jimmytidey

Am I missing it, or does this fail to convey the key information: how long does it take?

Yes, driving a car makes you morally culpable for the harms it does.

If you ranked the harms you are likely to cause, driving a car would be very near the top of the list.

You are exhibiting an aspect of the myopia the article is highlighting.

I remember reading that Royal Navy engineers maintaining nuclear submarines use Li-Fi to connect their workstations to the network.

They said it was a security requirement - does seem extraordinarily elaborate. It feels like using wires could have been a simpler answer...

OK - I see there is a pretty strong case here.

One of the most astonishing Kant facts I've read (I've no idea how this could be verified) is that despite the sea being an hour away Königsberg, where he lived his whole life, he never felt the need to go and see the sea.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is the largest charity in the UK by membership. People do take a lot of direct personal action on this topic.

Because of his regular schedule?

I've heard the safety argument before and I find it astonishing. If you can't drive safely without making a noise audible from miles away, your vehicle isn't fit for the road. However this argument does hint at what bikers are often doing, which is racing on public roads and massively breaking speed limits.

I think modern scooters are also held to strict noise standards, the noisy ones have been made noisy deliberately.

This makes so much sense. I wish the UK would take the same approach.

No doubt engine noise is caused by lots of factors. You can modify they exhaust to make it louder or quieter. I understand a lot of bikers modify their exhaust to make it louder.

As I understand it, there is a legal limit on noise emissions some for vehicles. To get round this bikes are supplied with a quiet exhaust and a second loud exhaust. They tell customers the loud exhaust is for use on private race tracks but obviously this is widely ignored.

In suburban London and the surrounding countryside, so much of the noise is caused by a handful of motorbikes that have been made deliberately, I think usually illegally, noisy.

Stopping noisy vehicles would improve millions of people's lives and moderately upset a few thousand bikers.

I have no idea why it isn't a more popular cause.

One person doing laps of a built up area in their modified car is likely waking up tens of thousands of people. The police do nothing. If you had a party that caused equivalent nuisance it would be shut down instantly.

A agree you can't 'get all the guns back', but there are still reasons to consider more stringent controls, two spring to mind:

1) It's about the social permission you give to people by making guns easily available. For example, in many European countries, bars, pubs and drinking are an absolutely central part of life, whereas in the US drinking establishments often have a much more 'taboo' vibe about them. Alcohol consumption is much lower in the US than Europe. Obviously there are questions about cause and effect, but I suspect that if the US made gun ownership into a more transgressive behaviour, there would be less gun crime.

2) Sometimes a tiny bit of friction makes a big difference. In the UK you can only buy paracetamol (Tylenol) 16 capsules at a time. Nothing stops you buying more by going to multiple shops, or by going back in the same shop multiple times. But that extra bit of friction has dramatically reduced the amount of paracetamol lying around in people's homes, and suicide from paracetamol has radically reduced as a result.

I get the principle you are articulating, but, in practice, it's probably quite a bit more nuanced. Texas isn't likely to be a state full of criminals, rather it's a state with different social norms around firearms, and permissive gun laws.

I don't know, but I'm guessing there's a big difference between knowing how to play your scales and playing perfectly evenly and fluidly.

All those young people on Facebook...