anything. They are just interrupting."Lower friction" in this case means its harder for a person who is busy to ignore an interruption when it is standing at their desk.

>In corporate life, you lose a lot cumulatively if you’re not generally aware of goings on. People who keep their head down and do their work do ok for a while but over a lifetime they lose out on new ideas and don’t work on important problems.

I'm not sure how this relates to what we are talking about. You can be "generally aware of goings on" without being interrupted every 30 minutes.

>Another trait, it took me a while to notice. I noticed the following facts about people who work with the door open or the door closed. I notice that if you have the door to your office closed, you get more work done today and tomorrow, and you are more productive than most. But 10 years later somehow you don't know quite know what problems are worth working on; all the hard work you do is sort of tangential in importance. He who works with the door open gets all kinds of interruptions, but he also occasionally gets clues as to what the world is and what might be important. Now I cannot prove the cause and effect sequence because you might say, "The closed door is symbolic of a closed mind." I don't know. But I can say there is a pretty good correlation between those who work with the doors open and those who ultimately do important things, although people who work with doors closed often work harder. Somehow they seem to work on slightly the wrong thing — not much, but enough that they miss fame.

This reads as generic corporate leader woo. I regularly have discussions with my coworkers and i know what's going on.

The 'stop by chat' crowd just doesn't understand how to communicate effectively and is upset that they can no longer use inefficient channels to get information.

The United States is also massive geographically and road policies and enforcement vary dramatically.

New York State, which similiar to the UK in regards to one massive metropolis, several large cities, and then lots of rural areas, has 5.8 deaths per 100k.

Mississippi, which even its big cities are completely car dominated has 26.2 deaths per 100k.

It comes down to a lot of things. When less of your population is driving, you're going to have less death. Big city streets are usually congested which slows vehicle speeds which in turns reduces deaths, and its politically difficult to slow cars down in a car dependent culture, as most people want to speed. I'll also point out that for a lot of the south and midwest, you drive to the bar and you drive away from the bar. They make bars with 50+ parking spots and then say "Don't drive drunk!".

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...

> They were responsible for the car, not Uber and its self-driving systems - that she was responsible for testing and overseeing.

I agree with your point about the driver but disagree with this. Tesla is testing it's product on people without their consent. In this case, their technology failed and it resulted in the death of someone who did not consent to being part of a autonomous vehicle test.

>I know for me, I solve problems much more quickly when I can walk over to my co-worker's desk and talk it over. Or have someone walk through a problem with me on the board.

Why don't you just give them a call? What's the difference?

For everyone who misses being able to have a quick chat with a coworker, there is another person who is glad that they can get in a work flow without random coworkers coming over to talk about something they aren't currently working on.

> I'm going to struggle to see your point that the pair-bonding mechanism hasn't been broken

A lot of people have a fury-inducing reaction to their partner speaking to a member of the opposite sex. Is a functioning "pair-bonding mechanism"?

>Switch the roles, and there are cases where democratic controlled X has halted something when there’s a republican president. It’s the nature of the game. To say one party does this but the other is absolved of sin, I feel, is playing into the hands of blissful ignorance. I’d like to believe one side has my back, but they don’t. I can name maybe 4 senators that come off as authentic, and have a track record that shows it.

Can you provide some examples of Democratic controlled "X" threatening to default on the debt to achieve a policy goal?

If you're going to play "both side-ism", you should provide some examples. I can't remember Democrats doing things equivalent to holding an economic gun to America's head.

>If companies or individuals were to run their own finances like politicians run government finances, they'd go bankrupt and/or land in jail pretty quickly.

Amazingly, the government is structured differently than your family's finances! I'm all for fiscal responsibility and would love to see the US slash it's corporate welfare budget, but the government is not a family and shouldn't be run like one.

>I want to see the first things that surface in their mind and what they enjoy talking about. I

How does that question get to that? I'd guess most of them are thinking 'why did I get asked such a vague question and how should I answer it. Do they want me to talk about my personal life, or maybe they have some weird confirmation bias. If they wanted me to talk about my work life, they'd probably ask right? What a weird question'.

>I don't agree with this at all. We don't have "hiring managers". That's the problem right there. What the hell are they going to know about the position if they're not in it?

You are the hiring manager if you are a manager who is responsible for hiring someone.

I've worked with a lot of managers and sat on lots of hiring panels. Managers who think they are going to play some mind game to get a purer view of someone are always bad interviewers who place huge amounts of stock in some arbitrary reaction to their mind game.

> If you can describe the day-to-day of what we do without much prompting that's a very strong signal you're a good fit

Why not just ask that then? "Tell me about yourself" is just a bad open-ended question. I've been in enough interviews to anticipate generic bad questions like that or "what's your biggest weakness" style questions, but not everyone has.

Hiring managers frequently can't differentiate between people who are knowledgeable and people who are just good at interviewing. I've coached many of my peers and done lots of coaching with success because at the end of the day, interviews are about taking advantage of the information asymmetry between your actual experience and what the hiring manager can actually know.

I know bots abuse the campground and permitted hike system but I don't how or why they'd try and manipulate the lottery. The cost is so high and odds so low of winning things like the the wave or the Enchantments.

What we really need is what my university had where if you grab a spot and no one shows up, you can't get a spot for a certain amount of time.

>That's just because the mores of society have changed.

And the huge amounts of research that shined the light on the Catholic church's culture of preying and assaulting children and then covering it up.

It took quite a heroic effort to bring the Catholic church's crimes to light and she was speaking about something the media wasn't comfortable or willing to report on.

>You can also just change your name if you don't like it.

After you're 18 and after you've experienced some of the most intense social moments of your life.

It's like literally everything else with kids. Parents have a ton of autonomy but there has to be a line where they aren't allowed to hurt their kid further

>'m not sure what you'd capture closer than 8 feet that you would not from farther away

Are you under the impression that long shots show as much as close in shots?

>Keep in mind my point was that the political emphasis on race is at a high point.

A high point compared to what? The 90s? You have some recency bias in your understanding of this topic.

> agree that if activist put a lot of emphasis on this and make it more visible that this feeling will be stronger. That doesn't negate the point above, it supports it.

You didn't make a point, you said something was 'interesting' which I commented on because its really not, it just makes sense.

>Sure, people can argue over how productive the additional attention is for actually resolving issues, but that's not what I'm trying to do. I merely staying that attention is very high right now

I think you're mostly trying to backtrack a hot take

I know that older people complaining about younger people is literally ancient, but I can't help but feel that cell phones + social media is doing some real damage. It hurts adults, I can't imagine experiencing it with a developing mind.

So the actual issue that we've started talking about how our obsession with race effects the people on the losing end of that deal.

>. It is interesting that far fewer people feel that black people are treated fairly than in the late 90's. It would be interesting to see data going back even further.

It seems intuitive to me. If you have a problem and then activists put in a ton of time to make that problem more visible, its going to change people's perceptions of social issues. For example, if you asked people in 1990 and 2020 if the Catholic church adequately protects children from sexual predators, you're probably gonna get a pretty drastic difference in responses.

>The USA is currently obsessed with race, and this influences all discussions.

The United States has always been obsessed with race. The south had completely different schools based on a child's skin color. What makes you think this is new?

I have friends who are/were teachers. I can't imagine why anyone would subject themselves to that. Low pay, spoiled out of control children, their evn worse parents, active shooter drills/real active shooters, fucking TikTok.

I wouldn't do that job if it paid double what I make now.

You mean the 9-0 that says they don't have a corruption problem despite mounting evidence of decades of bribes?

Am I supposed to pretend that the liberal justices aren't also corrupt?

> The conversation is about pedestrians walking into traffic while staring in their phones, jaywalking in other words

Sorry, you are not understanding what jaywalking is. If you can find a definition of jaywalking that mentions phone, I'll concede your point, but you can't, because it has nothing to do with phones.

> That's what the judiciary is for.

Right, and the judiciary has 45 years of precedent that the wetlands are included. This radicalized illegitmate SCOTUS just threw out the protections because their corporate owners benefit from it.

Who said anything about jaywalking?

>t's your responsibility to follow the rules.

Sure! And motorist need to follow the rules of the road. Unfortunately when they break the rules, which they do most of the time, they can easily end someones life.

I'm guessing you're one of the good ones who definitely doesn't speed every time they are in the car.