banning all major social media from city owned devices would be better
TikTok is a massive confidentiality hazard, but the only major difference between it and facebook is who its sending a live feed of every click, step and toilet break to
Considering the pollution-saturated world we live in at the moment, it’s very likely both.
The article does mention that more sensitive screenings are partially responsible, but the specific cancers they were looking at are largely digestive or related to obesity/diet and alcohol (but probably a lot of other unsavory shit in our food as well).
There were some demographics for whom the cancer rates fell, but this can likely be attributed to social health campaigns (like anti-smoking).
Don't forget women have historically received worse care, than their male counterparts. In addition, since much of medicine/treatments/tests/etc has been tested on men only, there are gap in care for women because the same things may not be true for them as a man.
So, yes, both are probably true, but I think there is a quality of care improvement for part of the population, finally. Even if it's only minor
Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children’s ice cream!..You know when fluoridation first began?..1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That’s the way a hard-core Commie works.
Hardly any cancers grow so slowly, that they would be found decades before they caused symptoms.
For your hypothesis to be true, a cancer would need to be detectable today (but not 20 years ago) in an adult (say, 30), but not cause any symptoms until the 40s or 50s (where cancer cases were "traditionally detected). That’s rather unlikely.
At risk of angering the vast majority of the fuck cars community, it’s generally because I live 30 minutes from my job by highway, and can’t afford to live within walking distance. And they won’t let us telework. I really really want to actually live close enough to bike.
Right? I honestly can’t wait until self driving cars take up enough of the market share that manual driving cars will be outlawed (or at least getting insurance on them will be astronomically expensive)
Not to mention that self driving cars will be the destruction of the environment.
If you don’t want to drive, try to use public transportation or possibly human powered vehicles such as bicycles. Cars are bad enough as is. The only reason I even drive is to go to work and the grocery store in my town with basically no public transportation other than taxis.
I have no clue how you came to the conclusion that self driving cars would be more harmful to the environment than human driven ones, but even if the number of cars on the road remained the sane (it would actually drastically decrease), and even if all self driving cars were ICEs, vehicle emissions would still drastically stop.
If every car was self driving, then every car would know the position of every other car around it and be able to communicate to every other car. Traffic jams would cease to exist, and potentially even stopping at intersections would go away too.
But, the reality is that once self driving cars reach that critical mass, owning a car won’t be a thing anymore. You’ll pay a service to shuttle you around. Hell, if the service was a public utility then it would be trivial to set up ride sharing for a reduced rate. That would be what drastically decreases the amount of cars on the road.
Because self driving cars would allow people who otherwise couldn’t drive for themselves to own yet another car on the road. Teenagers, elderly, people with chronic alcohol addiction, you get the idea.
I don’t fully buy the “no traffic jams or accidents” thing either. There is definitely the potential for there to be less, but what you are talking about is something that isn’t going to happen for ateast another decade. Surely you remember the Tesla crisis from the last year?
I can see ride sharing becoming a thing for the people under the poverty line, but realistically speaking, everyone is going to buy a car. There is no incentive for a billions of dollars company to put less cars on the road using ride sharing, some of them already sell you heated seats in the form of a monthly subscription.
You’re making the mistake of applying the behavior of people today with the behavior of people over a decade from now.
Truly autonomous vehicles would fundamentally change the way the world views transportation, it will just take a while to get to that point.
By the time we get to a critical mass of self driving cars, it’s very likely that owning cars won’t be a thing outside of the wealthy.
The organizations that will be running the transportation services will have a vested interest in keeping as few vehicles in a fleet as possible, thus removing vehicles from the road (if we haven’t reached that point by the time self driving cars are a real thing)
Also the idea that the people who couldn’t otherwise own a car would suddenly have $50k+ to go out and buy an autonomous vehicle is silly.
Paying attention to trends is not a mistake, and if anything, consumerism has ramped up much higher over the past few decades, steadily rising even through the great recession.
Yes the cost of living has gone up, but there are fallacies in your argument.
If only the wealthy can afford to buy self driving cars, that does not remove regular cars from the road, if anything regular cars would likely wind up becoming cheaper, potentially putting MORE cars on the road.
I agree with the point of organizations, but keep in mind I only agree when it comes to mass public transportation, such as a bus, or a train. The idea of having a car potentially driving a single occupant is incredibly wasteful.
Why are you assuming that the types of people I mentioned cannot afford a $50k vehicle? Those are people who are not inherently broke, they just do not typically have driving privileges. Even then, you are aware that most people do not outright buy a car, correct? Most people finance a vehicle over the course of several years, doing so otherwise is uncommon and dealerships actually hate when you do this because it cuts heavily into their profits because a dealership is essentially a car loanshark supermarket.
Not the cars themselves but I think it’ll happen like this: self driving cars will eventually get good enough that they will have a lower accident rate in certain conditions, like highways. Insurance companies will push for self-driving-only lanes on the highway, while not lowering your rates but charging you extra for manual driving. Then it will be segments of highways, then certain surface streets, etc. Eventually you’ll only be driving the “last mile” if it’s a personal car or relying on a service that sends self-driving cars and drops you off on the corner. Manual driving on public streets will mostly disappear.
What dumb is that we can improve public transit today. Unlike self driving cars, there is no technological barrier. The only thing stopping us from improving public transit is that fact that humans (especially in North America) are selfish, greedy, easily manipulated, and apathetic.
Public transit doesn’t improve because not enough people don’t want to use public transit and not enough people want to use public transit because it doesn’t improve.
When I think back to how immature and reckless I was as a teenager I can’t believe I was legally allowed to drive and considered a full grown adult at the age of 18.
I feel like number of tickets sold, or maybe proportion of total tickets sold would be a better metric, but it’s way more fun to keep breaking records. Plus it’s mostly about the money anyways.
Not without some intent and effort :D But shit’s blurred, because some use social media in their workplace communications for some reason. InfoSec is too hard of a concept for many.
We’re dealing with drought and water restrictions in the US, too. Is it because we’re genocidal lunatics who hate citizens of certain states?
The real complaint here isn’t that the Palestinians are going thirsty. It’s that they aren’t getting enough water to farm?
I’m not quite sure what Palestinians thought was going to happen when they rejected peace offer after peace offer, and turned instead to non-stop terrorism.
Did they think Israelis were going to say: “oh, sure, you’re constantly launching thousands of rockets at our kids, but hey, let us spend a ton of money upgrading your infrastructure for you.”
Palestinians are vastly outmatched militarily, so for decades they’ve had exactly two options: make peace with Israel on their terms, or keep doing terrorism, and hoping that they’ll get international sympathy when Israel retaliates, and that international pressure will force Israel to … accept a peace treaty that leaves Israel with indefensible borders and an influx of Palestinian citizens that would use their vote to turn Israel into a Jew-hating Muslim theocracy.
At a certain point, you’d think Palestinians would start caring more about their kids’ futures than their hatred of Israel.
If they’d accepted peace under the offer made during the Oslo Accords, they would have had their own state for about 30 years now, with the ability to grow an economy, manage their own infrastructure, etc.
The Oslo Accords were a cycle of negotiations and agreements. With every round, it looked like they were getting closer to an agreement.
In the end the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat killed the negotiation at camp David. He would not budge on several issues, but key among them was “right of return”.
Essentially “right of return” would instantly give full citizenship and voting rights to a vast amount of fantastic anti-Jewish Arabs, who would very shortly thereafter have been able to vote Israel out of existence by turning it from a democracy into a Muslim theocracy. And like all other Muslim theocracies, they would have been terrible if not genocidal to their Jewish citizens.
Arafat not only quit the peace process, he declared a “second antifada” … meaning a new call for the most foul terrorism: blowing up school buses, ambulances, targeting Jewish children for death, etc.
A bit later when Arafat died, we found out WHY he killed the peace process: while his people were impoverished and suffering, Arafat himself was hoarding nearly A BILLION DOLLARS in what was supposed to be humanitarian aid money for this people.
Arafat stopped the piece process because war was allowing him to retain power, and grow his obscene wealth.
It’s wild to me how anti-Palestine the other comments are. Like somehow Palestinians are the terrorists in this scenario when Israel is the one with US backing.
Had an old now-former friend try to show me videos of Palestinian kids throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers, while attempting to demonize them. I responded with like 5 videos of Israeli soldiers being needlessly cruel to both kids and adults. The conversation ended right then and there.
The propaganda runs deep. Fuck the colonial mindset.
Palestinians are the terrorists because they literally are the terrorists.
As in, they deliberately target civilians, often specifically CHILDREN for death.
Is there misconduct in the Israeli army? Absolutely. But that is WORLDS apart from adopting a government POLICY of targeting children.
I think Israel has shown extraordinary restraint given that the Palestinians have been actively trying to murder their children for DECADES, including electing a government that had the GENOCIDE of Jews as part of their written charter.
I don’t agree with any of the religious drivers in the scenario, and I definitely don’t agree with targeting children at all, but this is also retaliation for having their land and homes stolen and decimated for decades. You can’t paint an animal into a corner and not expect it to bite you. We’re talking about an army backed by the country with the biggest military budget in the world, vs people that don’t even have a roof over their heads or crops because the aforementioned army has forcefully taken them away. The only outcome of that kind of scenario is going to be desperation and violence.
So if they’re considered the only terrorists in this scenario, they were forced into that role. These 2 sides could simply share the land like sane people, but religion has yet again become the wedge.
It’s indisputably evil what the United States did in stealing land and commiting genocide against the Native Americans. (I’d argue that Israel’s founding was far more just, but let’s say for a moment that it was equally horrific).
So, if today, Native Americans were launching thousands of rockets from their reservations, targeting civilians, targeting kids, and saying they won’t stop until we give them California, New York, New England, half of Washington DC, AND adopt a political reform that will inevitably lead to dissolving democracy and replacing it with a theocracy…
What the hell would you say the solution to that is?
At what point would you say to the Native Americans, “what happened to you was a tragedy, but the reality is we’re so far down this road it will never be undone. We need to find a way to move forward with that shared reality”?
Because that’s the situation in Israel.
The Palestinians are demanding (with no leverage) that Israel adopt a peace deal that would destroy Israel’s form of government and their ability to defend themselves from hostile nations (which they are surrounded by).
Israel will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever do that. They can’t. It would be governmental malpractice to do it.
So what, they are just supposed to let the Palestinians launch thousands of rockets at them … out of guilt?
There’s only ONE way this ends: Palestinians admit that they lost. It might not be fair. It might not be justice. But it is REALITY.
And then they need to take the best peace deal Israel is willing to offer.
… this is the reality they walked away from 20+ years ago.
That’s an entire generation of Palestinian children growing up in an incredibly shitty situation.
Meanwhile, Israel said “fuck this”, built an iron dome defense system, built a border fence, and have economically thrived.
They can literally keep going like this indefinitely. And as time goes on they only get more and more bitter at the Palestinian terrorism. So they keep leaning harder and harder on hardliner politicians, who say "well, if Palestinians are going to be our enemies no matter what, why shouldn’t we just take and take and take?
You do know that the native Americans absolutely fought the United States every step of the way right. They used to scalp captured americans, hang them from trees burn down their towns. You’d also know after they were forced to surrender due to the colonizers overwhelming power, and signed treaties, the colonizer constantly broke the treaties, and slowly but surely took every scrap of their native lands. Then thet forcibly moved them to some of the most desolate lands in the US and stole their children to civilize them from their barbarian ways. And today, the once thriving native tribes are forced to live on reservations that have some of the most extreme poverty in the United States.
Correct. And my question to you is: if they were launching thousands of rockets at civilians, and all the other things I mentioned above… what do you do? That’s Israel’s situation.
Israel is by most accounts a nuclear power, and their conventional military is one of the strongest in the world. If they were committing genocide it would have been over and done decades ago.
The Palestinian population is growing, not shrinking.
There are plenty of Palestinians who are Israel citizens, and they enjoy all the same rights and privileges as any other Israeli citizen, including the ability to hold office in government.
There’s only one side of this conflict that is hell-bent on genocide: Palestinians. They elected a government that had GENOCIDE of the Jews in their written charter. We’re just very fortunate that they don’t have the ability to carry out their desires.
The Israeli Security Minister literally has multiple hate speech convictions and a terrorism conviction and notoriously had a Framed photo of a Jew nationalist mass murderer in his living room. He also lives in an illegal settlement.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.