I’m a school bus driver and I used to use my high vantage point to count how many passing drivers were looking at their phones instead of ahead of them, and I estimated that it was about 1 in 4. I even had a cop pass me while I had my lights on and kids were about the cross - he was face down in his phone and driving with one hand.
I stopped counting for the sake of my mental health. I truly don’t understand why I don’t see multiple collisions a day because of this shit.
Oh don’t you know? Cops are trained in the use of technology while driving so it’s perfectly safe for them to be buried in their phones or that fucking laptop they have mounted on their center console while running red lights at 80 mph without their sirens on. Don’t even worry about it.
You haven’t been proven guilty of anything when you’re in jail. it should not be punitive. Innocent until proven guilty.
When he gets to prison, by all means go ahead (I mean I believe in rehabilitation not retribution but that’s personal); until then why not treat him like a human?
Whenever I see a story about Tennessee, I like to post this Stephen Lynch song. www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6VjNmyv_i4 Trust me, it is well worth a listen.
It’s funny, growing up near a steel mill/train hub, I took for granted how confused other people might be about what the hell “coke” is.
On-topic - I once looked up stats for estimated premature deaths due to industry in our area and it was eye-opening. I really want to get out of here.
Crazy how people have the ability to overlook/ignore deaths caused by things as long as the deaths are a bit more gradual. A hundred premature deaths over the course of a year or so is practically nothing on the public’s radar, but if an accidental release at the mill killed a single person downwind, there’d be hell to pay.
I don’t think prison should be punitive, but I REALLY don’t think jail should be punitive. You haven’t been proven guilty of anything when you’re in jail.
All of the food served in prison/jail is dogshit and it’s not ok. Edible food is a human right. People with ethically based diet restrictions should be protected the same way that religiously based diet restrictions are.
Belief in a make believe sky-daddy doesn’t make one persons ethical dietary choices more important than another’s. Maybe the Satanic Temple can step in and help out the incarcerated vegans. That seems up their alley.
Yes, you’re right. They should both get nutritious food. It’s not a competition. Everyone under care of the state should get nutritious, decent food. In fact even those that aren’t under care of the state should.
How about: at least in my town at police department holding cells, they make you pay and they go get takeout. There’s no legitimate reason to not offer a choice of takeout
I have noticed for a supposedly progressive network, there are a lot of posts recently on news stories about prisoners supporting capital punishment and wishing prison violence on them. Very odd stuff.
I’m hesitant to say PINO but there is definitely a cadre of folks who want (for example) food and shelter for the homeless and for their enemies to starve to death in a ditch.
This has been repeated in case studies around the world since then but the Nuremberg Trials were the first public use of “But of course the other officers at Auschwitz were terrible people but I am not a terrible person!” The psychology would be interesting if it weren’t so frikkin horrific. But I suspect SBF isn’t that so much as a complete and total narcissist and sociopath.
Some of these “enemies” dehumanise themselves very easily. Narcisistic sociopaths who actively and openly brag about manipulating “idiots”, saying they’re the best shit to ever grace the earth and downplay their crimes while laughing all the way to the bank to withdraw ill gotten gains? Yeah, real hard to believe they’d ever want to redeem themselves.
Couple that with the general feeling that rich assholes always get lightly punished whenever they’re caught and it’s even easier to understand the bloodlust for “proper punishment” against them.
I think it has more to do with rich people getting away with murder because they are rich while homeless people getting the worst punishment for stealing a loaf of bread or sleeping on a bench.
And the rest of society getting sick and tired of it, so I see their sentiment.
I don’t believe in capital punishment though, let alone a death sentence.
Do you really expect a jail to cook things in butter? If they could get away with it, they would probably cook things in waste oil from the next garage.
True enough, but it was just an example. More likely something like mashed potato will have milk or other dairy. Even vegetarian nutriloaf might not qualify as vegan.
Point is not everything that starts out vegan ends up vegan on the plate.
I will say that it gives me hope that so many people are pushing back in threads like this. I’ve been trying a lot of platforms in recent months, and places like Tildes, HackerNews, and even Beehaw seem to be better able to have constructive conversations about heated topics. So we’re not alone!
I don’t mind more nuclear if it’s done in a modern and safe fashion. The US has a tendency to build old fashioned water cooled reactors that output nuclear waste that we have to find a place for. And we do stupid things like building them on fault lines and flood zones.
If this magical reliable, cheap, abundant, fast to deploy molten salt handling technology existed, the people with it would be dominating the storage industry with carnot batteries on every abandoned (and active) coal plant as well as the solar industry with 2c/kWh CSP.
The current gen nuclear reactors are the only ones that have a chance of being built with all the known drawbacks. And even if we started building them like crazy, it would still not be enough to meaningfully contribute to mitigating climate change. All the other designs, like Thorium or SMRs are just pure science fiction and at best decades away from being viable.
I hope that these decisions don’t become more widespread.
Edit: For the sake of clarity, I, of course, respect the fact that a private business is free to make such decisions, and I do understand that the likely reason for this decision was to, as was mentioned, reduce profit loss by keeping employees healthy, but I still do not wish for mask mandates to make a widespread return; their all-too-recent existence is not a memory that I think too fondly of.
I have no desire for someone to force something on me “for my own good”. If something is truly beneficial, then the public will freely adopt it; people generally won’t willingly endanger themselves. What the conversation should be about is if you are endangering the life of another.
Side note, your argument for throwing ice on stairs is lacking scope. If it was one’s personal stairs then by all means; however, an area that is to be expected to be used by the public cannot willfully endanger them; If not a criminal charge, then it is certainly a lawsuit waiting to happen. As for removing car brakes, again that depends on exactly what you mean. If the car is not in such a state that would recklessly endanger the life of another, then why would it matter?
All in all, one should look at things in such a way as to balance public safety, and individual liberty. It is always a trade off. I personally would err on the side of liberty, but this is not without its realistic restrictions.
That question is a little more complicated than one that can be answered by a simple “yes”, or “no”. The simplest answer that I can give is that I’m not opposed to wearing a mask; however, whether or not I would choose to wear one is highly dependent on circumstance.
If something is truly beneficial, then the public will freely adopt it
Hah. Look up how some people fought seat belt laws. Just like masks and vaccines they're not actually doing much most of the time, but you'll be glad to have them when it matters, or rather you will be missing them when it matters.
You just left out the rest of the sentence when you quoted “… but you’ll be glad to have them when it matters, or rather you will be missing them when it matters.”
And the point is most people don’t get in daily car accidents, and putting on your mask doesn’t necessarily mean you will be exposed to a disease that day. They are a type of safety precaution you sometimes use in situations where they don’t do anything, and that doesn’t mean that they were useless, it means no dangerous stuff happened.
That kind of danger, the kind that only gets you 1/10 times, is the kind people are famously bad at understanding. Our instincts say if someone survived doing something unharmed that it is safe, but sometimes riding in a car is safe and sometimes it isn’t. We get too easily comfortable with things we shouldn’t have because their consequences are delayed or inconsistent, and it happens everywhere.
Eta: I find it odd that the masks bother you more than the spreading disease that they are a “symptom” of. Personally, for over a decade now, I had hoped that sick people around here would start wearing medical masks on their own prerogative, like many other places/cultures already do. It feels on par with washing your hands to me. But then it became a political issue…
You just left out the rest of the sentence when you quoted “… but you’ll be glad to have them when it matters, or rather you will be missing them when it matters.”
Why would one “be missing them”? I would assume that whatever one needs to reduce risk would generally be available should they have need.
And the point is most people don’t get in daily car accidents, and putting on your mask doesn’t necessarily mean you will be exposed to a disease that day. They are a type of safety precaution you sometimes use in situations where they don’t do anything, and that doesn’t mean that they were useless, it means no dangerous stuff happened.
Again, though, why should the government force people to do what is wise for their own personal health, and saftety? A person can assess their own risk, and act accordingly.
I find it odd that the masks bother you more than the spreading disease that they are a “symptom” of.
I have no qualm with the use of masks – in actuality, I would encourage it. What I take issue with is the enforcement of their use.
Speed limits, and seat belts are not equivelant examples. A speed limit is a restriction on risk to others, and property, a seatbelt is a reduction on the risk to only oneself, unless one has passengers, but even that has its logical limits. I can perhaps see the parallel you are drawing with speed limits, but I’m not entirely sure that it is necessarily an accurate comparison to make. To speed requires willful intent to endanger. As such, I could see it being argued that it is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Not wearing a mask, however, is really only willful intent to endanger anothor if one is knowingly ill, and willfully spreads it to others (and, if so, it should be punished accordingly); however, if one is not knowingly ill, then there is no aggression.
Hm, that is a fair point. Perhaps it should come down to reasonably articulable suspicion of public endangerment. You are quite right that ignorance of one’s wrongdoing is no excuse. So perhaps I should restate what I had originally said to instead be that one should only be held accountable if they are spreading a communicable disease to others if they could, on reasonable grounds, be aware of their illness prior to spreading it.
Your mask isn’t there for your own good. Wearing a mask may reduce the viral load you may receive if you’re exposed, improving the odds your immune system can stamp out any nascent infection, but that’s just a bonus.
The purpose of a mask in a mask mandate is to protect others from you in the event you’re infected but in the window between becoming infectious and becoming symptomatic and therefore aware (and possibly beyond if you’re the kind of person that knowingly mixes with others and coughs openly when sick). Because it’s for people who don’t know they’re sick, it only works if everyone does it. So it’s mandated for the good of the whole.
This was particularly important with the original strain of SARS-COV-2 because it had a particularly long incubation period.
The more aggressive variants since, along with more sensitive immune responses in most people due to vaccination, exposure, or both have shrunk that window significantly, but it hasn’t disappeared.
General, society wide, mandates aren’t imo necessary under the prevailing conditions, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be situations (close knit group with a spike in cases for example) where reintroducing such rules make sense.
Your mask isn’t there for your own good. Wearing a mask may reduce the viral load you may receive if you’re exposed, improving the odds your immune system can stamp out any nascent infection, but that’s just a bonus. The purpose of a mask in a mask mandate is to protect others from you in the event you’re infected but in the window between becoming infectious and becoming symptomatic and therefore aware (and possibly beyond if you’re the kind of person that knowingly mixes with others and coughs openly when sick). Because it’s for people who don’t know they’re sick, it only works if everyone does it.
This is, indeed, a critical issue to note. When thinking about such types of policy (I’m referring to policy on the government level), I try to follow the “non-aggression principle”. What one must then ask is: “Does not wearing a mask violate the NAP?”. If one is aware of their transmissable ilness and is knowingly spreading it to others by not wearing a mask, then this certainly would be a violation of the NAP. In such cases, one would be required to wear a mask. Now if we are talking about a case where an individual isn’t ill, yet their bodily autonomy is still being infringed upon by being forced to wear a mask, then this would also be a violation of the NAP. That being said, things become a bit more grey if we are talking about the situation where one could transmit an ilness asymptomatically. I’m inclined to say that, in this transition point, it would be best to rely on people’s own precautionary measures like getting vaccinated, and self-masking; however, I agree that I am biased into this line of thought. (Some extra discussion if you are interested)
This was particularly important with the original strain of SARS-COV-2 because it had a particularly long incubation period.
Please forgive me if I am incorrect – epidemiology is certainly not my strong suit – but isn’t this statement contradictory? I have the understanding that “incubation period” means that one is asymptomatic while the virus replicates within themself.
Incubation period (also known as the latent period or latency period) is the time elapsed between exposure to a pathogenic organism, a chemical, or radiation, and when symptoms and signs are first apparent. – Wikipedia:
If one is asymptomatic (no coughing, no runny nose, no sneezing, etc.) then wouldn’t they not be transmitting the virus? The only thing that I can think of is that one may be sluffing off virus through physical contact, but, if so, there are a few issues: the first issue would be that masking would then become pointless, and the other would be that one could simply wash their hands after contact, unless, of course, we are talking about a virus that could hypothetically be absorbed through the skin.
General, society wide, mandates aren’t imo necessary under the prevailing conditions, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be situations (close knit group with a spike in cases for example) where reintroducing such rules make sense.
I have no issue with a closed group deciding to implement such restrictions amongst themselves; people are free to do as they wish so long as it does not infringe on the lives of others. I just, personally, hope that this doesn’t become more widespread, yet again.
If something is truly beneficial, then the public will freely adopt it; people generally won’t willingly endanger themselves.
You’re extremely naive if you think that’s true. Explain the thousands upon thousand of COVID death that were due to people not following the most vanilla guidelines to prevent that from happening in the first place.
I did say “generally”. Also, in the general sense – I’m not specifically talking about Covid – if a person chooses to endanger themself, then that is not of my concern.
TSA mandates will be announced in about a week. It’s already been leaked. Two weeks to slow the spread. Literally. Same playbook as last time. I expect them to stick around for much much longer.
It’s all over the regular places that would report that kind of thing. There’s a coordinated leak and media thing that seems to be going on. I’ve even seen it reported on YT in the last couple of days. They started with the new strain new booster news a couple days ago in mass media, which was another thing leaked 2 weeks ago.
It’s all over the regular places that would report that kind of thing.
I remind you, this is not a source. The entire point of citing a source is so that the reader is not required to assume the information’s origin, nor to place trust in its purveyor.
Just like reddit, giving a specific source turns the discussion to the source. Go use your preferred search engine. I told you there’s fish in that spot. I’m not going to hand you the fish because you don’t like fishing.
Just like reddit, giving a specific source turns the discussion to the source.
I’m sorry, what? This statement makes little sense. Are you saying that you are opposed to citing sources because you think that someone will claim that your source is non-trustworthy? That is litterally the entire point of citing a source.
Ironically, if one does look into your claim, they may come across this article. A nice excerpt from it is as follows:
CLAIM: Transportation Security Administration managers were told on Aug. 15 that by mid-September they, along with airport employees, will again be required to wear face masks and by mid-October the policy will apply to travelers as well. Further, the managers were told that COVID-19 lockdowns will return by December.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. No such announcement was made to TSA managers, an agency spokesperson told The Associated Press. A spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issued a now-expired travel mask mandate in 2021, confirmed that such rumors are “utterly false.”
THE FACTS: With COVID-19 hospitalizations steadily inching up in the U.S. since early July, some on social media are falsely claiming that federal employees were told that mask requirements and other pandemic-era restrictions will start returning this fall.
The claim originated on the Aug. 18 episode of “The Alex Jones Show,” where its namesake host said an anonymous “high-level manager in the TSA” and an unnamed “Border Patrol-connected” source told him about the alleged announcement. Jones is known for spreading conspiracy theories.
It's been a week, I'm still waiting on those TSA mandates. ... Hell, I'm still waiting on the National Guard's mass round-ups into those non-existent FEMA camps ....
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.