cmh89

>Outside of HN, in real life safety is a responsibility of everyone.

The person driving the gas propelled two ton vehicle has more responsibility to avoid hitting things than pedestrians have to avoid getting hit.

>. You are careful when you drive, careful when you walk. You don't text while driving, you don't text while crossing the street. Everyone stays safer.

Pedestrians *should* be able to text while they cross the street. The only reason they can't/shouldn't is because American drivers are largely allowed to operate their machines in a negligent manner at all times.

Walking is an inherently safe activity. Driving is an inherently dangerous activity. Drivers should have more a burden for safety than walkers. You, as a driver, should expect things to enter the road. That's why we have speed limits. That's you watch the road instead of playing on the road.

Which is laughable because for most of human history, we've lived extremely close to each other. Cavemen didn't have acre plots separate from other cavemen.

>I want the convenience of a drivable suburb with wide roads where everything I care about is just a 5-10min drive away and I'm willing to pay for these roads and the electricity/gas to take me where I want to go

Your lifestyle requires a massive subsidy from the federal government, so you aren't really willing to pay for it. Suburbs generally require other places around them to also have massive parking lots and roads to accommodate the car lifestyle. If suburbanites just stayed in their bland community, it'd be fine, you all want to drive really fast through other people's communities and you clog up our roads.

Which means you failed to see the pedestrian a yield to them. You caused the near miss.

Most of the forested land in California is owned by the federal government, who has historically managed the land based on the priorities of natural resource extractors like logging companies.

This article is about the PNW, but it functioned the same way in California

https://wou.edu/history/files/2015/08/Ron-Vorderstrasse.pdf

>I won’t say you’re incredibly incorrect myself, but maybe just simply incorrect?

You're complete lack of knowledge on this subject doesn't make me incorrect. Please go do some reading and come back with an intelligent argument.

I'm sorry, this is just incredibly incorrect. Forest management on the federal level is owned by logging companies. The drive to put out fires, even in remote areas, is driven by a desire to not lose acres that could be logged. It's taken activist decades to convince the Forest Service and the BLM to do controlled burns and we *still* put out naturally-ignited fires in remote areas.

That's not the justification. The author is bringing up traditional burning practices because suppression of those practices is a cause of our current mega fires.

"Thanks to centuries of overzealous fire protection and the suppression of Indigenous cultural burns — which Europeans found “primitive” — forests have become overgrown, accumulating piles of underbrush and fallen trees. In trying to prevent wildfires altogether, we’ve been essentially storing up bigger and bigger piles of fuel. And with that extra fuel comes fires that burn more ferociously, exacerbated by drought and drier conditions from climate change.

“When you talk to different native people from the Yosemite area, they talk about how it used to look when fire was used as a management tool,” UC Davis professor of Native American Studies Beth Rose Middleton Manning said in a University of California article. Areas that were once open valleys are now choked with conifers and other fuel sources that were not there when cultural burns helped groom the land."

The justification for controlled burns is written here

"Setting fires intentionally may sound like a paradoxical approach to fire control, but if they are done correctly, controlled burns reduce the fuel available for wildfires, helping to prevent the catastrophically large, hot fires that overwhelm firefighting resources. They also are beneficial for a healthy ecosystem."

It sounds like you'd like to know more about wildfire and how indigenous burning practices suppress mega fires. I encourage you to read the linked materials, as this little article isn't going to go deep enough to answer your questions.

They didn't talk to anyone, they just used an article with more depth to support their little, less deep article.

>Is this article supposed to be about controlled burns being put in California? Or is it supposed to be how the europeans were so stupid, native americans were so smart, and wildfires are the fault of westward expansion? Why not talk about more concrete reasons that controlled burns are good without appealing to it being opposite of racists?

What does this mean? You can't talk about wildfires in the west without talking about how westward expansion brought terrible forest management practices and suppressed traditional management practices that kept forests healthy. How are you involving racism in this topic?

You're welcome to find some sources that support your assertion. All the research on the matter disagrees with you though.

“The weight of scientific evidence shows these programs do not help young people delay initiation of sexual intercourse,” says co-author John Santelli, professor of Population and Family Health at the Mailman School. “While abstinence is theoretically effective, in actual practice, intentions to abstain from sexual activity often fail. These programs simply do not prepare young people to avoid unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases.” [0][1]

Further, abstinence only sex education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy rates

"After accounting for other factors, the national data show that the incidence of teenage pregnancies and births remain positively correlated with the degree of abstinence education across states: The more strongly abstinence is emphasized in state laws and policies, the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rate. "[2]

Informing youth about the realistic outcomes of actions, whether its sex or taking drugs, is going to be a lot more effective than just telling them not to do it.

[0]https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/abstinence-only-e... [1]https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(17)30297-5/full... [2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

The problem is we have such a high bar for pyschedelics that isn't applied to other recreational drugs.

There is, puritanical American culture just wont do it. Abstinence only education, whether for sex or drug consumption doesn't work.

It's completely viable to talk to kids about risk factors for different drugs. When I was growing up they acted like marijuana and heroin were the same risk factors.

'Drugs are fun until they aren't' is something kids can understand. We should also talk about how people are different and some people can do recreational drugs and never have a problem and others can do the same amounts of drugs at first and develop an addiction.

It's a whole generation where people know they'll never own a home or be able to retire, unless they don't have kids.

Countries that have developed in the last 60 years tend to have strong authoritarian leaders and the favor and interest of Europe and the United States.

Ethopia does have natural resources but it doesn't have a strong central government, partly because the warring factions want control of the resources. Places like UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar had strong dictators before they developed the petroleum industry. African states that have oil tend to be too weak politically to resist outside interests taking the wealth by paying bribes and funding warring factions.

I'm assuming (and hoping) you mean culturally identical because all humans are nearly genetically identical.

>Those people are genetically almost identical. What’s the difference? Ideas.

And trade sanctions, and the support of super powers.

>Why did Europe suddenly become the worlds powerhouse right after the enlightenment when before it was poorer than many places in Asia and the Middle East? The ideas changed.

I guess it was a 'change in ideas', it also might have had to do with colonization of the practice of exploiting poorer countries and repatriating their wealth.

What are you talking about? The progressive left frequently talks about the past be being better when it comes to the worlds increasing wealth inequality and how wages stagnated.

Can you stop speaking in strawmen and make an actual point? Are you dancing around an assertion that apartheid was better for South Africa?

More extreme weather doesn't mean you can't go outside and play. It means mega-droughts. It means crop failures. It means extreme flooding. It means paying more for everything as more people fight over fewer resources. Wealthy countries will be able to somewhat deal with drought in parts of their territory, but poorer countries will experience more famine and hunger. More people will die from heat-related illness.

>But add up all the deaths and inconveniences from this, assume it gets worse, and the world is still incredibly better off than it was in the 1980s.

In the 1980s, an American with a high school education could expect to make a good living and maybe have a stay at home parent.

Most modern Americans wont be able to buy a house much more raise a family on a single income. Everything is getting rapidly expensive while wages stagnate or decline through inflation.

The real crux of the issue is that the major west coast cities are being tasked with dealing with a nationwide drug and mental health crisis and there just isn't the money to humanely handle the problem. So you end up with people who correctly say that locking people up in prisons for personal drug use is inhumane and doesn't address their problem, while at the same time other folks correctly point out that people should have access to a clean and safe city and not need to watch for needles and human shit.

The federal government needs to provide funding for the west coast states to build more drug treatment centers, funding to train treatment providers, and more funding for mental health services. There are anti-social people who don't belong in jail but can't be on the street, right now there is nowhere for them to go.

Politicians who lost the war to keep a harmless drug illegal try and price out people from consuming it.

My favorite is when they have the screen set-up so the largest tip is furthest to the left where you'd expect the smallest to be.

I'm guessing you have very similar views.

> You asserting that the thing we're talking about doesn't exist is just you being a bigot.

Look bud, you don't need to have an emotional reaction to this. I'm not saying you can't call things you don't like 'woke', I'm just saying its intellectual gibberish. It's a fill in word that only means you don't like something. It has no larger meaning or even a static definition.

The idea that just talking about something means it exists is the level of thought I'd associate with people who also buy into the idea that 'woke culture' exists.

>Basing ones understanding of the world on lived experience is the only way humans learn anything.

That is astoundingly untrue. Like painfully untrue.

Lots of people talk about a flat Earth but that doesn't mean a flat earth exists

Also, 'people talk about it' is hilarious. The only people who talk about it are right-wingers who are trying get their base riled up. There is no serious academic work that supports the idea that 'woke culture' exists. It's clowns like Tucker who profit off the culture war that continue to talk about it.

> and it has its own term in our lexicon.

It's an undefined term.

>I could give you a million examples of it, but I think you already know what it is.

That's literally the point of the term. You could give examples of ideas and things you don't like, and because 'woke' has no definition, it's just based purely on your opinion.

Like the game of baseball is well-defined. If I asked you what you consider the game of baseball to be, it would be mostly the same as what I consider baseball. We'd agree that there are nine players on the field. We'd agree that it's played with a ball, etc. We might disagree on strategy, or what the rules should be, but the basics are well defined.

That's not the case with 'woke'. Your definition of the basic parameters of 'woke culture' would probably differ from even other people who believe in 'woke culture'. That's why you are defaulting to examples, because it's just going to be a list of things you don't like, which is the essence of the word.

It's a empty box for which intellectually lazy or unable people put all the ideas they don't/can't understand or don't agree with.

>You are right, all I have are anecdotes

Forming huge ideas about the nature of the world based on our personal experiences is generally a pretty terrible idea.

"wokeness" is a defintion-less abstract tool that exists to be applied to ideas that conservatives don't like. "woke culture" doesn't actually exist.

>But aside from that he makes a valid point. If you actually live in a very liberal area, like San Francisco, for a while you will meet a disproportionate number of people who believe that having kids is bad for the planet or have any number of other anti-natalist ideas.

Which is a great anecdote! Is it supported by literally any data? Do college-educated women in San Francisco have a significantly different birth rate than college-educated women in Chicago? Atlanta?

The idea that a women who otherwise would have had three kids will have zero because they were exposed 'anti-natalist' ideas is on its face stupid. The characteristics of someone who chooses to live in a place where it's expensive to raise a family like San Francisco are almost assuredly going to lean toward one/no children.

Birth rates are falling everywhere women have access to birth control. The whole article is crap, the 'woke' comment was just the icing on the drivel cake.

reddit used to be owned by Conde Nast. Sears got upset about a post and complained to Conde Nast, who then told spez to take it down. If you have a political commitment to 'free speech' that folds if you might have to face some consequences for defending it, you don't have that strong of a commitment in my opinion. Certainly not strong enough to justify hosting a community of child predators

That's nonsense. The Sears debacle showed that reddits leadership team was fine with deleting posts if it was going to cost them money to not delete them.

That 'political commitment to free speech' sure disappeared quickly when r/jailbait and u/violetacrez hit the main stream media.

spez was fine with hosting a community of child predators because it was one of the most popular subs. It was the top recommended result when you searched for reddit on google.

You can support free speech without actively providing a community for predators

The author seemed to completely miss the point that, regardless of liberal or illiberal, when women have access to birth control, birth rates go down.

Is there any evidence that any actual 'eating' is happening here? I can't find any instances of it being banned or removed from curriculum. Jared Diamond continues to teach at UCLA.

Is the 'eating' the fact that people critiqued a pop anthropology? The author of the article is creating strawmen and then defeating them.

I was left with, who actually is the author of the article referencing and what is their actual argument.

Reddits main function as a porn facilitator will really hamper its desire to make lots of money as a publicly-traded business.

In the United States, a lot of people act like being outside in 40 degree weather is deadly. I also think Americans are less social, especially as they get older so winters tend to be a lot of sitting inside and watching TV.

It varies for sure. I live in a place with overcast and wet winters and I get SAD really bad if I'm not leaving the house, but do fine when I can get out into nature or spend time with friends.

This is my experience working in government IT. The people whose job it is to go to meetings and talk end up being the ones representing the businesses interest and the vendor ends up running circles around them because they aren't in any way qualified to talk about something technical.