Well, you asked if I was arguing against improving safety when compared to fatality rates for any activity.

But for me to have made that argument, I’d have to have said that there is no rate of fatality that would justify improving safety. So, I was asking if you think that’s true:

Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?

But I sucked at wording it clearly. That’s on me.

In short, no, I’m not arguing that. Really, I was just clarifying what the person you responded to was saying. I’m not making an argument either way.

Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?

Well, nothing is 100% safe, and we allow plenty of things that are demonstrably unsafe to continue. So if you compare bike-car collisions against say, firearm suicides in the US, you’ll see that bike-car collisions aren’t that bad.

The fundamental argument is that nothing is totally safe, but some things are safer than others.

More like if you contextualize the incidents of bicycles and pedestrians with cars, you might realize they’re safer than you think. This is absolutely false for cars and pedestrians though in America at least.

It’s cute af too, with their little tongues sticking out

The current Lt. Governor of North Carolina is black and worse than Trump. Idk about the sexual assault stuff, but he’s still an absolute piece of shit.

Every answer so far is wrong.

It can be used for good purposes, though I’m not sure if characterize creating a personalized Jarvis as good per se. But, more broadly, capitalist inventions do not need to be used only by capitalists for capital ends.

There’s a few ways in practice.

1. Court decisions are binding broadly. The conservative capture of the Supreme Court is political genius, honestly. They tend to have the final say regarding policy.

2. Federal agency rules are also broadly binding. EPA rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions, for example, apply everywhere in the country.

3. State legislatures are often less polarized, which facilitates a more productive legislature.

4. State agencies, like a state environmental department, mirrors its federal counterpart but is more localized.

5. Non-state organizations can get things done, though their interests are often limited and not necessarily in the interests of the broad public as state and federal institutions are.

6. International institutions can ‘set the tone’. They may not have any power to actually do anything within a specific jurisdiction, but people within those jurisdictions can draw policy inspiration from international organizations and try for something locally binding.

No article, it’s a video

Exactly

What’s particularly strange about it is that it doesn’t really serve any purpose for a vast majority of people aside from a government-approved official statement that someone finds their in-laws unbearable.

That’s a pretty good purpose. Everybody can save face by taking part in bureaucracy. That sounds like I’m being facetious, but I’m serious. Think about the alternative: avoiding them awkwardly all the time or telling them to screw themselves directly, which will engender negative feelings. At least with the bureaucracy, the sentiment gets filtered through a impartial, uncaring medium.

Anecdotally, this was my experience as a student when I tried to use AI to summarize and outline textbook content. The result says almost always incomplete such that I’d have to have already read the chapter to include what the model missed.

Vote.org is an classic site for voter registration. It has existed many years

Coffee badging is the practice of going into the office for a few hours to “show face,” which could entail coffee with co-workers or sitting in on a work meeting — but then leaving to work remotely.

So, they comply institutional requirements to waste time for no reason before going elsewhere to do work? And this is characterized as being disengaged?

This doesn’t make any sense. Is this a joke? Who came up with this? Wtf is this journalism?

Yes, as someone that got into photography many years ago:

• Rule of Thirds—Honestly, this is the easiest thing to learn. It won’t make your photos amazing or anything, but it is a consistent way to view any scene, which is very useful.
• Then watch some random video on photographic composition. There are many different ways to view a scene.
• Learn the Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO/Exposure Triangle. Absolutely crucial for learning to shoot manual.
• Learn to shoot manual. Try taking good pics of fireworks on July 4th. It’s tougher than it looks.
• You don’t need to get into editing raw photos, but it’s fun af. I switched from Adobe Lightroom/Photoshop to ON1. I’d also recommend Affinity Photo. Unlike ON1, Affinity does not have a subscription and their software is comparable to Photoshop.

As for your photo, at a glance, I can’t really tell it’s shot as such as high ISO. But once you zoom in, you can see the fuzziness. Still though, I think it’s kinda clear why you took the picture. It looks you’re focusing on several interacting subjects (the bunny, the butterfly, the turquoise fence with the bunny outline) that all framed really well by the wooden house and the negative space at the top and right edges of the frame. I, for one, like it a lot!

Anyway, have fun! Photography is one of the hobbies I’m happiest to have. I hope it ends up being as fulfilling for you!

“The hard truth is…” something completely obvious.

Basically what I think about gun support. It’s statistically awful to be around guns or be around those with guns. But we still have them and some of us fight for them because they feel safer when they’re really, really not.

And the world was a bit of a better place.

This is generally an unpopular opinion, but…I don’t really think we need the news.

It’s basically like being told that a comet is going to smash into the Earth within the year and scientists are working on it, but their chance for success is anywhere between 0% and 100%. That’s cool and all, but I rarely feel like I can actively do anything as a result of being more informed. More information doesn’t empower me to do anything at all. Thus, I have a hard time justifying the self-flagellation.

Personally, I read the news only. While I barely pay attention to videos anyway, when I do I feel like I don’t have time to fact-check and otherwise do my due diligence. If I don’t have to read interpretative commentary, then I won’t. For example, if a news story cites a study or survey, I’ll just go to the source. If someone is quoted, I’ll go look for context around the quote.

That’s how I exert control, anyway lol. It’s mostly inconsequential, probably, but I also like to think that I’m not totally foolish.

If I go to bed at 2100, getting up at 0600 lets me “sleep in” and get a little less than 9 hrs of sleep.