This is the absolute opposite take of what is actually happening. We are in the most capitalist time ever. There are a few people who own all the wealth, 2 of them are also in control of the most powerful government. This is capitalism baby, enjoy the full wrath.
I'm not sure what the situation is in Denmark and guess you live in a less populated area. But if you travel by train you would ideally take public transport to the main hub. A decent network would connect you to a fairly big hub within 45 minutes. If you really live in the outskirts there should be some sort of hub where you can go by car.
In Denmark specifically the border policy causes some slowdown. Other than that it probably has the same issue as the Netherlands where the trains that go across the border are infrequent and don't connect to major hubs. This creates a lot of friction in the entire network which makes the entire proposition fall apart. If you have to cross more than one border you really get into some hellish territory, speaking from experience.
You can thank all local train operators for this. They have been fighting a shared ticketing system tooth and nail at the European level and the weak politicians in Europe who don't push for a shared system.
What is the rationale for fighting a unified system? A unified system would make it easier to travel by train, which should in theory encourage people to do so more.
Is this a problem of the operators within each country not wanting to be unified with each other because then they'd have to compete more directly? Or is this actually the operators between countries fighting over it for some reason?
There are things that can be done about people jumping in front of trains. Making sure the rails are not accessible with fences around them. Putting camera's at spots where people can get past the fences. In high risk stations you can put walls and gates in that only open when a train can be boarded.
It's all just a lack of investment. If the budget for rail and other infrastructure matched the budget for car infrastructure rail would be way better than cars.
Coming from someone who has spent considerable time thinking about and planning suicide by train: lol no
Unless you put up walls higher than the highest ladders available (so at least 5m I guess) or completely enlose every train track with a roof and everything, people will climb over things. There's either no space for large fenced areas around tracks (pretty much everywhere near civilization) or you're too far out for somebody to respond before a determined person can reach the track. And of course, nobody will permit the construction of the necessary infrastructure (call them NIMBYs if you want).
Every escape door can be used to enter tracks. Make them as secure as you want them - keys are easier to get then you think.
Rebuilding train stations to completely secure access to the tracks would involve standardizing all trains in every country in all of Europe.
And (not applicable for high-speed trains) unless you want to spend billions and years to rebuild every train crossing to bridges, it will be impossible to completely secure the tracks.
Most train suicides are impulsive decisions and can be prevented with better infrastructure. But if suicide by train is too difficult, I'll just jump on front of a car instead, or from a bridge, etc. "It's all just a lack of investment" so is terra forming Mars. But spend a fraction of this for better mental health and you can prevent many more suicides.
(Without derailing the topic, I hope you are doing better now! You sound level headed and like someone we want in this world or on our jobs or in our friend groups.)
I mostly figured the same as what you said (way too much infrastructure needed to mostly eliminate the possibility), though if you say most suicides are impulse decisions, wouldn't preventative infrastructure in a few key spots be sufficient to shave, idk, 10+% off the number of suicides by train?
Even if it did prevent 10% of suicides by train, it stands to reason that a huge portion of those 10% would simply become suicides by jumping off a bridge.
Studies show that making particular suicide methods harder to access is an effective way to reduce overall suicide rates. That includes restrictions on poisons and firearms, but also physical barriers on bridges and train platforms.
> In high risk stations you can put walls and gates in that only open when a train can be boarded.
That is only possible with fully standardized train units. Which is why you will see this in subways and dedicated high speed networks, but not on the common rail net. Platforms on a larger railway station have to accommodate a range of trains, from metro services (many doors at shorter intervals), to intercity trains (fewer doors, longer carriages), to special trains like night trains (a bunch of carriages from different ages strung together) and rented locomotives with spare carriages to fill gaps in the roster caused by late delivery of new trains.
> Making sure the rails are not accessible with fences around them.
There will always be spots where the rails are somewhat accessible outside of built-up areas.
Besides, all of that is fighting symptoms. Spend the same money on prevention and you'll have much more impact.
Makes sense why I've not seen gates in many places but metro networks and high speed.
I agree that there will always be spots where the rails can be reached. As with many parts of human behavior, if there is more friction less people will do the thing. Since there are many instances where this is a temporary state and seeking and finding help can always be difficult I think creating that frictions is also worthwhile. Making sure people are prevented from feeling suicidal and being happier is something I also fully support.
If I walk outside I'm bombarded by ads. Almost all websites have been tailored to include ads and hide information. You're tracked on all devices you touch.
Vaguely referencing more laws or larger government doesn't mean anything. We're not talking about all problems but a specific one. There is an obvious imbalance between the power and information an individual consumer can use to shield themselves from activities by companies that are detrimental to them. We are also not expected to test our own food for toxins.
More platitudes and soundbites doesn't have to be the answer to all problems.
Seeing ads outside likely doesn't harm you though, you can ignore them. If your city is plastered with ads to a point at where you can't stand it you can always move, that's just another part of a city that someone may decide they don't like and want something different.
> Almost all websites have been tailored to include ads and hide information. You're tracked on all devices you touch.
That's really the crux of it though. The problem isn't just that companies are gobbling up all this data, it's also that we make the data available in the first place.
Stop using a smartphone and taking it everywhere with you, limit what you do online in general, and pay cash when you can. A few simple changes would really reduce the data you make available, I'm sure there are other simple changes I'm missing here but the point is that we don't have to protect data that doesn't exist.
> Seeing ads outside likely doesn't harm you though, you can ignore them.
Just for a different perspective, I can't ignore them. I read more-or-less all text that comes into my field of vision, and cannot help but look at bright flashing lights. To my knowledge this isn't recognized anywhere as a disability (though it is associated with a standard diagnosis).
For me, and presumably others like me, flashing road signs that tell me I'm driving the right speed thanks are a serious dustraction even though I've seen the same one hundreds of times. I stopped watching association football when animated sideline ads became common because I could mot focus on the game.
If it makes sense to put in wheelchair ramps at the stadium couldn't it make sense to accommodate me, even if most people can redirect their attention just as easily as walking up the stairs?
When it comes to driving, that's seems like a totally reasonable concern. I also find roadside signs, digital boards, etc really distracting when driving. That one falls into a safety concern for everyone on the road too, where as ads in general may just be distracting, that distrsction could literally kill someone on the road.
In general, it is a really tough line to draw what is considered a protected disability. I don't know where I would draw the line, and it just gets harder as we create more diagnoses. I don't mean that to demonize the diagnoses at all, but it does make drawing a line for what to legally protect that much harder.
<< Seeing ads outside likely doesn't harm you though, you can ignore them.
I honestly do not think it is possible to ignore ads unless you do not see/smell/hear/experience them. Even if you dismiss them, you have received an impression of that ad. Your mind has been affected. It just happens that we normalized it as a normal function of society ( not completely unlike how we normalized cameras everywhere including on doorbell ). I have no interest in dating farmers, but I still remember being exposed to farmers only ad.
edit:
<< Stop using a smartphone and taking it everywhere with you.
It seems less and less of an option. Amtrak gatekeeps its best prices behind an app. Parking lot wants me to use an app. My workplace now effectively forced me to have phone on me ( even if I come into office.. I can understand the need for it while remote ).
The current societal construct practically requires a smartphone. You could technically go on without it the same way you COULD technically not have a car. It is possible, but very, very limiting. And I would argue that not having a car now is way more forgiving than not having a cell and that is saying something.
> I honestly do not think it is possible to ignore ads unless you do not see/smell/hear/experience them
While we can't avoid seeing ads in a public place, we can manage how we respond to them. That's really not much different than not liking what someone else says. We can try to regulate everything such that people can be comfortable and never have to build a thick skin, or we can trust that people can and should be able to manage their emotions well enough to ignore things they don't like.
> It seems less and less of an option. Amtrak gatekeeps its best prices behind an app. Parking lot wants me to use an app. My workplace now effectively forced me to have phone on me ( even if I come into office.. I can understand the need for it while remote
I can't stand when companies do this stuff, assuming that everyone has a smartphone and is willing to give them access to it. I choose not to patronize companies that do it, but yeah that's harder when your office building requires a smartphone to enter. When push comes to shove, I wonder what the employer would say if someone raised that it isn't an option for them and they need a different way to enter.
Broadly, we have a real issue today with society allowing conveniences to become necessities. We do it to ourselves, but just because smartphones and cars are convenient doesn't mean we should build a world where everyone has to have them. It locks us into certain paths, and when concerns like climate change come up for example we're hamstrung because we can't imagine giving up things like personal vehicles, air travel, smartphones, etc.
So because we want to keep government small and ad companies can get so big they basically invade every part of your life you have to leave your phone, close your eyes, stay offline, just move bro. This doesn't seem like a very serious or productive line of reasoning.
Sure. A phone is a product, it isn't a right or necessity. I get that they are very convenient, and addictive, but they're a very new novelty on the scale of a legal system. There are good arguments for wanting to limit advertising and data privacy, but protecting our right to use a certain piece of technology really just isn't very compelling IMO.
> close your eyes
Advertising is nothing new though. If your concern is even just seeing ads at all, that's a problem that has existed much longer than digital data brokers.
> stay offline
Similar to smartphones, being online isn't a right and is a very new concept. We don't have to be online to live our lives, and we shouldn't expect that everyone is online.
> just move bro
Moving isn't easy, and may not be cheap depending on how you do it, but is there really something wrong with moving when you don't like the area you live in? To me that seems like a totally reasonable response for anyone that's able, and for those that aren't willing to move they can try to change the place they live. Moving is just easier than somehow convincing a locality to limit or remove advertising.
This looks like it's going to be a huge issue once the news spreads more. Basically all Intel 13th and 14th gen consumer CPU's can't be trusted and changing the clocks doesn't help.
Which means basically no company with desktop compute needs will be using Intel consumer chips. I feel like this is the start of an Intel Boeing moment.
It seems to be at least partially related to SMT which Intel is dropping for the next generation. So this might help them in solving the issue for the next generation.
If your kid can't swim you shouldn't let it go in on its own. There is no reason to spoil the fun for everyone.
You can ban all fun or tell parents to use common sense and have a backup for idiot parents.
In this specific pool I would also create a barrier/line between the shallow bit of the pool and the deep end. In some of the videos the kids end up in the deep end by just playing, even without the floating devices.
Also kids should be taught to swim at a young age. At least where I'm from there are many places where kids can fall into the water.
People are seriously overprotective of any and all children.
Issit sad if a kid dies? Sure. Doesn't man you should isolate them from anything that could potentially harm them, as such babying is also harmful over the long run.
Maybe I'm missing this: what led to the statement that people are seriously overprotective of any and all children? This thread is pointing out that kids who can't swim are allowed in pools, which is dangerous and leads to preventable deaths. Isn't that the opposite of people being seriously overprotective?
If your kid can't swim, it's your job to teach them or keep them safe. If you're not doing that, should it not be on you, that Childs parent, to deal with it?
Where does personal responsibility start, and social intervention begin? Autonomy, responsibility, individuality are the things that should be under discussion... Not save the children.
You might think that's harsh but add in privacy to the above list, and make the topic "searching all your pictures for CP" (as some laws are attempting to do) it suddenly becomes over-reach.
The extreme ends of the individual-collective continuum (complete lack of laws in favor of autonomy and personal responsibility vs. overbearing legal/regulatory intervention that undermines autonomy) make it clear that real life needs to be somewhere in the middle.
> WHy is it your job, or any one else's, to tell someone what they should do for their own good?
The line isn't quiet as arbitrary as you make it sound. Itd be a different story if your health insurance wouldn't have to pay if you didn't wear it etc. There is also the extra inconvenience of having the road blocked for extended periods of time whenever someone offs themselves etc.
Pretty much every personal safety regulation happens because other people are getting impacted/inconvenienced in some way
The root comment said to not allow floating devices in pools with children that can't swim, but only clarified the condition in the latter sentence. The first response (mis-)interpreted it as "do not allow floating devices period" and argued against that, with the discussion getting sidetracked from them on.
There are many laws against advertising cigarettes for instance. There could be similar laws against unhealthy foods and alcohol. Lets try all these things before we say laws are not effective against these things and evaluate after.
I think this is very naive. The whole reason marketing is so lucrative is because the human brain is so easily exploited. That exploitation is to no benefit of society or the individual and an individual practically stands no chance against it.
We also don't allow drugs to be distributed and marketed. There are many limitations to cigarette sales and they have shown to be successful.
Maybe the next thing someone sleepwalks into is a pleasant conversations with people or coding a great open source project and that is not something that needs to be fixed.
It's naive and not naive. The brain is easily exploited mainly due to lack of awareness and education on the matter. It's not inherently exploitable itself. People simply are unaware of it happening. Those who are or become aware, generally get really turned off by it.
I do agree, it's naive in the sense that you say, most people do seem unaware for the large part, atleast of the effect it has on them untill its too late (and they complain about it themselves - it's all subjective ofcourse).
I don't think the next thing is someone sleepwalking into pleasant conversations with people coding etc. - I would love that, but i don't see a company earning billions from it - so it's unlikely.
The reason they get you to sleepwalk into things is because they know you wouldn't consume it when awake. Its not because people naturally sleepwalk all their lives...
