gljiva

As I understand it, the last sentence stems from the fact that too large of a share of the total wealth is in the hands of those that don't benefit from more homes. AI is what's prioritised by them and what will lead to even smaller flow from the efficient wealth aggregators to those needing homes, once most of the simpler office work becomes obsolete, because, let's be real, average person's reasoning, work-pay efficiency, obedience and meticulousness shouldn't be too hard to surpass with AI in a few years. AI also makes it easier to prevent a change in status quo, while being harmful to the environment and decreasing the share of current-level-of-above-average-quality-user-oriented output.

So yeah, money becoming less of a proxy of "how much someone contributed to society" and more "how much someone contributed to the oligarchs' goals", while those goals are for AI and for peoples' detriment, makes the situation actually about AI.

The technology that helps extract wealth improves, while most of the purely consumer-oriented products are becoming a con and a scam, especially if US companies are involved. The Mirabell's "original" recipe turned the best treat in the world into a generic candy, all are just palm oil + sugar + shrinkflation. There is also non-repairable tech with non-standard components, non-removable batteries, meat gets filled with water, washing machines die right after warranty ends, every digital service is trying to steal data instead of taking only the necessary or at least being transparent about what's taken and why, entertainment like Reddit and streaming services also get worse... AI slop is just another example, but a bit more visible and with a bit more side-effects.

How dare they not solve _all_ the problems, instead of only contributing towards solving one!

Well, I hope you don't have a say in that matter, not because you disagree, but because you ignored all of the reasoning behind my points, just to repeat the same.

Your analogy about guns is irrelevant because all the negative aspects of advocating for guns are missing here, while education is always helpful. I am advocating for the safest and the most efficient option for everyone. And I said why is it so. You only mentioned braking time/distance without any evidence about buses being less lethal in the long run when substituting trams:

The same braking time can be achieved by decreasing the trams' speed (30 km/h to 20 km/h) around pedestrians and cyclists, which is more efficient than removing the tram network, making space for buses, buying and maintaining twice as many buses for the same throughput, and replacing the asphalt quite often. Keeping the trams will decrease the likelihood of pedestrians and bicyclists being clipped by bulky long buses (double the number of encounters compared to trams), while still making it easier for everyone to know where the tram may come from whenever they see the tracks (and it can't swerve, so a person knows exactly how to move in a close encounter), so that they can steer clear of its path and only cross it after they make sure there is no tram passing. Introducing the buses either reintroduces toxic exhaust gases, or buses' weight advantage gets massively decreased by carrying the batteries, while increasing the tires' and asphalt damage and shedding. Also, it doesn't mean that the trend of increasing recklessness won't continue around "safer" vehicles: I bet people were more wary of trams before, just like they are in other cities with trams.

Recklessness and abandonment of personal responsibility for own safety shouldn't be a reason for everyone else to bend over backwards. There is enough of a safety net for the wannabe Darwin award winners as-is, with trams in place. Decreasing speed, moving the stations ahead of intersections, and raising awareness that the trams are still dangerous is a reasonable change of policy. Even a pilot-project driving buses on a dangerous tram lane could be reasonable, to gather data. Blindly overhauling the whole network without a strong indicator that it's even a move in the right direction, just to maybe find a way to prolong the lives of those who themselves don't really care about their lives.

Btw, visually impaired and those of bad hearing generally know very well to use their other senses to stay safe in this as well as even worse conditions. And are better off with rails marking the trams' path (or even other markings, if introduced), than relying on the buses' braking distance.

And please avoid pretending to be dumb and saying that the trams are more deadly than the cars, without taking into account how separated the cars' roads are from pedestrians' and cyclists paths as well as their passenger throughput in Amsterdam and their speed limits. If Amsterdam had the same throughput of passengers in buses instead of trams, with buses equally mixing with pedestrians and cyclists, I bet the situation wouldn't be much different, with you equally fixated only on absolute numbers multiplier, asking for trams.

Btw, why don't you ask for cars to replace the trams? Buses, despite not being as mixed with pedestrians as trams are, racking in kilometers after midnight and between cities like cars do, still cause 15x more deaths per km than cars do.

No. The traffic rules for trams or tram stop positions should be adjusted and people in Amsterdam should be educated to behave around trams, i.e. in traffic in general if they want fewer deaths.

There are literally marks on every step of their path "tram is going through here, coming from there", so those that die anyway should be the ones at fault. It's horrible that they die, but banning trams is not a valid response to it. After the people have started behaving like that around trams, there isn't really a reason to assume they won't start being (even more) reckless around the less predictable and bulkier busses. You fixed braking time, but cyclists get clipped more often going out of their track as they do already. I mean, look at the description of an accident: allegedly she wore a hoodie with headphones and some stops after the intersections incentivize higher tram speeds.

Start fixing that before banning the safest and the most efficient form of transport (57x more than cars, with the amount of cars they have, number of close interactions with cyclists/pedestrians, and the imposed traffic rules for cars, isn't really a valid multiplier), scrapping all the tram lines and adjusting road tracks widths just to have buses brake harder on asphalt isn't really a fix of the problem, just a reaction to a symptom.

> Right, the coup of 2014 ousted democratically elected president

As I said earlier. Everything was fine while he was just "democratically" elected. And when he _started_ eroding democracy. But he took it too far going against the will of the people after being democratically elected, that he was democratically ousted.

> part of a country disagreed

A part of country, militarily supported by neighbouring Russia, took up arms. Started killing. Terrorist separatists.

> As far as russian vs ukranian... It's basically one nation.

I have already heard that kind of fantasy propaganda applied to a similar aggression. Your tricks are old. And the claim is inconsequential for the discussion tbh.

> The divide was engineered from outside and it was well engineered. Divide and concur is an old strategy and the west is very-very good at it.

I like how you, after all this, decided it's the west that is the only one to be named as the perpetrator of divide and conquer. I'd be surprised if "the west" didn't have its influence, but the fast deterioration happening under Yanukovych didn't really need outside influence to gain opposition because it's not at all logical Ukrainians would want it. Russians would because his policies were very pro-Russian. But they have Russia for that—killing Ukrainians to secede from Ukraine makes them wrong.

The rest isn't worth replying to.

> 2014 coup ousted democratically elected president

..whose forces killed unarmed protestors, and who abandoned the country (after the forces under his chain of command killed protestors, so he can mostly thank himself and his goons for "fearing for his life", don't try that "argument" on me). After years of straying Ukraine away from democracy, after democratically elected parliament decided "enough is enough" and even broke ranks to oust him, you dare to speak about democracy?

Some people "disagreed"? They took up arms. Terrorists. I would say the same about the Euromaidan protestors who killed the police, had the police not killed first. Again pro-russians are the ones to escalate violence.

I already said what Minsk "agreement" is. A capitulation to Russia, not a just solution. Of course Ukraine would arm itself to reclaim its borders from the aggressor. You also missed a keyword here: _defensive_ war against Russia.

Had? Ukraine still has the option to capitulate and give up its territory, what kind of argument is that? Separatists who take up arms are a fair target, they are the ones violently changing the status quo. When both sides kill civilians in a war started by one side, that side's further escalation is not at all justified by "killing ppl of donbass", so let's not manipulatively paint a "both sides" picture as if there isn't a huge difference

If Russia didn't want a war there wouldn't be one. I didn't make anything.

As someone living in a country with a hostile neighbour, I'm glad the governments currently continue to coexist, even if mine could get an economic advantage or "a safety buffer" by invading the other. NATO's peaceful expansion towards east is not just, but it isn't a sufficient cause of war either, far from it.

I am considering the absolute impact on those affected, which is the most relevant for this discussion. Millions are not "a few". And it's absolutely unnecessary, the aggressor has always been in the position to pull back and leave (or not attack at all). Everyone but _a few_ war profiteers suffers from war, because it requires hours of work (weapons) diverted towards destroying other hours of work (cars, houses, infrastructure), occupying workers' time by ordering them to kill future workers, all of which could go towards increasing production instead of decreasing it, which does affect global markets and thus people globally.

ProgeCAD seems to be a viable alternative lately. I have heard positive reviews from a perfectionist that does _a lot_ of telecom-related projects in it after years of AutoCAD.

Actually, a lot would change. Each one of the Ukrainian lives destroyed is a whole life destroyed. A damaged car is a setback for a family. There are whole cities and villages razed in Ukraine, fields polluted or rigged with explosives. Countless lives lost; each person's story and potential ended by some Russian's "command-following" drone or missile strike.

No, Russia isn't the only one, but _is_ a cause of a lot of suffering and resources wasted.

Freedoms are removed either way. I'd rather have everyone be _free_ to participate in traffic on safer, more observable streets, where air quality, maneuverability and parking space is decreased only for a good reason, than have a small minority who like the arms race or "bigger and meaner = better for my ego" cars be free to buy (and normalize) such cars (regardless of the car maker's nationality). And I'd bet that's the real reason others cheer this on, too, not what you chose to assume in this unnecessarily inflammatory comment. The easiest way to feel better about oneself is to make up negative assumptions about others. Introspection time

One should either weather out the storm or if one wants to cash out soon or manage their portfolio more closely they would pick the defensive assets they trust the most and hold until they stop thinking the stock market crash is coming up or stop trusting those assets. If they really think the crash is imminent, maybe investing some excess money into shorting the market while setting trailing stop loss would be a fun activity that might turn profitable

That scene makes the movie one of the few 10/10 movies in my opinion. It's perfect for the target audience.

Seeing my dad, who grew up on these actors' action flicks, laugh himself to tears when Chuck Norris appears is one of my favourite memories.