You recommend linking to the source instead of a signature, but you don’t include either in your posts. When someone makes something, they have a right to have people know they are the ones who made it. You should be banned from every community you refuse to credit artists in. You are actively harming this community.
Closer to 8 billion
Possibly I got distracted by your sentence implying there is no reason to run a red, because it shows you really don’t understand. I have multiple intersections on my morning commute where the safest time to cross the intersection is when I have a red light. Sometimes it’s legal for me to run them, sometimes it isn’t. That happens when intersections are designed for cars and not bicycles. If they were designed just as much for bikes, there would be a leading bike indicator at every intersection in America that has some type of bike infrastructure. You acted like that Anatole France quote wasn’t relevant when it unequivocally is. If the safest thing for me to do is break the law, then the law is wrong.
It is perfectly legal in many places in the world to run a red light on a motorcycle or bicycle, provided you wait a reasonable amount of time. So your example is complicated. Simply because the magnetic strips that detects cars don’t detect them. But if run a red light after waiting, I guarantee the average person will think I’m the same as the person that flys through the intersection without slowing down. In my experience the average car driver has no idea why bicycles make the decisions they make.
And it is perfectly reasonable to break rules, if breaking them is what is keeping me alive. I really could give a shit what the law is. I care about getting to work alive. And I will make decisions to that end first and the law second.
The lights often automatically changes to cyclists priority in many places in the Netherlands, and often provide underpasses to avoid conflict points in the first place. It is not a comparable situation. Traffic laws and infrastructure in the USA, for instance, are incredibly biased in favor of cars, so their comment is absolutely relevant.
When I bike in the USA often the safest time for me to cross an intersection is unrelated to whether I have a green light, but more related to if anyone else at the intersection does. The safest time for me to go is when no one else at the light has a green light, not when I do.
Mentally going through all the couples I know and half of them involve overweight men. Absurd to live in North America and think you can’t date if overweight, 1/3 of our continent is overweight and the majority of that is men. Over 2/3 of Canadians are in common law relationships or married at the age of 35-44. To be this deluded you have to believe basically 100% of single people are overweight, which is not true. But seeing what you type I’m guessing weight has nothing to do with it, people don’t like people with defeatist, lazy, downer personalities way more than they dislike overweight people.
App dating isn’t the only way forward, you actually have to have a life and put yourself out there. All my relationships were when I wasn’t really looking but still kept my circle of friends wide, and I’m not an extrovert.
I’m not smart enough to spot the error in your comment, so I guess you’re an AI.
And a way of renormalizing misogyny.
I’m married and 41, I’m just pointing out the real time needed. If you are actually trying to be healthy, and not just shoveling extra sugar and saturated/trans fats down your throat, then often the best choice is to cook your own food. Restaurants almost all prioritize taste, cost, and efficiency over health. Our society makes it difficult to stay healthy. So doing things while also staying, healthy is time consuming.
Edit: Also getting takeout still takes time, order, wait, pickup, eat, cleanup, you’re still down at least an hour unless you get fast food.
It takes way more than an hour if you are actually cooking your own food. Cook, eat, cleanup. 1.5 hours minimum, often more.
Where I live a light tap of the horn, as short as you can make it, is a polite “wake up”, a quick flash of the lights is also used to tell people their lights are off or another thing is wrong.
He has a long history of retweeting Nazis and agreeing with them. It’s an indictment on our society that this is so little known even in the USA.
Saying people should say things a specific way is prescriptivist. Descriptivist is, language gets defined by its users rather than rules. As soon as you set a rule, you’re a prescriptivist.
You said “of course not” and then ended with a prescriptivist point of view, you’re lost mate.
Edit: I think you need to read a bit more about the difference between prescriptivism and descriptivism and maybe read something by a linguist, or watch one of their YouTube channels. Just because you’re rejecting one prescriptivist point of view, if you take up another prescriptivist point of view in counter, it’s still prescriptivist. The point is, enforcing language in any direction is a pointless task, language will never do what you want it to do, all you’re doing by trying, is making sure everyone is annoyed with you.
If I say Barcelona with a lisp, or without, 99.9999% of people that know what Barcelona is will understand me, you’re being unnecessarily pedantic. Anyone who seeks to control language should talk to a linguist. Language isn’t prescriptivist as much as non linguists like to think so. It is fluid and ever changing. People will choose how they want to speak and it will either work or it won’t. If people understand what someone is saying, nothing else matters as much as many like to think.
Language is indeed for communication, which is why both ways of saying it work…
Naw, they were using that before all the anti trans nonsense. It’s more about their inability to see women as human. They identify them more for their gender than being the same species as them. If they started calling them women that would humanize women too much…
Presuming of course that they absolutely weren’t going to replace those microscopes without that endowment.
In many, if not most, cases there would never be room in a budget for an electron microscope at your average mid sized or small school. Keep in mind we’re talking about a million+ dollar expenditure.
In many cases improvements like a building or an electron microscope absolutely hinge almost entirely on donations, that’s why they are so attractive to a donor. They can make real lasting improvements to a college or university that wouldn’t otherwise exist.
Even the endowed scholarships that go to assist with tuition are never as big as people think. If you have a $100,000 endowed scholarship. The school is likely only giving $4,500 of that out each year so they can grow the endowment at the same rate they give out money, thereby ensuring future students get more help.
I’ll paraphrase a real world example. School X has a $100 million dollar endowment, with $65 million going to endowed scholarships, that’s only ~$3 million a year for tuition relief. That same school is looking at a $45 million a year budget. Certainly they could chose to spend down their endowment and give their students 2 years of free school… And then what? Pass on the 3 million a year budget shortfall to future students?
I work in higher Ed, I agree the system is broken, but most schools endowments come no where near being able to give free tuition.
Most donations are restricted to the purpose of the donation. You’d need to know how much of the endowment is for scholarships. Sometimes schools will have an immense amount of money, but can’t actually lower tuition because the money is tied up in other things. If I give money for an endowment that supports future replacement of electron microscopes, that does fuck all for your tuition.
I’m pretty sure this guys kink is being hated by everyone, don’t summon the troll, they’re jerking it to your hate.