> 45 minutes means an hour and a half of your life every day that you don't get paid for and have to just throw away. (not only that but spending it doing one of the more dangerous things you can do in the US: driving.)
I've never found commuting to be "thrown away", but I've never commuted by car. I can read, listen to a podcast, or just people watch on the train. Or when biking/walking to work, I get some exercise. Seems to me the problem isn't commuting, but car commuting.
> One of my many disagreements with feminism is that it has somehow persuaded itself that this is somehow a privilege for men, and not an intolerable and sometimes literally fatal burden.
It definitely is a privilege, as a whole. People bring up workplace fatalities, and compare the experience of poor or working-class men vs women in general. The experience of a working class woman in this country is absolutely worse than that of a working class man, but both are very bad, because our country is not built for our working class or poor, regardless of gender.
If you compare women vs men in the same class, men undeniable have privilege.
Become a roofer for your entire working life, blow your back and knees out at 45, and tell me that's a privilege. Or maybe tell the overwhelming majority of male homeless they simply squandered it.
I don't know why the possibility of "Yes, men encounter unique problems" is met with derision. I'm not dismissing or trying to minimize problems women encounter, and life at the bottom of the socioeconomic heap sucks in general. But men absolutely don't enjoy some sort of privilege there; it's a grind and it will literally consume you unless you can come up with an out regardless of sex or creed. That suckage is gong to be different depending on circumstances, but I will say nobody really cares, good luck, and can you please keep it to yourself in polite company, because it's gross and makes people uncomfortable.
Seems quite easily deniable to me. Men dominate school dropouts, suicides, prisoners, and the homeless. All of these issues disproportionately affect the working class and other disadvantaged groups, so that strawman can go back in its box for another conversation.
On overwork specifically, fathers are the most likely to work overtime and swap shifts - more so than men without children (and women in general). When it's a choice even other men don't make, it should be obvious even to the most frothy ideologue that there's a unique pressure on fathers in this regard. They're giving something up that literally everyone else finds valuable.
> There was a golden era of reddit right before the great Digg migration.
People say this, but this is also when Reddit was the largest place for underage "softcore" pornography on the internet. It was one of the first things you saw when you google searched "reddit"
reddit is still like half porn. It was so bad they stopped showing NSFW content on r/all, before the change if you sorted by new, literally half the posts were marked NSFW.
Call me an out of touch west coast liberal, but I personally would prefer that I don't regularly encounter people carrying a weapon capable of killing me. This isn't a war zone.
You're not wrong. This state is getting worse all the time. A little kid was shot an killed because his mom flipped someone off for cutting her off. The kid's last words were something like. "mommy. my tummy hurts."
Last I checked, they still hadn't caught him. This is not a state where more guns us going to make things better. It's a state that very clearly represents the temperature of the country: financially strong liberal strongholds arm wrestling with the government around them. (Abbott and Patrick don't hold back on how much they hate Austin.) We're just going to shoot at each more and scream Castle Doctrine about it.
Liberal strongholds tend to be soft on crime. When your response to someone who assaults another person "just because" is a slap on the wrist, it's no surprise they move on to more heinous crimes.
"But the guy didn't kill anyone, he deserves a second chance" -- right. And the rest of us deserve some safety from people like him.
You can't ban your way to more safety if you can't reasonably control the thing that you're banning. The US government can't reasonably control who has a gun in this country, that's just a fact and it will not change as long as the second amendment is a thing.
What you can do is adjust sentencing standards so that the people who are at highest risk of re-offending in a violent way are locked up.
I find it bizarre that your stance on civil liberties allows people to carry a gun freely but is totally OK with totally taking away someone's freedom for years or decades because they are supposedly a threat to public safety.
> I find it bizarre that your stance on civil liberties allows people to carry a gun freely but is totally OK with totally taking away someone's freedom for years or decades
What is bizarre? Freedom, personal responsibility, and the right to defend oneself are not mutually exclusive. Your freedom is yours to lose, and that happens when you infringe on other peoples' right to freedom.
> because they are supposedly a threat to public safety.
Strawman. You take away someone's freedom because they committed a crime of some kind and are likely to be a violent re-offender. Most likely that means they committed a violent crime in the first place, and were just lucky to not have killed someone. That sort of determination requires looking at the totality of circumstances, too, not just checking a couple boxes.
SF and NYC are supported by the government around them, and look at the explosion of violence and crime in those cities over the past year. Not so in Austin.
I live in California, which is part of that country, and bans open carry. Why would I need to move to another country for sensible gun laws? I believe there is a balance which respects the second amendment (which I support!) while also placing reasonable restrictions on purchasing and carrying guns. Guns are extremely serious things, and just because I support the right of gun ownership doesn't mean that I support the totally unrestricted right of anyone to buy any gun at any time and bring it anywhere.
It also doesn't comport with the contemporary writings of the framers, nor the fact that the term "militia" in the constitution refers to the National Guard, which was at the time imagined as a body made up of all able bodied men between 18 and 45 years old. Additionally, at the time, only men were considered "the people".
We should (imho) enact reasonable regulation that balances rights with citizen safety in a country where people need to be told not to fill plastic bags with gasoline and there is a widespread belief that there are microchips in vaccines.
Screwdrivers, tent stakes, bottles of propane, battery powered circular saws... you can kill somebody very easily with just about everything they sell at Home Depot, and many of them are far more effective than a knife.
> What the average HN user and the average user want is worlds apart. The average person likes their emails to be nicely designed like a website with blocks of colour and the site logos.
Taste is generated. Cool trendy startups make "nicely designed" emails, users come to expect that. If scam emails looked "nicely designed" and Google sent emails in plaintext, the "nicely designed" emails would be considered untrustworthy. As a counterpoint, an "average user" wants software to work, and forcing every email client to parse HTML (which is far outside the scope of what an email client should do, especially with html as complex as it is today) often breaks things in unexpected ways.
In my opinion, html and plaintext are both inappropriate for email. HTML is far too complex, and plaintext is a bit too simple. I think a markdown-like syntax would be the best balance, but I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed.
It’s more the other way around — big cos are endorsing Rust and joining the nascent foundation. It’s perfectly reasonable for a three month old foundation for a popular new language to be in the news quite a bit, and for its sponsors to enjoy the attention that goes with it
The Rust Foundation is really new, it just started in February. That's probably why you've been hearing a lot of news about corporate Rust sponsorships recently, or if not "a lot" then more than you've heard about, say, corporate Python sponsorships.
Not much other than reflecting the reality that BigCos are using rust in production, and as a result, have a vested interest in the project's governance. This is true for pretty much every popular language of software with an open governance model.
Here in the DC area, we have the subjectively WORST traffic in the country now (DC, Boston, etc. might argue otherwise). Regardless, they've built almost 0 new capacity in the last decade EXCEPT for toll roads.
Yep, the main road I use in the DC's "tech corridor" in NOVA is a privately owned (by a foreign company, to boot) toll road whose prices have at least doubled in the last 5-7 years. Before Covid, I was getting alerts for $40 top-ups on my EZPass weekly, it seemed.
They used to have incentives for hybrids and EV cars to use the multi-user lanes (much less traffic during rush hour), but I believe they let those expire and now they use price-by-demand algorithms for the costs to use express lanes. They are almost insulting how high the prices will be at peak times - e.g. $20 to use express lanes for 1.5 miles.
As for residential roads - well those are already paid for with gas and local taxes. Interestingly, my state's sales tax is 30% higher than when I was a kid. Prop taxes go up every year due to exploding house prices, but I see absolutely no new services they're providing with all this extra cash. Do you, in your city?
I mean don’t get me wrong, the infrastructure in this country is awful but it isn’t because it is done by a government. The state is the only institution that can really do infrastructure projects is my point, how and whether it does them is a political decision
Yes, and I have to have a truck because if I drove a normal car it would be int eh shop every week due to all the damage the government roads would cause to the suspension
The "who will build the roads" trope is common statement for people that support government largess, is ironically poor example of "good government" and completely ignores reality that in most area's the government does a VERY VERY VERY poor job at road maintenance while charging the citizens an obscene amount of money for that poor service.
If a private home owner assocation paid the amount of money most governments do per mile of private road they would be in the civil courts suing that contractor.
BTW many communities in the US do have private roads in them, maintained by the owners of the homes in those communities
The thing governments keep building despite their contribution to climate change, air pollution, destroyed neighborhoods, and inefficient land use? The thing funded by the poor at the same rate as the rich? You know... I think I've heard of them. My government is building another 6 lane overpass over a neighborhood (and its a toll!). Hope this one works out!
I am disagreeing with the parent . People don’t think that the government should build trains, but that it should build roads, which have all the problems you mentioned.
Fortunately, such an idea is so ludicrous and self-destructive that it would benefit no one, not even those with wealth and power, so I don't have to worry about it too much. Capitalism (a terrible system which I am against) requires state coordination in order to function. Libertarians (which you seem to be one) are pro-capitalist, but don't support the institution (the state) that allows capitalism to even function, it's an incoherent ideology. Capitalism without a strong state is impossible, if you are really against the state, you'd necessarily have to get rid of capitalism too.
What economic system do you support then? Socialism. it would be laughable if you believe capitalism requires a strong state (it does not) but believes socialism does not when in reality Socialism requires a Totalitarian state as has been proved every time it has been tried
Free market Capitalism (one form of capitalism) is the only economic system that is compatible with individual liberty, since you oppose that I assume then you also oppose individualism, and individual liberty instead support Authoritarianism and collectivism
> Free market Capitalism (one form of capitalism) is the only economic system that is compatible with individual liberty
Have you heard of the call on the left to “abolish the police”? I have never heard this from libertarians. Do you support abolishing police and prisons? Because that seems to me a far more oppressive institution than, say, income tax. The United States has the largest prison population in the world, I cannot imagine anything worse for individual liberty than that. Also, what about people’s freedom to do what they want with their time? Americans work the longest hours in the western world and have some of the worst labor protections. Libertarians are obsessed with freedom to consume but have little interest in protecting people’s freedoms at work. If the government monitored how long you were in the bathroom, that would be insane, but when an Amazon warehouse in a small town in Alabama does, it’s “the free market”. Libertarians hate when the government takes your money, but love when your boss takes your money, libertarians hate lazy people who don’t work, but have no problem with people who in inherit wealth and live off their investments. They love free speech and free association, but hate unions: which is a freely chosen organization of workers representing their interests. I could go on, but I fully support individual liberty and freedom, which is why I’m a socialist.
The programming language is a pretty substantial part of the implementation, though, if not the most substantial one. Rust is qualitatively different than a language like C (in that it is memory safe) or Python (in that it is compiled and fast).
