Yep, the nonstandard part of their setup absolutely should have been the first thing to consider. Feels a bit disingenuous to not mention that part straight away.
There are 3 classes of e-bikes in the US, with class 3 topping out at 28mph—anything above that is illegal or in some weird legal grey area. You are thinking of e-motos which are an entirely different beast.
e-motos are a real problem; please don’t lump legitimate e-bikes in with those. It’s simply incorrect.
Nope. You apparently are incapable of distinguishing the massive gulf between an e-bike that enables the elderly, differently-abled, commuters, and less fit people to enjoy cycling at reasonable speeds. And an e-moto which is an illegally souped up vehicle that can reach closer to highway speeds. The latter is indeed a danger and should not be used in bike lanes or multi use paths… or really at all.
E-biking is only gaining popularity, so I’d suggest you educate yourself and adjust your ignorant perspective rather than digging in :)
Many players perceive Arrowhead as a pretty incompetent and untrustworthy developer. Helldivers has suffered numerous issues with both performance and balancing. The bugs constantly introduced into the game (not the fun kind you get to shoot with a gun) have eroded a lot of trust and good will towards the company and point towards a largely non-existent QA process.
I won’t state my own personal views here, but for those that share the above perspective, there is little benefit of the doubt they’ll extend towards Arrowhead.
I feel this is similar to how my brain works. If I am not using a skill close to every day/week then it can atrophy fairly quickly. On the plus side, it also comes back quickly (usually) if I start using it with greater regularity again.
I notice that general concepts usually stick better in my brain than specific things like your example with ‘when’. Even those are pruned down a bit after long enough though.
Yep, as someone whose brain is biased towards a higher verbal IQ and thinks primarily in words, a lot of the replies to this post are amusing.
I have genuine curiosity about those that claim to think in “pure abstract thoughts” or whatever. I don’t believe my way of thinking is superior. I’m certain that my constant internal monologue is strongly correlated to my tendency to ruminate. Or, I struggle with concepts that do not translate well into a verbal format.
People apparently can’t pass up the opportunity to disparage those with a different thinking style.
FWIW, I have no inner monologue, and think I ruminate the same ways I think. It only has verbal content if I am remembering a recent conversation or "simulating" an anticipated one.
That is truly fascinating to me. My rumination takes a verbal form almost all the time… but it is also often related to past or anticipated conversations or interactions.
With no internal monologue, you can still hear words inside your head, but it would be a more conscious effort rather than an automatic, constant process?
I rarely "hear" utterances in my mind, but that may be more aphantasia than the lack of monologue...
For a recollection, auditory aspects might be present for a high stress moment, such as someone emoting a mere word or syllable. It's more like a static vignette with a brief sound clip. It could also be non-verbal sounds.
I don't know exactly how to describe it, but general speech recollection for me is something like a train of AST fragments that I just sort of know/feel. These are some intermediate representation of verbal content, not the serialized phonemes or lexemes, but also not my core thought mode either, which is somehow non-verbal semantics.
I also get this train of AST fragments from reading or from trying to compose text in my head. These verbal units are larger than words, shorter than sentences or paragraphs, and I'm not sure they always align with what you would call grammatical phrases either. This train can have a timing aspect to it which correlates with the remembered or planned cadence of speech, a bit like some cue sheet. Or it could correlate with written structures.
Ironically, I like poetry but have no appreciation for "spoken word". To me, the structure of rhyme and meter is felt almost spatially when I read the page in silence. Hearing it aloud is distracting, not very enjoyable, and also much harder for me to absorb the content. It's as if I don't have enough short-term memory duration to buffer what is being said and assemble the structures I want.
I like music with vocals, but I similarly don't absorb the verbal meaning that much. I like them for the musicality, tone, and emotional content. If I don't read the whole lyric on a page, I might never fully appreciate the verbal content. Weirdly, I can remember lyrics and sing along, even if I haven't read them and fully absorbed them. It's like I have recall cued to the music, but I would not be able to recite those same lines if I wasn't hearing the song to cue me for each little bit.
> And then the other party that claims anyone who's done better than anyone else is necessarily immoral.
This is both a strawman and dismissing a real issue. Inequality is a real problem that has a corrosive effect on democracy. Also, American liberals have done little if nothing to reduce the gross inequality in this country.
So no, the guy that said “nothing will fundamentally change” is not helping reduce inequality nor demanding ideological purity in that regard.
Inequality is a real problem, but America is not that unequal today compared both to its own history as well as the world at large. I mean this is like saying famine is an issue. Yeah it can be and it is in many parts of the world, but not here.
> Also, American liberals have done little if nothing to reduce the gross inequality in this country.
Well yeah but they also support chaos agents who do. I mean you are correct. Liberals do nothing to help the common man and then, when the common man riots, they do nothing to protect the well to do men either.
So it's pretty obvious to see why everyone dislikes them
I need not enumerate the reasons people dislike Republicans
America has higher levels of inequality than any of its post-industrialized peers [0]. It’s absolutely an issue here. Combine that with the ability to purchase political power, and you get the mess we have today.
I think we actually agree on most things; I generally agree with all the rest of your points. Liberals may as well be controlled opposition now.
That's because its post industrialized peers are failing states though. Assuming you are speaking of Europe, Japan and the anglosphere (Canada, Australia, and NZ), they are all having serious existential issues
The European countries cannot pay for their own defense and rely on America, thus their definition of even existing as nations is up for debate really. They're more like protectorates of the United States. If they actually had to pay for the defense resources they consume, they would quickly fail.
Canada is similar to a degree and while it is its own country, really depends on the US to protect its basic existence
Japan is dying as is Korea.
Australia and NZ maybe but they're having real economic trouble and are nothing to emulate.
Ironically it's the fact that our economy is forced to be large enough to pay for everyone else's defense that forces the economy into more inequality than there would be were America only responsible for its own sovereignty.
Basically, if other countries had robust economies that were strong enough to provide for its own defense, they would be as unequal as the United States since inequality happens as economies grow and the benefits are not shared.
If you can show me a real country that provides for its own defense and does not depend on America that is more equal then please. Off the top of my head there are really only a few countries that even meet the criteria of being independent states. Of those, Russia, China, and India are the only important ones. Maybe Iran. Literally none of these are countries to emulate. America has higher social mobility than all of them, which is what really matters, not the difference between the richest and poorest
That’s a really interesting argument that I hadn’t considered. The US certainly has the unenviable position of being the world’s “policeman” for lack of a better term. Other countries wanting help from the US, yet also maligning it. Which… is probably more fair now than before to be sure.
> Ironically it's the fact that our economy is forced to be large enough to pay for everyone else's defense that forces the economy into more inequality than there would be were America only responsible for its own sovereignty.
This is the part I’m not fully understanding. Are you saying it’s because the US is forced to spend more on defense leaving fewer resources to reduce inequality? I don’t see how suspect people like Musk are a necessary outcome of this paradigm... I do get that there is an insane amount of money pumped into the military-industrial complex though.
If you take the (naive) perspective that returning to a higher level of taxation on the most wealthy would increase government income, reducing inequality is just a beneficial side-effect there.
Edit: I apparently missed your point about inequality correlating to the size of an economy. Are you saying it’s not possible to have an economy as large as the US with less inequality than is currently present?
> This is the part I’m not fully understanding. Are you saying it’s because the US is forced to spend more on defense leaving fewer resources to reduce inequality? I don’t see how suspect people like Musk are a necessary outcome of this paradigm... I do get that there is an insane amount of money pumped into the military-industrial complex thoug
My claim is that America's technical dominance is due to its defense spending which leads to their being a larger economy and thus more inequality as some players win and some lose. Inequality means the rich get richer which is a thing that happens in a self propelling economy.
We see the same thing in other independent nations like China, India, and Russia who, unlike Europe and the anglosphere, have independent markets.
No it's not impossible to have a market the size of ours with less inequality. You could have more people all of whom are poorer. But for our population yes. We are the richest nation in the history of the world. The onus is actually on you to show beyond a reasonable doubt it can be done another way. The data we do have indicate that, even per capita, it would be impossible unless we had another country willing to spend money to alleviate our own governments mandate.
> That’s a really interesting argument that I hadn’t considered
With all due respect, then maybe you should sit and listen? Because this has been the main rallying cry of all the MAGA politicians. Look, I'm not even a huge Trump fan ( I voted for him once, but don't really like him, and still don't and hope we can all overcome this time as a country). But like, the Democrats simply don't listen.
Many poor Americans are mad America's funds go to help other countries while our own domestic needs are unmet. Meanwhile, those countries lecture us. While many here may have thought Vance's insistence that Zelensky thank America was asinine and crude, to many Americans, it expressed decades of frustration with European fecklessness. Were it not for the fact that most Americans trace ancestry to Europe, I think Europe would be much less developed.
I appreciate the discussion. Not entirely sure why you appear to be becoming somewhat incensed. I’ve been engaging in good faith.
I am aware of MAGA arguments and the continued expenditure of large amounts of money on other countries. I don’t think you have connected that well to inequality however.
I’m surprised that you treat the current way things are done in this country as monolithic. There are countless parameters to play with here… not just “what we have always done” and “throw all of that out and do everything different”.
> No it's not impossible to have a market the size of ours with less inequality.
> I don’t think you have connected that well to inequality however.
I don't really need to. I made a statement on how people feel. This is a common complaint you hear from MAGA supporters. Whether it's real or not really has no bearing on how people vote. In a democracy, representatives ought to listen to their constituents. One issue that's really common on the democrat side is they attempt to disagree with their constituents. This is why republican representatives and governors tend to be more popular. You can dismiss this as populism. It totally is. But, I mean, how can the democrats claim to be in favor of equality if they literally believe the average voter (presumably the one that deserves equality with 'the elite') needs to be lectured down to?
Not trying to be incensed, just asking the obvious questions. Me personally, I'm by all measures what people would consider the 'elite'. I don't really care either way personally. I'll be fine.
> Good, we agree on this.
Yeah, if America's economy were allowed to simply be, and we had less global involvement (including migration), then our economy would shift back to a normal human distribution of inequality. As it is, we are the world's guarantor of stability. For Europe, this includes military protectionism. But for all the world, including India and China, we take their most ambitious people here because they cannot handle them (historically, these countries end up killing their elite every few hundred years). Thus, we end up with extremely rich people. This is true of Trump's family as well. Clearly, his family had what it takes to make a ton of money and be wealthy. And Germany couldn't handle that so they sent them to America.
At the end of the day, it's the American immigration system and the American global police state (which are actually the same thing) that force America's economy into being more acutely unequal.
> relative lower quality in other fields except technology
As a political aficionado, some of the political takes are surprisingly primitive given the seemingly high IQ here.
It reminds me of the phenomenon wherein you trust the articles you read written by journalists, until you read an article where they are opining on a topic you actually know something about… and realize they have no idea what they are talking about.
No hate to anyone, just wanted to provide a perspective on my version of you seeing people talk about medicine.
I was fortunate enough to grow up without cable television. Any clip I see from Fox/CNN is usually a bunch of inauthentic, ignorant talking heads that I wouldn’t even trust to tell me the weather.
I’m curious at how many Millennials and younger actually watch the news with any consistency. My sense is it’s mostly older folks that still get their info from TV.
We have ample evidence that getting your news from the talking heads on cable news tends to lead to a really warped view of the world. But I'm not at all sure that getting it from TikTok will end up better.
reply