jimmytidey

Am I missing it, or does this fail to convey the key information: how long does it take?

Yes, driving a car makes you morally culpable for the harms it does.

If you ranked the harms you are likely to cause, driving a car would be very near the top of the list.

You are exhibiting an aspect of the myopia the article is highlighting.

I remember reading that Royal Navy engineers maintaining nuclear submarines use Li-Fi to connect their workstations to the network.

They said it was a security requirement - does seem extraordinarily elaborate. It feels like using wires could have been a simpler answer...

OK - I see there is a pretty strong case here.

One of the most astonishing Kant facts I've read (I've no idea how this could be verified) is that despite the sea being an hour away Königsberg, where he lived his whole life, he never felt the need to go and see the sea.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is the largest charity in the UK by membership. People do take a lot of direct personal action on this topic.

Because of his regular schedule?

I've heard the safety argument before and I find it astonishing. If you can't drive safely without making a noise audible from miles away, your vehicle isn't fit for the road. However this argument does hint at what bikers are often doing, which is racing on public roads and massively breaking speed limits.

I think modern scooters are also held to strict noise standards, the noisy ones have been made noisy deliberately.

This makes so much sense. I wish the UK would take the same approach.

There are legal standards for both vehicle noise and vehicle emissions, at least in the UK. When owners modify their exhaust to make them noisier, they are likely breaching one or both standards. It is specifically illegal. https://www.gov.uk/noise-pollution-road-train-plane#:~:text=....

No doubt engine noise is caused by lots of factors. You can modify they exhaust to make it louder or quieter. I understand a lot of bikers modify their exhaust to make it louder.

As I understand it, there is a legal limit on noise emissions some for vehicles. To get round this bikes are supplied with a quiet exhaust and a second loud exhaust. They tell customers the loud exhaust is for use on private race tracks but obviously this is widely ignored.

In suburban London and the surrounding countryside, so much of the noise is caused by a handful of motorbikes that have been made deliberately, I think usually illegally, noisy.

Stopping noisy vehicles would improve millions of people's lives and moderately upset a few thousand bikers.

I have no idea why it isn't a more popular cause.

One person doing laps of a built up area in their modified car is likely waking up tens of thousands of people. The police do nothing. If you had a party that caused equivalent nuisance it would be shut down instantly.

A agree you can't 'get all the guns back', but there are still reasons to consider more stringent controls, two spring to mind:

1) It's about the social permission you give to people by making guns easily available. For example, in many European countries, bars, pubs and drinking are an absolutely central part of life, whereas in the US drinking establishments often have a much more 'taboo' vibe about them. Alcohol consumption is much lower in the US than Europe. Obviously there are questions about cause and effect, but I suspect that if the US made gun ownership into a more transgressive behaviour, there would be less gun crime.

2) Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference. In the UK you can only buy paracetamol (Tylenol) 16 capsules at a time. Nothing stops you buying more by going to multiple shops, or by going back in the same shop multiple times. But that extra bit of friction has dramatically reduced the amount of paracetamol lying around in people's homes, and suicide from paracetamol has radically reduced as a result.

I get the principle you are articulating, but, in practice, it's probably quite a bit more nuanced. Texas isn't likely to be a state full of criminals, rather it's a state with different social norms around firearms, and permissive gun laws.

I don't know, but I'm guessing there's a big difference between knowing how to play your scales and playing perfectly evenly and fluidly.

All those young people on Facebook...

What is the prison meaning?

As other commenters have noted, surely the goal should be to make usable designs, of which looking beautiful is a small part?

Germany does have a plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende

A real middle finger to existing customers. It's so instantly and visibly rude.

The system doesn't work anymore. I don't think There is a country-specific elite culture now.

Yes, although I'm not sure they had the capacity to institutionalise eduction to that end.

Amazing reference!

"Drunk the cool aid..." In the UK case I've heard the idea that the Publc School system emerged for exactly this reason. ('Public' schools being the most elite schools in the UK).

A relatively small number of schools shaped a class of people who all thought in exactly the same way, so they would behave predictably even when far away and in a new context.

Public schools, are not coincidentally noted for a focus on 'playing by the rules' and 'fair play', as inculcated through sport. Not to mention never breaking your word. All handy traits if your goal is breeding administrators you can trust without supervision.

Lol, Gowanus canal

I feel bad we didn't get dang anything.

I don't know the book, but I assume the criticism is that a rich person can give money to alleviate suffering, but by the same token their wealth means they will not have to experience the suffering intimately. The richer they are, the more money they can give, and, also, the more remote the suffering.

Here's a thought - through proactively seeking help by posting on HN, you just made it to the front page.

You got feedback from people across the world. Some highly skilled (and paid) people stopped what they are doing to help because they understand and want to help. There are a lot of people who want to help. Some have been where you are.

Most people on this thread are vastly more positive about your outlook than you are - some of them because of their personal experience. The only person who thinks you are completely stuck is you.

As many other people have said, even if everything else is too complex, you need to get a therapist. Use your savings if you have to. If it's not working, get another therapist until you find the right one. It will work.

Yes this. I've been on Twitter for decade, it's nice to be somewhere different.

I'm an unashamed Mastodon advocate.

Firstly, a significant fraction of the most interesting accounts I follow on Twitter have moved to Mastodon.

Secondly, Mastodon feels incredibly fresher than Twitter, which has completely ossified.

Thirdly, I know this sounds slightly contradictory, but it really is quite a lot like Twitter, in terms of recreating the good aspects of Twitter.

"Nothing is any good if other people like it."

Isn't Gladwell's crime being too popular? And perhaps honing his style of writing so much that it seems like a pastiche of itself?

I think perhaps some people wanted reading Gladwell-esque pop-intellectual books to mark them out as sophisticated, and that stops working when you realize that everyone has read them. Perhaps Gladwell just personifies that effect.

In a way, performatively declaring Gladwell is a midwit writer is classic midwit behaviour. The next escalation in the opinion arms race is to declare that a sophisticated reading proves Gladwell is actually a genius.

Do you think your 'selection criteria' are the same as other people's? I expect you've seen people who you think are perceived as attractive but are not yourself attracted to? I'm sure your 'selection criteria' are unique in many ways.

What I'm coming to is that generalizing about what any women are attracted to (value?) is unwarranted. Different people want radically different things.