I am not normally one to cry “ableism!” but seriously. If technology allows more people to enjoy nature and trails, awesome. Nature of all places doesn’t need your gatekeeping.
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.
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.
A big part of the problem in America is ignorance with regards to how the rest of the world does medicine/drugs. Europe, the UK, Israel and the rest of the modern world use blister packs that are harder to counterfeit than loose pills.
Here in the USA our analogy would be Marlboro cigarettes. It would be much easier to make counterfeit loose Marlboro cigarettes than to make a counterfeit sealed box of Marlboros. Buying a bunch of loose Marlboros from a stranger isn't something most Americans would do while buying a sealed pack of Marlboros anywhere from anyone is something most smokers would do as there's very little risk. People recognize branding and packaging and can tell if any detail is off even just slightly. It's incredibly rare for counterfeiters to get every packaging detail right to the point that it will pass visual/physical inspection.
America lags behind the modern world in our pharmaceutical tech.
Here's an example of a blister pack that uses a wide range of different doses in an easy to use package that would help patients taper down gradually to avoid pitfalls. In the USA this would require multiple prescriptions and typically just wouldn't be done. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-022-07862-1
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
My understanding was that Chinese consumers (generally) prefer cars with much longer wheel-bases than American consumers. While it is true that SUVs popular in the US may be taller than a long-wheel-base sedan, I am not sure the GVWR is that different between the two. Besides, the batteries are the biggest source of weight in an electric car by a lot,
What I can see as being a difference maker is the need (real or imagined) of a lot of American consumers to tow something. Towing _does_ require a lot more energy and thus batteries.
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. It would literally require starting from scratch in many places to design a city around non-car ownership.
You can argue that it is a net negative that a lot of America, and most of the American west, was built and grew in conjunction with the car, but it is not entirely fair to say the only impediment is culture and politics.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
That's what protected bike lanes are for. Basic ones aren't that expensive, really, the issue is more the road space. Cars dominate the existing space, and many, perhaps most drivers will scream bloody murder at losing any. They don't want equality and choice, they want dominance and everyone forced to drive.
> Besides, suburbs exist, and someone living in Sherwood who works in Portland, at this time, requires a car.
"Besides" nothing, you're talking about an almost entirely separate issue now. Obviously bikes aren't great for really long distance commutes for most people, they're more for short to medium distance trips. And yes, that's where public transit comes into play -- with people able to walk or bike to the stations.
> 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.
Yup, that's where you throw in bus lanes everywhere. Places like London have heavy adoption of bus lanes that lets taking the bus often be faster than driving by yourself.
> 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.
I admit that I'm not that familiar with Portland, but protected intersections are a solved problem. Takes more money than the other things I've mentioned so far for sure, but it's still quite doable.
While I understand your point, this comment is pretty close to trite comments like "downvote me if you want, but..." or "does anyone else..." or even the sinful "first!". It sets a negative tone for everyone else who clicks on the comments, and can immediately put people on the defensive (such as someone who wasn't planning on commenting, but now will to refute your point etc.)
I don't disagree and it was posted somewhat tongue in cheek. That said, I did hope it might raise some commentary or insight into why Hacker News seems to have such a vocal cohort of posters on climate change related articles. For a community that prides itself of being logical and scientific, I've found it quite surprising how many here go against the scientific consensus on climate change.
