You must log in or register to comment.
Everyone should have to retake the driving test (both written and practical) every five years. And if you don’t pass on the first try or are in a crash where you are found at fault, it should be bumped up to every year for the following five years.
People drive dangerously because they’ve forgotten rules, or rules have changed, or they’ve had a physical or cognitive decline. And yet we’re like “yep, you took a test once decades ago, good to go.”
Dangerous driving kills so many people.
I’m guessing they would do this if they could justify the cost to voters. I recall having to wait months for my driving test. Sadly, I have a feeling it’s easier to kick that problem (i.e. accidents) down to someone else’s department. But I’m totally with you. Yesterday I almost got ran over by someone that treated a stop sign like a yield sign.
So i drive a lot for work every day, and people not knowing traffic rules at all is a big problem. But people not even caring is so much worse. Everyone is the most important person on the road. The amount of time people cutting me off, backing up onto the road or merging on a highway without even looking or caring is crazy. These people probably pass a test, but you can’t force them to care, other people look out for them so it doesn’t matter to them.
Also turn signals. Where i live, there are a lot of roundabouts, and it keeps the traffic going. But for them to work properly, you have to use turn signals, so you can go as soon as you see a blinking light. But most people don’t care because it doesn’t matter to them if the other person has to wait, because they are out.
I agree about people not caring about anyone else, and I think it’s gotten worse since covid.
Totally agree! Also ppl like to bash on elderly persons. Statistically speaking you are most likely to be hit by a young or middle aged man.
I meeeeeean, there is a elderly guy in my neighberhood that only drives with his wife as a passenger, becuase he said he can barely see past his hood.
If someone couldn’t pass a driving test, they shouldn’t be driving. This should apply to everyone, elderly or not. It’s just that elderly people are less likely to be in as good of a condition as when they got their license for the first time.
I agree, and it could work like that here. (your driver’s license is only valid for a certain time) But as far as I know, you only need to retake the tests when applying for renewal if your license expired multiple years ago. Otherwise, you only have to fill out some forms.
At least old people & those who’ve had their license taken away need to redo their tests, which is better than nothing, but not enough in my opinion.
Yeah at the very least, they could easily make it a requirement to pass a written test at every renewal. Hell, they could do it as an online test you can do it home before you come in, I don’t even care if people “cheat.” Make it open book. Then at least people would have to flip through the book every few years which is better than nothing.
I agree with that i also think they should offer a more complex test that will extend that time to 10 years. After a certain age though you’re only eligible for a 5 year extention.
The purpose of government is to take care of the people. I’d rather pay more taxes to make sure my fellow men are fed, clothed, sheltered, educated and cared for because it improves security for my loved ones.
I know this really grinds some peoples gears but by golly I love big government.
It should also keep us from trying to exploit or attack each other
The question of ‘What is the purpose of government?’ is simultaneously deeply important to society and yet rarely, if ever, addressed in a useful context. I have watched people argue about multiple policies, speaking past each other the whole time, just because they had different baseline assumptions as to the purpose of government and couldn’t even see their opponents had a different definition.
Correct, others have different definitions of taking care of the people, which I don’t disagree with completely but I think takes a lower priority to what I believe.
Why is that unpopular? It’s literally the main stated purpose of most governments.
Graveyards are a disgusting waste of space. Their existence communicates to society that many dead people are more entitled to space on this Earth than some living people will ever have.
From everything I read in this thread… you won.
Graveyards don’t exist for the dead, they are a place where living people can mourn the loss of the dead person and remember older days.
If you eat factory meat, you’re doing something morally wrong that can’t be justified.
And the vast majority of people who get defensive about that, deep down know what they are doing is morally dubious at best, but they can’t/won’t admit it, so they lash out at vegans/vegetarians instead.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best.
Factory farming, extensive farming, they’re all bad for the soil, bad for native wildlife, bad for native plants. The societal impacts of factory farming are also not small. In the end, the moral lines people draw are mostly at different places, neither is undoubtedly better than the other.
As it currently stands, the morally correct option for food production would probably be for a large amount of the population to starve. That, of course, is also not entirely morally correct.
Disclaimer: I am personally omnivorous. I have a son and many other relatives and friends who are or were vegetarians or vegans. I love a lot of veggie food and used to frequent vegan restaurants, so I have absolutely zero qualms with it.
I have personally tried to give up meat twice, once for 6 months and once for a year. On both cases my health suffered massively for it, and I went back to eating meat. I had a cousin who was, for many years, a hardcore vegetarian. She was also of the opinion that eating meat was wrong. A few years ago she reintroduced fish in her diet to overcome health issues after fighting them for years. Most symptoms subsided in a handful of months. I believe she now also eats beef, although infrequently and in small quantities.
I’m sorry to be that guy but reality is more complex than whatever moral line any one of us would like to draw. You’re not wrong but it would behoove you to acquire some nuance on your thoughts.
There are a lot of calories lost when eating meat, because the animals burn calories by staying alive. So eating meat is like eating 15x times more calories from veggies. So everything bad for the environment about vegetarian consumption is true for meat too but in worse.
And perfect is the enemy of good. Veggies aren’t perfect, but they’re far better than meat for the environment.
Some of those are useless calories, we can’t eat grass and on some lands where only grass grows so cows are a way of using that grass, but that’s not the majority.
most of what animals are fed are parts of plants people can’t or won’t eat, or grazed grass. in that way, we are conserving resources.
That’s exactly what I wrote
no, you said those calories are wasted.
Read more than the first sentence please
“Some of those are useless calories, we can’t eat grass and on some lands where only grass grows so cows are a way of using that grass, but that’s not the majority.”
most people don’t want to eat soy cake, or crop seconds, or spoilage. feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources, not a waste.
As it currently stands, the morally correct option for food production would probably be for a large amount of the population to starve. That, of course, is also not entirely morally correct.
Considering almost 1.5 billion adults in the world are overweight it wouldn’t be so bad to let some people starve.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best. Factory farming, extensive farming, they’re all bad for the soil, bad for native wildlife, bad for native plants. The societal impacts of factory farming are also not small. In the end, the moral lines people draw are mostly at different places, neither is undoubtedly better than the other.
Animals needs to eat and drink too, the meat industry has the highest tool on the farming industry.
I have personally tried to give up meat twice, once for 6 months and once for a year. On both cases my health suffered massively for it, and I went back to eating meat. I had a cousin who was, for many years, a hardcore vegetarian. She was also of the opinion that eating meat was wrong. A few years ago she reintroduced fish in her diet to overcome health issues after fighting them for years. Most symptoms subsided in a handful of months. I believe she now also eats beef, although infrequently and in small quantities. I’m sorry to be that guy but reality is more complex than whatever moral line any one of us would like to draw. You’re not wrong but it would behoove you to acquire some nuance on your thoughts.
It sound like your diet was off, if you don’t eat animal products you need valid alternatives to complete and balance your diet. In cultures shaped around animal products it may not be automatic or easy to find alternatives. Our ancestors diet for example had less meat and more lentils, in countries were they consume less meat you are most likely to find popular dish with other proteins sources.
Considering almost 1.5 billion adults in the world are overweight it wouldn’t be so bad to let some people starve.
You are fucked in the head.
I find it amazing how little space corn syrup takes up relative to how much is produced. It’s no wonder we use it in everything.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best.
Care to elaborate? Like are you saying that there is something inherently wrong about veganism or are you saying that vegans are not perfect people and also commit bad acts?
If it’s the first, you need some serious evidence and explanations since scientifically it is established that veganism is healthier, better for the environment, produces more calories per land, water and energy usage, and of course, the animals get to live free of torture.
If it’s the second option, well yeah, no one is perfect. We should all do our best to improve, I wasn’t born a vegan but once I understood what I was doing I stopped it, and it was hard and I had some fallbacks, but eventually I got used to it and had no issues. This is not just about veganism, there are many things in my life that at somepoint I came to understand that they were wrong, and I changed myself to be better. People can do both good and bad things, but if they are aware of the bad stuff and choose to ignore it, that’s when they become bad people.
A simple example from my past is that when I was younger (kid to teen) I thought “nig&er” was just a word for a black person, it was only when a black person explained it to me that I understood the historical and cultural significance of it. Does the fact that I said nig&er made me a bad person? I don’t think so, but if I ignored what I had learned and continued? Yeah, I think that would have been bad.
Large amounts of the population starving is not the morally correct option. Eating meat is many times more inefficient for resources used than eating plants. The infrastructure needed to sustainably mass farm vegetables for the whole world would be far less resource intensive than our current omnivorous factory farming system.
Your personal anecdote, assuming it’s true is completely included in my original critique. I specified factory farmed meat as the problem. I am fine with sustainable hunting if that’s your only option, because it requires genuine effort by the hunter, and it provides a generally less painful death for the animal vs what they would experience out in nature from any other predator. Also, there are some people who have medical situations where eating zero meat does cause them some issues. That being said, it’s a very small percentage of the population, and I suspect many folks (not necessarily you) are lying or mistaken that their health suffered when they gave up meat. Most of the time, it’s because they simply weren’t eating a balanced diet.
Eating less meat is better than eating more meat. Something is better than nothing, it’s good to cut down on meat consumption, even if you aren’t cutting it out completely.
Nothing we do is perfect, even the most hardcore vegan has slapped a mosquito or patronized a business that uses fossil fuels, etc. But it’s about trying to be better. Trying to equate the harms of the meat industry to harms that vegetarians/vegans cause is like trying to equate Ted Bundy with a kid who cheated on their math homework. Sure both did something bad, but one of those bad things is far more severe.
And as my personal anecdote: I am not vegan, I’m vegetarian. I get attacked by more hardcore vegans for eating honey and eggs. I have cut down my consumption of both, I drink almost exclusively non-dairy milk, and I bike and use public transport when I am able. But I’m not perfect, not possible to be.
The true unpopular opinion?
There’s something to be said about the ease of access and personal energy needed to deal with changing a diet that has been inherited by birth where the alternative is possibly much more expensive. I don’t blame individuals who eat cheap meat out of necessity just as I don’t blame people for not recycling since the responsibility of the exploitation and destruction of our planet lies entirely with the people who run the machine, not those who are forced under threat of violence to exist inside it.
Fair, however a balanced vegetarian diet is as cheap or cheaper than a cheap meat centric diet, and certainly healthier.
A can of beans is about a dollar, less depending on where you shop. Potatoes are a few dollars a bag, and for most people, a bag of large russets would last them several days if not a week. Same for leafy greens, frozen fruit and veggies, bags of rice, etc.
I agree that there can be other factors, but impoverished communities around the world for centuries have lived on staple foods like those.
I think some personal responsibility is necessary still. Sure the megacorps are the ones doing the most harm and push people to be more consumerist, but that doesn’t absolve people of all their personal autonomy, otherwise you justify all kinds of “just following orders” arguments.
We ought to still resist the corpos and try to live our lives in ways that are better for the world as a whole. Sure, me recycling cans and trying to buy local isn’t going to save the planet, but that doesn’t mean I should just throw litter around in the street and buy everything from Amazon and Walmart.
otherwise you justify all kinds of “just following orders” arguments.
I’m not sure I’d equate having your hand forced with following orders blindly. It’s nearly impossible to change individuals’ behaviors unless it’s due to systemic forces (minus the few who just want to be correct as long as it is visible). But if you’re more focused on individuals and their “responsibility” even though they had no input on the creation of this system, I’d only assume that you’re fine with this system and would rather shout at the brick wall of “individual responsibility”, then get frustrated when people end up hating vegetarians and vegans. I’m like 90% vegetarian nowadays because I can’t really afford meat anyways as well as it giving me headaches and foul moods, but I don’t think you’re being realistic in what you’re asking. Would the world be better with no factory farming? Absolutely yes. But we’re in this situation not because of people’s choices. We’re in this situation because the choice has been made for a lot of us. Some people are a single paycheck away from homelessness, so they likely don’t have the resources to learn how to cook, then ruin a bunch of food in the learning process, only to overspend, and be threatened with getting kicked out all for your own comfort. Go fight the people making this the reality we’re living in.
this just isn’t true.
Gaslighting
The Beatles are highly overrated. I respect the impact they had, and I acknowledge that the music I like (metal) would not exist without them, but I’ll go out of my way to avoid listening to them.
It was easier to be a big fish in the pre-internet music pond. I would never said the Beatles are bad, they aren’t. But aside from understanding the historical significance, I would never ever put the Beatles on regularly.
Just as I don’t watch B&W films every night. Charlie Chaplin was great, for the time, just simpler than what I actually actually enjoy.
I’m also on this camp. I get the significance, but I think I just didn’t resonate with what they wrote, and the “old” production.
Here and there I found a great version someone else performed and was surprised to find it’s a Beatles song, then I heard the OG and went “yup, still not for me”.
I find it difficult to respect the way we exist in society. Most of us in the west enjoy what we have because someone elsewhere is being exploited. The general pride and vanity we have is unjustified and we should be using that power for good instead. We are focused on the
rightwrong things.You could say that this opinion isn’t unpopular, but just try bringing it up in conversation. Many don’t want to know.
You’re absolutely right but where do we as privileged and I guess inherently exploitative westerners go from here. Also the entire neoliberaljst system seems to be set up as a exploitation pyramid, where even us the privileged westerners are being exploited for the gains of those monetarily positioned above us.
Me I’m just trying to to understand all this so I can figure out where to go from there
Good question. The first step with any endeavour is mindset. So when people ask “where do we go from here?” my first thought is that we should stop the glorification of exploitation. Stop wearing brand logos. Stop showing our new devices to people with enthusiasm. Stop celebrating the “winners” of capitalism.
I don’t think we should despair - that doesn’t scale well. But we should (IMO) buy these things with a sense of regret or realism. We should normalise the discourse. I want us to be as up to date on this as people who follow sports.
Otherwise, not only will we never think of ways to fix this, but we won’t even recognise the solution when it’s in front of us.
We need to become conscious and informed of the dilemma of people who look different to us and consider them our brethren. That does wonders for the exploitative appetites we’ve developed.
That’s not unpopular at all yet, highly hypocritical. “Feeling bad” is just a way to feel like you’re giving something back, without actually helping.
If we feel good about it, we’re primed to continue the dark pattern. The first step is acknowledging the problem. If you remove the first step, subsequent steps can’t happen.
I get where you’re coming from. I see land acknowledgements used in colonies like NZ, Canada and USA yet treaties remain broken. I think (IMO) the answer is “all the things” rather than some. But we’re not even shuffling the deck yet as a population so making first steps accessible is important in my own experience. Too much in one go and peoples eyes glaze over.
Of course, it’s important to do the first steps. But that’s the thing. 99% of the population will stick to that first step. I plan to help people when I can in the future, but, I need to help myself first. Tho, see society around me, I don’t see that happening. I need to get rich and the only way to be rich is to either sell something stupid, yet “hypnotizing” or, to be corrupted and doing illegal stuff (and if you don’t have connection, will get caught).
People are dumb. Yeah, yeah, I know, everyone says that. But that’s another point. We are ALL dumb and especially weak af. Especially me! Cheers my friend!
I have studied this greatly recently. Including strategies and methods to counter and create more symbiotic feedback loops. Game theory, zero sum outcomes, Nash equilibrium. There are loads of studies and detailed analysis on how all of this type of behavior works against us.
It’s fascinating. Humanity has a long long way to go for where we think we should be FOSS and others. We are no where near the capacity of greatness we think we have achieved. Where we are now historically. It’s a facade. Smoke and mirrors on the grand scale. We are in a great transition right now.
Time displayed in different information architectures is interesting and where the real deep learning happens. Not just time but information structuring in general. Time was just relative to this reply. We train deep learning on this. It’s heavy mental gymnastics.
Becoming a parent is not a right, it is a privilege (I guess). You need a license to get married, drive, hunt or fish, your dog needs one. There should be some sort of class and background check you must pass before being allowed to procreate. Just the basics like: this is the level of care and support this small helpless mammal needs to be healthy and grow to maturity. This is how much, minimum, that quality upbringing will cost and do you meet that bare minimum level of competence and income to raise a healthy baby.
DUI laws are too strict. It shouldn’t be all or nothing at .08 BAC but more severe punishments for more severe inebriation. .08 is pretty low and people who drink regularly can function fine at that level.
People hate this one but… hey, it’s my most unpopular opinion.
That’s one I used to hold until I went looking for studies on how smaller doses of alcohol impact a person’s driving ability. What I found was a linear, dose-dependent response with no real hard cutoffs. Driving is dangerous enough; there’s little benefit to making that worse by drinking beforehand.
I might be OK with a reduced penalty at .08, but I’d like to add a slap on the wrist at an even lower level.
Here in Sweden the limit is at 0,2 ‰ which I believe is equivalent to 0,02 BAC. So 0,08 BAC is really high IMO.
The limit for a serious violation is 1 ‰
The punishment for a normal violation is a fine or up to 6 months in prison. The punishment for a serious violation is up to 2 years in prison. Apparently if you go above 1,5 ‰ you are quite unlikely to get any other punishment than prison, so community service or similar is out.
If you are found guilty they generally take your driving licence a As well and you are not allowed to get a new one for a minimum of 1 month or a maximum of 3 years (minimum 1 year for serious violation)
Does that mean the limit is like half a drink?
I have no idea, I don’t drink.
But if that’s the case it makes sense since you shouldn’t drink and drive at all IMO the limit should be treated more like a margin of error (because you shouldn’t drink at all) and less like a limit of how much you can drink.
They used to be more lax, the current rules are more strict because it IS a problem and there are studies showing it to be. Hence the lower BAC limits.
That is an actual unpopular opinion. Fuck people who drink and drive, driving is dangerous enough as it is, and no one needs to drink alcohol ever
It’s a personal decision. Some of us enjoy the flavor and the social enhancements after having a few. I agree fuck people who drive really drunk but I don’t consider a few beers to be that. In fact, I know that a few beers doesn’t make me drunk or mess up my motor skills any. I’m significantly more dangerous when I am sleep deprived but that isn’t illegal. Heh.
There are people with addictions who live in car centric places and need to drive. Should we stop those people from living a normal life because of a medical condition? Probably leading to it worsening = more drinking
I think it’s a more complicated issue than it seems at surface level and a real solution needs to be nuanced.
Mine are unpopular, but in the other direction.
I think your first DUI offense should be the last time you drive. Period. I feel like the fact it’s so lax is due to people knowing they won’t be severely punished.
Punishments are pretty severe… Night in jail, thousands in fines, possibility of losing your license… Justified when the person is actually inebriated but I don’t believe that is the case at .08… that’s a little buzz.
Not trying to change minds here though. I know it’s an unpopular opinion.
I don’t think a little buzz is ok either. Driving is dangerous at the best of times. Another reply somewhere in this thread already said it, but there’s no need to make it worse than it has to be.
People go to bars and friends’ houses and such and drink. It’s a part of life in western society. There is a massive difference in being slightly buzzed and being sloshed and I think the punishments should scale. Just as I’m not trying to change minds, mine won’t change either. This is my unpopular opinion as the thread requested.
Fair. This whole thread is unpopular opinions, so it’s kinda natural for most people to disagree with each other.
Thread participation achieved. I’m not even mad. (งツ)ว
It would be for the best if public transport were good enough everywhere that you wouldn’t have to drive a vehicle with alcohol in your system.
Yeah, agreed. Everybody likes to say “there’s no excuse when you can Uber!” but in a real world situation that requires an expensive ride home and then an expensive ride back to your car the next day while worrying if it’s okay in the parking lot. Not actually very practical when you’re just having a reasonable amount of drinks and not getting shit-faced. So I hang around where I’m at after my last beer until I know I’m safe and just hope I’m not slightly over that silly .08.
don’t believe that is the case at .08… that’s a little buzz.
And a little buzz is too much to drive with? Respectfully, that is just rearranging titanic deck chairs. Buzzed driving should be illegal too.
As a society, we have to draw the line somewhere. Personally I am happy the line for driving 2 tons of steel is BEFORE someone feels the affect of alcohol. Driving is dangerous enough as is, buzzed still slows reaction times.
Lines are fine. The punishments are too severe at this line though.
Cognitive ability is a far better test. I used to be a raging alco, like real alco, not just daily drinker. The levels I functioned at would kill most people.
Of course I still have alcoholism, but I haven’t drank in 12+ years. While I don’t condone drinking and driving at all - in fact it makes no sense at all in this age of ride sharing - but if I were on a jury I could be swayed by a heavy drinker excuse. 🤷♂️
Wow. .08 is ridiculously lax IMO. I agree punishments should scale by inebriation level but I never expected people to think .08 was too strict.
It’s a slight buzz. People are substantially more dangerous when they are sleep deprived but no laws or severe punishments for that because the system needs its slaves to get to work whether they’ve rested well or not.
Regular expressions are not that difficult and coders that refuse to learn them because they “look like line noise” are terrible at their jobs.
I can write a basic regex independently, but as soon as capture groups or positive/negative lookahead or lookbehind start popping up I’m back to the docs every time.
Absolutely, the syntax is difficult to remember, but knowing about concepts like lookaheads etc. is already far beyond what “regex is line noise” coders will ever achieve.
And there’s always regex101.com to help develop and test your expressions!
Level 2 of these people: learn regex and try to parse something non-regular like XML or C++ templates with it.
Same people who did not pay attention and hated the “useless” formal languages lecture in university and who have no clue about proper data structures and algorithms for their problem, just hack together some half-working solution and ship it. Fix bugs with extra if statements instead of solving the real issue. Not writing unit tests.
Soo many people in software development who really should not be there.
Not a coder. But knowing basic regex, makes my life so much easier. Even in things like excel.
Hell, you can even use regex to search your stash in Path of Exile 2.
Easy enough to write. But reading and maintaining? That’s the hard part.
I’ve always thought that regular expressions are just specifications for state machines. They aren’t that difficult.
Jeez, this thread is scary, I forget how many crazy opinions people can have.
Mine is probably that non-human animal lives matter, maybe not exactly in the same way that human lives do, but in a comparable and important way. I believe that murder is murder no matter the animal killed.
And also a maybe close second (not really an opinion but you could argue that I’m too dark about it) is that climate change is far past the point of no return and that in 50 years we are all going to live extremely hard lives (if we even survive) that right now would seem like an apocalypse type fantasy movie.
Climate change is not a lost cause. We are beating any estimates on wind and solar deployment, solar is cheap as fuck, and overall, were just no that bad off.
This is exactly the type of optimism we need if we’re gonna slow climate change enough to make it
To be fair, I didn’t explain myself. I don’t think it is a lost cause. I think that we’re already at a point where it’s gonna become apocalyptic. I think if we don’t do anything about it, it will become an extinction event.
But, I will admit that the last few weeks have been super depressing and myi mnd ia probably not as objective as it can be about the future
The family of ants you ran over yesterday would like a word, their father and husband Steve, is a good soldier that supplies for the colony. This murder and or antslaughter must be punished with the highest degree of justice involved.
Just think if exterminators. The horror on a capitalist scale.
Look, I gave a short explanation of my views, but yeah, there are some grey areas that are complicated, exterminators being one of them.
My views on exterminators and really any other form of harm to others to serve your own purposes, is that you have to truly appreciate the fact that these other living creatures deserve to live and only under extreme circumstances should extreme approaches be taken.
If you have termites eating your house, yeah, you’re gonna have to exterminate them. It’s either them or your house and it’s a form of self-defense in my opinion.
The problem is that people just go for the most extreme approach of extermination when there could be other solutions to pests.
Maybe consider that next time you have a pest problem. Are there other solutions that cause less harm that would still provide you with the resolution that you need?
A very simple example is when you find a bug at home, you can choose to try and capture it and release it outside safely instead of trying to kill it.
I know you think that it’s a real gotcha moment and that you totally destroyed my views, But you forgot the meaning of murder.
You see, to murder is to knowingly and purposefully kill someone.
If I saw you walking on the sidewalk and decided to go over and run you over and I killed you, that would be murder. But if I was driving and was in a car crash and ended up killing you, that is not murder.
Similarly, if I accidentally, without intent, killed an animal, it was not murder.
And yeah, even ants deserve to live. I wouldn’t kill ants purposely. Is it hard not to kill ants by accident because they’re so small and you can accidentally step on them without seeing them? Yeah, but it doesn’t mean that I would knowingly kill them.
I dont mind killing cows/chicken/similar for their meat, bones, skin, and others. But I might understand your views if we are talking about needlessly murdering animals. Torturing animals.
But just killing animals in general? I lost you there.
Define needlessly?
You see, you probably define it as a subjective catch all for anything that you are used to having in your life.
But if you really inspect that idea you can reach all kinds of extremes, like do you really need a home? You can live on the street, do you really need a car? You could walk technically, do you really need meat? You could live perfectly healthy without it technically, do you need a towel after a shower? You can just let yourself dry, what about chocolate? Just a nice snack, is that a necessity? And marshmallows? Bread? Flavoured drinks?
So the line is individual and non linear. One might say they can live without cars but not without a home, one would say the opposite, one would claim that chocolate is more important than having towels, etc. Some can also say that the joy they get from turturing an animal is more significant for their own happiness than chocolate, or towels or eating meat, these people are 100% with the parameters of your logic, yet you lable it as unnecessary.
You could redefine necessity as things that would cause you serious harm if taken, which is still subjective but a little clearer. Most people can agree that never eating chocolate again would suck but not cause any serious harm. Most can also probably agree that not having a home would cause you serious harm. And while you might not like to admit it, scientifically going vegan won’t just not cause you harm, it would actually be healthy for you, and just like people who go on all kinds of diets, it sucks at first, but it does not cause any serious harm.
So ask yourself, what justification can you use to inflict serious harm on to others for the sake of simple pleasure to you?
I’m not trying to argue for veganism here. I’m just saying killing animals needlessly is bad. If you need the animal dead, kill it. For its resources.
If you think that going vegan is good, then do it. If you think eating meat is not the “min max meta” way of living, then you do you. But I think, as long as you don’t mistreat the animals, its worth it.
If you still want more discussion about avoiding mistreating animals and why it matters even if we are going to kill them anyway, ask your friends.
as long as you don’t mistreat the animals
I find it interesting that you consider killing not a mistreatment.
You say that killing them for their resources is worth it, but worth it to who? Obviously not the victim. Most horrible things are worth it to the ones committing them.
All I’m saying is, while we might have different moral opinions, at the very least provide logical, consistent arguments.
I find it interesting that you consider killing not a mistreatment.
I see you haven’t asked your friends, no matter though, I’m just some guy on the internet. You do you!
Nickelback is an alright band. Far from my favorite, I just don’t get what all the hate was about.
In fact, I’d go as far as saying that their first album is pretty good, and I like it. Except from that song which is severely overplayed and mediocre.
The hate came from them being absolute dicks to their own fans.
Wait, actually?
Jip it’s their own fans that started hating them and spreading the hate.
I always assumed because it was played on the radio 24/7
It was le funny reddit thing to hate Nickelback and love queen.
Do yourself a favor and hear that cover bit they did for Metallica’s “Sad but true”. They’re pretty good musicians actually but they just choose to do more corny/commercial stuff – which imho is not valid reason for the hate. Sad but true.
Choosing to produce generic and soulless music for profit isn’t a good reason to dislike a band?
I was in Middle School when they hit it big, and am Canadian to boot. They got overplayed to the point of frustration on the radio and TV.
Couple that with them being one of the last successful “butt-rock” bands, and my friend group had everything we needed to hate on them.
Votes should be inversely weighted by age. The vote of someone who’s going to clock out before the next election even rolls around shouldn’t be worth the same as the vote of someone who’s going to have to live with the consequences for half a century or more.
Or have the voting age be 18 years old to the average national life expectancy, although i really haven’t thought this through too much. I assume if such a situation were to exist, it would be much easier to cut Social Security and Medicare without losing the elderly vote, so that probably would backfire.
Voting age should be raised to at least 24, so that the frontal lobe is fully developed.
Not really my belief, but you’re opinion marginalized me, so I’m counter-proposing.
Then cap the voting age at 50 when cognitive decline of the frontal lobe really kicks in, if we are talking about fully developed brain function.
Neural plasticity has even declined once you are past your 20s. One of the reasons people find it much much harder to learn a new language past then, for example.
reasoning, memory, and speed of reasoning reaches a decline threshold when you are around 40.
My unpopular opinion is I guess that humans were never evolved to live as long as we do (and certainly not meant to labor as long) so everything in our brain gets very wonky. Empathy is also one of the things stunted with age. There is a reason the “grump old man” trope exists.
EDIT: Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. Pretty much everything regarding age is arbitrary because you are “developing” until your mid 20s and then you start declining, brain-wise. It is all arbitrary. And then the above poster doesn’t even check that I am a different person than the original comment and sends me a hate message somehow thinking that I am wishing death on him (why would anyone wish for a stranger to die?) for simply pointing out that our brains get weirder with age especially because we are forced to work for much longer and often have less empathy.
Perhaps there’s an IQ cutoff you’d favor as well? Perhaps a psychological exam? Surely the mentality handicapped shouldn’t vote, right?
You speak to me of empathy?
Read and think critically. It is all arbitrary. If we cut off people at 18 or 24, why shouldn’t we cut them off at 50? There is scientific evidence both ways.
Not to mention that IQ is pretty much a farce and completely biased by certain types of education and only measures a small subset of human brain function, The cutoff would also be completely arbitrary.
Not everything is a personal indictment on you or your beliefs.
Ooooh dark. I like.
Vote 1! @Sordid
But what about the reverse argument?
The elders know much more than the young generation, shouldn’t they have a larger say?
Just for lemmy:
Most people on here care more about being right than affecting any sort of progress.
…affecting any sort of progress.
how do you want them to affect progress?
But if they are indeed right, and that fire they have about it is used to defend their point-of-view until it’s been so scrutinised and counter-argued that either it has been shown to be incorrect, or no counter could undo the initial argument, is that not progress?
Lemmy is not academy. This is a web forum, most of us are not here to do formal science.
I would put it like this.
People on Lemmy would rather be right than affect change which would be in line with their beliefs.
I think that’s just people. Lemmy just happens to be one of the forums where that’s observed.
Linux will never come close to replacing Windows.
It doesn’t even matter how good Linux is or how bad Windows gets, Linux is lacking the one thing that made Windows mainstream: Billions of dollars in marketing and brand recognition.
Linux is missing more than that. It, by nature, has no direction.
It has many directions, not none.
Same problem, different cause.
Right and Windows’ direction is so clear and not hype-driven at all
Did Firefox have billions in marketing when it overtook Internet Explorer?
The big difference being that most people don’t know or care to learn how to download their own OS. Installing a browser is quick and easy in comparison.
I’ve been out of the tech world a minute now so maybe its changed but last I knew no PCs came with Linux preinstalled and you can’t just get a Linux OS disk to use to install.
Fair, it’s not as easy as installing a new browser.
But it’s not difficult.
- Download Linux
- Flash it on a USB
- Change boot settings
- restart and follow install wizard
It’s real easy and there are many clear guides out there.
Boo! Hiss!
I’m sure people didn’t think Internet Explorer would be replaced either.
But if your product is dog shit log enough, people will move
Windows will never come close to replacing Linux! There’s way more Linux out there than there is Windows.
Presumably you mean on the personal desktop. In which case I still disagree in the very long term. I think at some point Windows will be replaced by *nix based systems in the vein of OSX and Chrome OS.
Been hearing this for decades and it has not happened.
deleted by creator
Wdym? It replaced it five years ago on my PC! You must feel really stupid right about now.
MIT and BSD software licenses might as well be renamed to “I love big daddy companies and trust them 100% uwu”
There is no reason not to choose GPL/AGPL/MPL 2.0/LGPL/SSPL if you are writing open source code.
MIT and BSD just let companies enrich themselves at societies expense.
Preach!
That is a quite popular opinion judging by the votes. I think they function quite differently, and are useful for different things, which might be more unpopular.
BSD and MIT are more like “public domain” or “creative commons” licenses. Some people genuinely just don’t care and want literally anyone to use their work.
Libraries, languages, APIs, OS’s, etc… Work well because they have mass adoption. They have mass adoption (often) because people get the freedom to use them during their paid time. Companies are exploitative and evil, but often their dev and engineer employees aren’t.
Copy left licenses (GPL, AGPL, CERN-OHL-S to not forget about open source hardware) really shine for end products like hardware, applications, hosted software, games, etc… Where you want to preserve a “unique” end product against theft, exploitation, and commercialization, and really care about having not everyone be able to do whatever they want.
@mholiv yes. Literally the reason why I use MIT licenses in my software. It’s possible for real people (same as me) doing real work to use my software legally and I don’t care if they hide their patches from me. I don’t really care about them at all - I just supply software as it is.
Then why not LGPL or MPL 2.0? They could use your code as is too. I’ve worked in major tech companies and they are ok with these. They just don’t like GPL for obvious reasons.
Obviously too is that you have the right to choose how to license your code, but I don’t think it makes sense to use MIT when LGPL and MPL 2.0:
- Exist
- Are accepted by tech corps for internal use.
If you don’t believe me look at your corps license inclusion policy.
@mholiv tried to look at MPL 2.0. Too long, didn’t read, lol. Maybe later I’ll look at it closely.
I will say shortness is a major advantage of the MIT license. Easy to understand.
For the MPL 2.0 here is a good short reference.
https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2-0-mpl-2
What’s the main difference between those licenses?
Sure. Very briefly. These are all open source licenses which (roughly) means the source is freely viewable and changeable. But the specific differences are:
-
MIT/BSD - Anyone can take the code and do whatever they want, if they start with your code, improve it then make it proprietary there is nothing you can do.
-
GPL - If someone makes changes to your code and improves it they have to make it available for use by the community too IF and only if they distribute the binary.
-
AGPL - Like GPL except that even if they are running the code on their server and not sharing it they still have to give back improvements.
-
MPL 2.0 - Like GPL but limited to specific files. This is useful for things like statically linked code. I don’t often recommend this but it can be needed for static only code bases like rust. Proprietary software can link with this and not be covered by the copyleft share alike stuff.
-
LGPL - Like the GPL but for dynamically linked libraries. Proprietary software can link with this and not be covered by the copyleft share alike stuff.
-
SSPL - Like AGPL but technically even more intense. If you use SSPL you must open source all the tooling you use to manage that hosted SSPL license. Any tools to make sure the SSPL software is running well or to set it up must also be open sourced.
The OSI technically does not say the SSPL is “open source” but given that they recently admitted that they regret defining the AGPL as open source I think the OSI might be showing a bit of corporate bias.
Thank you. At glance it seems like the difference between CC0 and CC-SA in copyright with some additiona rules about what exactly count as “publishing” stuf. That was very helpful.
CC0 vs CC-SA is actually a really good (rough) analogy.
-
@mholiv@lemmy.world It’s common misconception that copyleft licences stop rich companies stealing open source.
I mean you can’t steal open source code if you tried. The code is too respectful of your freedoms. I don’t think anyone is arguing against you here.
@mholiv@lemmy.world So there’s no reason not to use non-copyleft licences like BSD or MIT.
If “theft” is your only concern yes. It’s a common misconception that copyleft licenses stops rich companies from stealing. It does not.
I am more concerned about societal enrichment vs corporate enrichment.
If you release some code under MIT that a company finds useful, they could take it, improve it a bit, and resell it back to the community. This enriches the company at the expense of the community. Without the original code the company could have never taken it as a basis to sell and the community that wrote the code gets nothing.
If you release that same code as AGPL the company can take it, improve it and sell it to the community. BUT the difference is that the community now benefits from those improvements too. Maybe more improvements happen. Maybe a second company takes those improvements and sells them too. The community would have all the improvements and would benefit from greater competition.
With copy left licenses. The community is enriched and companies are enriched.
With MIT style licenses. Companies are enriched at the expense of the community.
@mholiv@lemmy.world It looks you believe that magic letters G, P and L make company release their improvements to the public. Actually they do the same with MIT and GPL code: include it into closed source products and that is. Because there’s no way for you to check if there was GPL in closed source program.
But the GPL style licences bring licence compatibility issues while MIT style do not. (And that’s why Linux cannot include ZFS driver despite it’s being “GPL style” licenced)
Ask Cisco how they feel about it. There is a precedence of companies using copy left licensed software and the community benefiting from it.
If companies are just going to be blatantly criminal and violate software licenses they were going to do that anyways. I’m not sure how much experience you have working in or with mega corps but the ones I have worked with in the past HATE the idea of opening themselves up to being so blatantly liable.
When I worked in big tech we had a license scanner that checked the libraries we were using. Anything strongly copyleft would be flagged and we would be contacted by legal.
You might have experienced working with companies that act otherwise. I encourage you to call them out, maybe work with the FSF to get another Cisco style ruling.
Funny you mention ZFS though. It’s not the GPL that was the issue. It is CDDL that’s incompatible. GPL is generally comparable with foss licenses. MIT, MPL, Apache, BSD all are comparable. It’s just CDDL that’s incompatible with copyleft in general.
If you think the community will benefit more from MIT licensed software than copyleft I think you need to look harder at the modern corporate world. Corporations are not altruistic.
This being said I’m not sure there is much more to be said here. You’ve gone to saying I believe in magic and that there are corporate GPL conspiracies. I just don’t see the proof and I think there is not much more to be gained by such talk.
@mholiv@lemmy.world Going criminal is not a goal in itself. I think you know, corporations exist for profit. If violating a licence gains profit they’ll do it. You know companies doing open source? I know too. Why do they do it? Because of GPL? No, they do because they profit from it. (And they like how copyleft licences restrict others from benefiting).
You see problem with CDDL? Problem would be any other copyleft licence. No copyleft licence is compatible with GPL (except they include special exception), neither CDDL, nor GFDL (despite GNU in its name), nor any other. Funny you mention MIT, MPL, Apache and BSD in this list, because they’re all permissive that are compatible to both GPL and CDDL. It is not CDDL, but copyleft making these licences incompatible. I mentioned CDDL specifically because it is an iconic example how copyleft (allows a company to) hurt open source.
You’re speaking about “conspiracies”, and ask me for proofs. But what proofs do you need? That companies violate licences? There are known cases of open source licence litigations. Actually problem is deeper, not that companies violate licences, but that there’s no effective way to enforce such licences (without totalitarism).
