While it wouldn’t solve climate change, it would certainly make it easier to play Minecraft without OP players.

Thanks for the in-depth response! These fair-share fees sound great, an anti-scab fee haha

54%?? Yikes.

Right to work? Is this some euphemism for some awful employment laws, in the mould of the Australian Liberal Party’s (the Conservatives) “Work Choices” legislation?

I can’t wait for the budget framework to come out, 1 because current lineup is expensive (well, more than I’d like to spend on a laptop. I’ll run my shitty 2018 Microsoft Surface Pro 6 into the ground), but 2 because the product will be even more polished by that time.

Can’t wait to have a laptop and then just have it for like 10 years. Especially if it’s Linux out of the box 👍👍

To me this is the right answer. Both always exist. I think people’s propensity to believe the oppressed will definitely pick up arms in the face of oppression are kidding themselves.

(this is only directed at the people who seem to have wanted Trump to win to “accelerate” the ushering in of a socialist society):

Deluding themselves about how often there isn’t a glorious revolution, and ongoing, armed resistance by the oppressed isn’t guaranteed.

Accelerationists have a weird hard-on for revolution, as if it’s easy-peasy to dismantle and replace all institutions all at once.

This socialist thinks we ought to fight tooth and nail via disruption/extra legal actions, implied threats of the power of the masses (in the same mould that workers won rights by threat), AND ideally within the system itself.

Because revolution is a roll of the dice.

I’ll be honest, I’m not super familiar on the timeline.

I’m not looking forward to the future though, even less so than before :/

Oh well, we persevere

I wonder when we’re gonna get the Reichstag fire

Can confirm, while Hunan stinky tofu is stinky, it doesn’t taste “stinky”.

Nearly every medication changes your cognition—even OTC antihistamines.

I don’t know what it’s like in your country, but in mine depending on the level of impact it will say on the packet, and is illegal to drive while under the influence of any medication that impacts your ability to drive safely or operate heavy machinery.

I didn’t intend to imply it is the case for everyone

People should make the decisions that are best for them—know thyself.

One last time, I don’t endorse this style of living for everyone, but it works for me

Nah, this is not okay.

I do not accept this as a reasonable way to determine what we allow as societies in terms of vehicular safety. Someone’s freedom to decide for themselves what they consider to be safe, stops at everyone else’s freedom to not be run over. I very much assert what’s safe should be determined with science and enforced with regulation/laws. Not by everyone personally deciding for themselves.

You might be surprised at the sheer number of people who operate vehicles while stoned safely.

Dosing aside (I’m not making claims on what level is safe). We have a very important saying in my industry: just because a safety event hasn’t happened yet, isn’t evidence that a practice is acceptably safe. (Paraphrased). This is literally what habitual drunk drivers who aren’t that drunk when they drive tell themselves “it’s fine”, because they haven’t had a crash and are very careful. Sure, but they’re increasing the likelihood of a crash nonetheless.

There may well be people out there who have driven high without incident, my response would be 1. Let’s quantify that first before allowing it, and 2. They do this without incident, so far.

I’m sure you’re very careful, and don’t drive too high. You may never have a serious accident. But on a societal level, that’s just not an acceptable way to determine what is acceptably safe. Who are you to say that you aren’t increasing the likelihood of harm to someone else?

Wanna decide everything for yourself? Go live in the middle of nowhere, away from everyone else, where your decisions won’t impact others.

Don’t drive high unless you can back up your claims with more than “trust me bro”.

Amen to that

Are there sufficient studies out there showing fewer accidents while under the influence of weed? Or negligible effect?

Else, I’m gonna have to press X to doubt, and really would rather wait on further studies before letting you think your self-reported performance is convincing.

Weed affects your cognition, I hope we can agree on this. How adversely for driving, according to dose, that I don’t know. Though I don’t think anyone should accept people telling you “nah, it’s fine, trust me bro. I only got into an accident when I was sober!”

Cars are deadly, and you ought to be sober while operating heavy machinery.

Stop doing it until studies are done (and, they will, given how widespread it’s use is legally now), but heck, pressing all sorts of X to doubt on this turning out to be true. It affects your attention. And cars are deadly, so.

You are morally obligated to err on the side of caution here.

Stop driving high, please.

Yikes. Hecking big yikes.

deleted by creator

Apologies, I only took issue with downplaying being high and driving. Don’t get high and drive is all I’m saying here, and think your original comment seemed like you were saying it’s fine.

I’m totally with you on the elderly, you ought to need to renew you licence with a test when you get older. Because yeah, cars are deadly a f.

Ummm, if it can fuck with your perceptions when you’re high enough you shouldn’t be behind the wheel of a chunk of metal going a speed. Not enough data is no justification, even if it’s “not as bad”. I have, and I’m sure others also, personal experiences of being high as fuck and barely being able to experience the passage of time in a coherent way, feeling like your forgetting what happened 30 seconds earlier.

Field sobriety shenanigans aside, I really hope we’re not pretending like driving high is okay. Cars can kill, and you had better not be under the influence of anything that is a detriment to you driving safely.

Please, please, tell me you meant to write: “Drunk driving is a legitimate concern. High driving, despite the vilifying by police, simply doesn’t have even a modest fraction of the stats to back it up. And anecdotally is not remotely the same as alcohol. But you still shouldn’t drive under the influence of that either. Police should be required to administer scientifically accurate tests and acceptable blood contents be determined. Not field sobriety tests based on nothing.”

Because else, yikes.

Yeah :( Big sad, both for you as a citizen of the US (I presume), and for me, as someone under the thumb of the US’s sphere of influence.

Stay safe out there next week. I’m presume it’s gonna get wild.

Y’all need to unify your federal election into an actual federal election. Not 50 separate ones.

It would be a lot harder to pick and choose battleground states for lawsuits if you 1. Change the voting system yes, but also and importantly 2. Have consistent rules and voting infrastructure across the whole country.

Having to understand 50 separate election rules makes it way easier to sow doubt.

I am aware there are also some federal laws on voting, but still.

We’re seeing in real-time why maintaining a coherent, unified, transparent voting system and communicating how and why it’s secure against tampering is so important. It needs to be difficult to sow doubt in the election, and you can only achieve this through simple to understand and explain methods.

Because if the average person can be convinced it’s not secure and legitimate, then it doesn’t matter what the reality is.

This is why I’m so sick of people pointing out the defamation lawsuits from the voting machine companies as some kind of win for the democratic process.

Voting machines have been just one of the many ways the Republicans have sown doubt over the results. Stop using voting machines, obviously (in my opinion. There’s also 2 great videos from Tom Scott on the topic)

Important things to get right:

• functioning, reliable postal system. (Trump did a great job on undermining this)
• unified electoral communication so that every place has the same election, not bloody 50 separate ones with wildly different practices. (Well shit, constitution needs to be amended)
• a simple voting recording method anyone can understand. (Voting machines are bad, simply because they’re too much of a security risk and black box that can have doubt sown very easily)
• consistent invigilation
• courts that aren’t stacked (good luck with this one, though)

And obvious move away from FPTP, but everyone is already calling for that.

Armchair citizen under the American empire, giving you my 2¢.

I said it a bit in jest, though as explained, I think it’s still somewhat a true statement. I wouldn’t actually say this to people who don’t identify as left-leaning, because as you point out, it would be counter-productive.