WoodScientist
@WoodScientist@lemmy.world
- Comment on Why are we so afraid of cockroaches? 14 hours ago:
I don’t want advanced ubiquitous robotics to put people out of work and to enrich the wealthy. I want advanced ubiquitous robotics so it becomes practical to fill my home with a small army of tiny robots that can crawl through the walls and kill any roach, bedbug, or termite they see.
- Comment on Nvidia CEO: Society has no choice but to change. I used to play in the streets. When cars came along, you obviously can’t play in the streets now 2 days ago:
I’m in the US. Kids still play in the street.
- Comment on What's the evolutionary advantage of very long hair on human heads? 2 days ago:
There is the fun aquatic ape hypothesis. It’s a fun one, along with the stoned ape hypothesis. But unfortunately there’s not a lot of actual evidence for either of them.
- Comment on How much money do you think Superman could make if he offered his services to NASA as a launch vehicle? 3 days ago:
*100 percent of net profits to be donated to fund superhero sponsorship programs.
- Comment on How much money do you think Superman could make if he offered his services to NASA as a launch vehicle? 3 days ago:
I disagree. I think Superman would ask for a simple salary of $120k/year for his services.
I mean, the dude still has to make a buck, right? He has to pay rent like anyone else. I see nothing morally wrong with him being compensated a reasonable salary for his efforts. There are moral issues with charging someone for a rescue. And maybe he’s such a goodie-two-shoes that he would avoid charging for that. But Superman billing NASA isn’t the same thing as Superman handing a thousand dollar invoice to someone he just rescued from being run over by a car. One is taking advantage of someone in their most desperate hour. The other is just helping the government save a buck. NASA is perfectly capable of hoisting things into orbit themselves. All Superman is ultimately doing is saving the government some money.
Now, I can imagine Superman being too humble to charge, say, half the cost of what a launch would otherwise make. He would probably feel really bad charging millions of dollars for what to him is nothing more than a light workout.
So instead, I think Superman would just ask for the most reasonable thing possible, the right of every hard working American man - an honest pay for an honest day’s work. And what are the services of Superman worth? Well, surely his services are worth at least as much as the director of NASA makes per year. A search suggests this is about $240k/year. And Superman will certainly be doing as much for NASA as Jared Isaacman is. So why shouldn’t he ask for a relatively modest $120k/year salary for his services, half of Jared’s salary?
As far as secret identity, I’m sure the NSA figured that shit out ages ago. They just have an agreement with him to keep that under wraps. In fact, with superheroes willing to work ‘in the system’, they’ll go as far as to manipulate social media algorithms to suppress the spread of secret identity reveals.
- Comment on It's honestly fine, you're overthinking it! 6 days ago:
Price is also a major factor. Restaurants won’t balk at paying thousands for an industrial grade dishwasher if it can replace or greatly reduce the demand for a human dishwasher. Even at low restaurant wages, it doesn’t take long for a $6000 dishwasher to pay for itself. On the other hand, if the only dishwashers available cost that much, if there were no dishwashers at a consumer price point? Most people would just go without one in their home.
- Comment on It's honestly fine, you're overthinking it! 6 days ago:
Quick, someone call Alec to do an hour-long YouTube video investigating this!
- Comment on Schools being too soft lately 1 week ago:
You know, I don’t have kids of my own, and this is going to sound incredibly out of touch, (cause it probably is.) But like…how are the kids doing?
In the world I inhabit, I don’t interact much with kids beyond brief interactions when they’re tagging along with their parents. I don’t really have a lot of 14-18 year olds I know that I can sit down with for a heart-to-heart conversation. By “how are they doing,” I mean, how are they handling, what are their thoughts on The Situation? The creeping fascism. The potential climate apocalypse. Ever-widening inequality and a keen awareness of just how unaffordable basic shit like home ownership now is. The worry/potential of mass AI-induced unemployment. The threat of the everpresent surveillance state. Etc.
Like, seriously, it’s hard enough to stay sane in this world as an adult. I’m more than twice the age of a high school graduate. I’m no great bastion of mental resilience myself, but I’m definitely more capable of handling things now than when I was a teenager. So if it’s hitting adults this hard, damn. How is it hitting the kids? I graduated high school in 2006. Back then, it was hard enough finding your foot as an adult and an independent human being. But then, there was still a clear and reasonable path to home ownership. Fascism wasn’t even on the radar. Neo-nazis were cringe weirdos that even the Republicans in power wanted nothing to do with. Climate change was far enough away that a reasonable and hopeful case could still be made. Rights, prosperity, and democracy as a whole were or at least seemed on the rise.
For anyone with a lot of present experience interacting with a variety of kids in that age bracket (enough to get a general sense of the common approaches/attitudes), just how are kids handling all this? Are they doing alright? I think I’m mainly thinking about 14-18, high school age. Old enough to really comprehend the magnitude of these issues, but still firmly in the vulnerability of their teenage years.
I don’t know. Maybe I’m just looking on the past with rose-tinted glasses. Maybe back then I just didn’t pay as much attention to the troubles of the day. There were plenty of civil rights abuses in the post-9/11 era, and they never really stopped. But even by objective measures like housing cost to income ratios, the cost of education, etc., it’s clear that things are going to be objectively much more difficult for the class of 2026 than the class of 2006. And I worry for them.
- Comment on 1 week ago:
Seriously. What happens if you set fire to the backrooms? Or are they just entirely made of material incapable of propagating fire?
- Comment on How would Asian countries treat American passport holders in the event of a collapse? 2 weeks ago:
*Heterosexual
- Comment on Looking for a career change? Then look no further! 2 weeks ago:
Sometimes pirate crews started as mutineers. A merchant or navy ship has a captain that severely mistreats his crew. Eventually they get sick of him and maroon him somewhere or throw him overboard. At that point, everyone on that ship has probably already committed a capital offense (especially if it’s a navy ship), so they literally have nothing to lose by becoming pirates at that point. If they’re ever caught, they’re already dead. Initially on the boat are just the folks who happened to be there at the time of the mutiny. But some filtering happens over time. Those who don’t actually want to be pirates eventually slink off at one port stop or another. And new recruits are found via quiet conversations in port taverns. A lot of recruiting probably happens through personal contacts, “oh, we’re going to port X? Why I have a cousin there that might be interested!”
Also, often pirate ships started off as privateers. A privateer is just like a pirate, except legal. Let’s say Britain and France are at war. Britain issues letters of marque to any ship with captain and crew willing to raid French shipping. This is a way for the British crown to target French shipping at a fraction of the cost of having the Royal Navy do it themselves. (It’s the Age of Sale equivalent of German U-boats raiding British shipping during WW2.) If such a privateer is caught by the French, they’ll still be treated like pirates. But as far as the British are concerned, what they’re doing is completely legal. They can go steal a French and ship then sail into any British port and unload their plunder. It’s all completely legal and a culturally accepted part of warfare. As long as the captain had their official letter of marque, the harbormaster in any British port would let them participate freely and openly. As far as how these privateers got going? Simple capitalism. Some people with cash to invest would invest in a boat and crew, and attempt to make a profit from the conflict.
And that’s all well and good, except what happens when the war ends? Those letters of marque were only good during wartime. And privateers don’t get military retirement benefits. There’s no pension or these folks. (Not even whatever pitiful equivalent existed for Navy sailors at the time.) Men who were risking their lives sailing the seas, plundering commerce in Britain’s name? Well they’re now all out of a job. And even if what they did was legal, it still carried a stigma. Job prospects may be quite poor for a former privateer, and it certainly won’t be as lucrative. So, quite predictably, after the wars ended, often times the privateers just kept doing what they were good at. So many pirates were simply privateers that had been cut loose by their respective governments.
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
Frankly I don’t see how reverse passing is any more dangerous than forward passing. If anything it’s less dangerous as it requires less road distance.
Is this one of those things that just feels dangerous, so therefore it must be?
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
What’s wrong with reverse passing exactly? It’s safer than regular passing as it requires less distance to slow down than speed up a vehicle, at least in my experience.
- Comment on bummer 2 weeks ago:
There are more atoms in a single water molecule than there are stars in the entire solar system.
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
You are guilty of the mortal sin of Pride.
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
It’s fascinating to see people suddenly accelerate after miles of the same speed on a relatively empty road because I moved into the passing lane, or (conversely) slow down because they’re alongside a slow vehicle and not in danger of being under-passed by another driver.
This is why if I’m on a road with one lane in each direction, when I pass, I PASS. Nothing is more terrifying than when someone takes their sweet time passing, barely going faster than the car in the lane next to them. Plus then you have to deal with the people like you’re describing. They don’t want to go as fast as you, but they do want to prevent you from passing them.
What I’ve found is that this type of passive aggressive driver is also a coward. Let’s say they’re going 60 and I want to go 65. I come up behind them to pass. If I try to pass at 65, there’s a good chance they’ll increase their speed to 65 in order to prevent me from passing them.
I don’t give them the opportunity. As far as I’m concerned, when you’re passing in a lane of opposing traffic, speed limits don’t exist. If I’m risking a head-on collision, I want to get in and out of that lane as fast as possible. So instead of going 65 while passing, I’ll rocket up to 85 and rapidly pass them. The passive aggressive assholes are cowards and won’t speed up that much to prevent you from passing. So I rocket up to 85, get the passing over with before they can do anything about it, and then slow down to the speed I actually want to travel at. By that point, the slowpoke is well in the rear view mirror. They don’t tend to speed back up either. By then their monkey brain just sees you as another car on the road, far away from them, not a challenge to their ego.
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
There’s “don’t dress like you want to be assaulted” and then there’s “don’t look up your local sex offender registry, find the most violent rapist you can, drink a handle of vodka and eat three edibles, break into their house when they’re away, and tie yourself nude to their bed.”
I absolutely don’t blame rape victims for their rape, at least in any sane scenario. But if someone did the latter, yeah, I’m sorry, I’m going to say they asked for it. If someone literally goes out of their way to deliberately get raped, well then at that point it’s consensual sex, not rape.
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
or been aggressively tailgated while I’m overtaking traffic
Are you one of those people that creates a massive road hazard by trying to pass by driving a single mile per hour faster than the cars in the right lane?
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
Eh, I see nothing wrong with passing on the right. If you’re driving correctly, it shouldn’t even be possible for someone to pass you on the right.
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
You need to have your drivers license taken away. Cops openly brag about being able to pull people over whenever they want. They can do this because there are so many rules of the road, that it is literally impossible to drive without violating them.
So really, drop the bullshit “but it’s illegal!!!” cope. You violate the law every time you get on the road. Traffic laws are written to be selectively enforced. You make it illegal to speed and then leave it to officer discretion.
Hell, I say we throw you in jail for life. If every law was enforced against everyone who violates them, then everyone would be in jail for life.
You’ve committed enough crimes to get yourself locked away for life. Perhaps you shouldn’t appeal to the law so readily.
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
You must have been a hall monitor.
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
I use a maneuver that I call a “reverse pass.” I make them pass me whether they want to or not!
Turns out, when a vehicle is traveling at highway speed, it’s a lot easier to slow it down by 20 mph than it is to speed it up by 20 mph. This means it takes less distance. You can slow down in a shorter clear lane window than you can speed up.
If someone clearly wants to go faster than me but they’re too chicken shit to pass, I’ll force them to pass. When an opening forms, I’ll quickly move to the left lane, push hard on the brakes, drop my speed down, and move back to the right lane. By the time the dumbass has even figured out what’s happening, they’re already in front of me. They do not get a choice in the matter.
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
Yes. In practice it is legal to exceed the speed limit, as speed limits are written artificially low with the understanding that people will violate them.
“But it’s technically illegal” is a terrible argument. There are so many rules of the road, and you, like every driver, are constantly making minor violations of the law. If every driving law were enforced 100%, there would be no more drivers on the road within a matter of weeks.
There’s a reason it’s long been understood that cops can pull anyone over any time they want. Technically they can only pull people over for violating traffic laws, but it is literally impossible to drive without violating traffic laws.
- Comment on Be The Sunshine ☀️ 2 weeks ago:
10 mph over is the normal driving speed on US highways.
If you’re going to be a slow poke, I suggest you start practicing reverse passing. Are you on a road with one lane in each direction, and someone comes up behind you wanting to pass? Instead of being an asshole and trying to stop them, be a positive influence and help them. It’s far easier to reverse pass than to pass, as you’re slowing down rather than speeding up.
Reverse passing is just like it sounds - passing in reverse. You enter the left lane, slow down rapidly, and then move back over. You force the driver behind you to pass you whether they want to or not.
There, now you’re the driver in the following position. You just eliminated a traffic hazard, and you can go at your own pace without inconveniencing anyone. Take your slow Sunday drives if you want, but don’t be an asshole. It’s extremely anti-social behavior.
- Comment on Pro tip 2 weeks ago:
If a minor is provocatively nude in front of a surveillance camera, could they be prosecuted for production of child pornography?
- Comment on bummer 2 weeks ago:
Because cops are ultimately cowards. They kill people in cold blood, but they only have that bravado because they know most people are never going to throw their lives away trying to stop them. Cops are not skilled marksman or particularly brave. They just operate in an environment where they can use force on people, but no one will ever use force back on them. This is why they act like such assholes. They’ll escalate situations. They’ll introduce violence to scenarios where none was previously present. They’ll demonstrate extreme aggression…but only so long as they believe they’re perfectly safe. How often do you hear about a cop beating someone, and a random uninvolved passerby just pulling out a gun and blowing their head off while they’re in the act of brutalizing someone? It never happens. People aren’t willing to throw their lives away to rescue others from police violence. So cops can victimize people with impunity.
Except, once in awhile they run into someone that IS willing to throw their life away. A school shooter is clearly willing to shoot at cops. If you’re willing to kill kids, you’ll certainly be willing to kill a cop. When they actually face the chance of someone fighting back, they run like the cowards they are.
Brave people don’t become police officers. People looking to have power over others become police officers.
- Comment on bummer 2 weeks ago:
Little known fact. Skyrim came out closer to the birth of Cleopatra than it did to the construction of the pyramids.
- Comment on bummer 2 weeks ago:
Those officers should have been charged as accomplices to the murders. They should have been tried under the state’s felony murder law.
- Comment on Anon is a paramedic 3 weeks ago:
I don’t have kids. But in pondering questions like this, I would take some solace that people have always been having children. ALWAYS. Pick the most horrific events and eras in history; there were people having kids and trying to find the most happiness they could for them and their children. The Black Death? The Bronze Age Collapse? The sacking of entire cities by Mongol hoards? People living in literal death camps in the Holocaust? There were people there having children. And when they did, they did their best to give their children as good a life as they could, same as you do now.
