The way COVID responses developed augers very poorly for future emergencies. We responded to worst case scenarios with a chainsaw when a scalpel was more appropriate. This was heavily influenced by conjecture on social media. See the SVB bank run as another example of panic on social media being a virus itself.
Readit NewsPraetorianGourd commented on Anthony Fauci Fesses Up wsj.com/articles/anthony-... · Posted by u/miles
You can get Oxycodone (usually Mundipharma) in blister packs in the UK/EU from dealers. More common than lose pills.
My larger point is that if the dealers can make identical looking counterfeits, including imprints, then I am pretty confident they can make legit looking blister packs as well.
Wow I didn't know that grey/black-market dealers used blister packs in the EU. Unless you are implying that the bogus Vicodin he took was pharmacist provided, which is absolutely absurd. The US has a lot of problems, but the safety of legally-obtained medicine is not one of them.
It's Starlink.
SpaceX owns Starlink, it is a product of theirs.
Yeah, paying billions for something you currently get for free would certainly cut into profits by quite a bit. Ford would make a lot more money if they didn't need to pay for metal, plastic, or electricity.
PraetorianGourd commented on The Westminster Declaration westminsterdeclaration.or... · Posted by u/t0bia_s
Go back to, say, the 1980s.
Imagine if you submitted a letter to the editor to a newspaper and got back a response saying they were refusing to print it because it violates their rules for appropriate content.
Now imagine you storm into the lobby of the newspapers' office accusing them of censorship and demanding that they print your letter. They'd call the police to please remove the crazy person. Nobody would have argued that you are entitled to having a letter published in someone else's newspaper. That's clearly insane.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are entitled to use someone else's property as a platform. The vast majority of the complaints about "free speech" I see today are people who seem to believe this. It's like we've become so accustomed to free (ad supported) social media that we've started to think it's some kind of entitlement.
There are very few things you can say (in the US) that will get you actually censored. I can think of copyright infringement, explicit threats of violence (and the bar there is very high), or child pornography. Other than those you can pretty much say anything you please. I am not aware of any time in the history of civilization when speech has been this free.
Edit: I must point out that my comment is US-centric. There are quite a few places in the world that don't take free speech as seriously. But I don't get the impression that's what this petition is about. It's about "cancel culture" which means "people refusing to let me use their property for free to promote any message I want."
That isn't the concern. The concern is that the "rules for appropriate content" have been moved to restrict views that, while outside the mainstream, are not hateful or violent. The most obvious example being the suppression of COVID origins or criticism of COVID response policies:
Saying that "I believe COVID was the result of a lab leak, here is my evidence" versus Saying "I believe COVID was the result of a lab leak, here is my evidence, and as a result we should [do something violent/illegal]"
See the difference? The former should _not_ be restricted under any circumstance, even if the "evidence" is bunk. Let the fact that the evidence is bunk sink the theory, not the moderators. The latter, on the other hand, contains a call to violence, so it should reasonably be restricted.
Of course, a privately owned platform like Twitter/X could say the former isn't allowed on their platform and they would be within their rights to restrict it. However if they restrict it because of pressure from the US government, that falls into a more precarious situation.
Of course the 1st amendment only applies to the government. Platforms can restrict anything they want with or without explanation. But the government can't pressure platforms to restrict things, that _does_ violate the 1st amendment, as the private company is then acting as a proxy for the government.
PraetorianGourd commented on Killing Windows 10 in 2025 could turn PCs into eWaste liliputing.com/lilbits-ki... · Posted by u/edward
I’m curious what was so egregious about my comment that you felt the need to flag it. That seems like a pretty extreme thing to do over pointing out a clear example of whataboutism.
I didn't flag it. I don't believe that I've ever flagged a comment. I believe doing so removes the opportunity for dialog and only serves to give the illusion of consensus or harmony
PraetorianGourd commented on Killing Windows 10 in 2025 could turn PCs into eWaste liliputing.com/lilbits-ki... · Posted by u/edward
This trope is getting tired. It is perfectly valid to ask why an author of a piece focused on one company and not another. It is perfectly valid to point out that while _x_ does a thing, _y_ also does the thing. It doesn't invalidate the original criticism at all, in fact "how would I feel if a company/person/country I admire did this?" is an incredibly useful tool to check against one's own biases.
Calling something what-about-ism doesn't contribute to a discussion, it kills it. And it doesn't support the point nor does it refute the counterpoint.. It just dismisses any opportunity for discussion.
PraetorianGourd commented on California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment reuters.com/business/auto... · Posted by u/ra7
> I would argue that it is less due to politics and "safe streets" being an extreme position and more to do with the fact that _entire metropolitan areas_ are designed around the car.
These are the same thing.
> It would literally require starting from scratch in many places to design a city around non-car ownership.
No, it wouldn't. This is part of the common set of myths that are promulgated around car dominance in America. There are many, many things that can be done to retrofit streets to be less oriented around car dominance, many of them not terribly expensive or time consuming (though admittedly the very best options do tend to be infrastructure that's expensive and time consuming).
For example, one thing Portland has done in some of its neighborhoods is to create neighborhood greenways, with concrete structures/blockers at some intersections that force you to turn, so that cars can't use the street as a 'through street' for commuting (but it's still possible to reach everywhere with a car for residents). This is fairly cheap and easy to do, it's just a matter of political will.
Here's an example picture (though the exact type of blocking structure can vary): https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/styles/max_768w...
This is a big improvement that doesn't require redoing the whole street or anything, just a few concrete dividers and a little paint along a street maybe every four or five intersections, enough to make it impractical to use for longer-distance car commuting.
Some other things that are usually relatively cheap to add to existing streets:
* Automated speed cameras
* Roundabouts
* Chicanes
* Protected bike lanes, using basic dividers
* Dedicated bus lanes
* Better bus stops that at least have some kind of roof and bench
* Zoning rule changes that play well with density, like allowing light retail in currently residential-only zones, or allowing 'missing middle' housing
These are off the top of my head, but I know there are more.
I am very familiar with Portland ;), the green ways are cool for sure. Except if I am on Salmon or Clinton and want to go to Fred Meyer, I need to ride on 39th or Hawthorne at _some point_, which to a lot of people is a non-starter due to danger.
Besides, suburbs exist, and someone living in Sherwood who works in Portland, at this time, requires a car. And public transit would need to be either faster, cheaper, or more convenient (wifi, coffee etc) than driving for (most) people to adopt it over a car.
And Hawthorne is _super confusing_ now. Turning right from Hawthorne to 10th is a nightmare, you have a bus lane, a bike lane and a sidewalk to the right of you, all of which could contain someone. It is hard to accurately see all three "lanes" that you need to cross. Another example is the Hawthorne bridge onto 99E, the angle is below 90 degrees so you end up with a massive blind spot. I start looking for bikes/peds way before the off-ramp because I am used to it.. someone from out of town or who rarely drives in Portland is going to kill or injure someone.
They also contribute to path wear since they allow people who have no business being on the tails due to lack of fitness to use them.
Also holy shit, the potholes from eBike riders more or less burning out from standing or trying to go up slopes they are unable to. Fuck eBike riders on trails.