I’m glad to see this discussion starting gathering attention. In general, I think we should start looking more and more at car sharing over car owning: nobody needs an SUV every day, but you might enjoy a longer trip driving one. So short term rental should be incentivized to decrease the overall number of cars on the road and parking lots.
Attacking SUV drivers is precisely the wrong way to go about reversing the surrender of the public realm to the automobile and it is exactly the right way to start another immature culture war , alienating a lot of potential allies in the fight to reclaim out streets .
Exactly this. There are some clear use cases for cars and even for SUVs (possibly only if you literally live or work on a large farm). There’s no case for driving an SUV in a city. It’s antisocial behaviour at best and actively threatening at worst!
It makes the roads safer and that saves lives. It reduces pollution, saving more lives. It also saves space. That doesn’t save lives, granted, but it’s still a good thing.
If we accept any use cases for cars (and I do, personally), even if it’s primarily in the short to medium term while we build better urban infrastructure, then we should also advocate for those cars to be as small, as safe and as clean as possible.
A street filled with VW Golfs instead of Land rovers, still afforded the vast majority of space in town, still given priority at every turn and still transporting one or two people at a time, doesn’t move us much further forwards .
As is covered in the article, explaining the environmental impact of SUVs to SUV owners does not change their mind or encourage them to get a different car; it is effectively ignored.
So that is where ideas like the deflators come in, you make it more inconvenient, maybe that will work where polite discussion did not.
To be honest, I’m sick of trying to politely persuade people to stop killing other people with their idiotic cars. All cars are bad, yes. SUVs are the worst. It’s perfectly reasonable to try to solve a wicked problem by going for the worst offenders first.
“Retiring” and “resigning” are different things. He may have been near retirement age, but the statement he made makes it clear this was a resignation for a cause. With a good reason.
Quit framing the war as the cause. From the article:
A spokesperson for the UN in New York sent the Guardian a statement about Mokhiber, saying: “I can confirm that he is retiring today. He informed the UN in March 2023 of his upcoming retirement, which takes effect tomorrow. The views in his letter made public today are his personal views.”
So he informed the UN in March 2023 that he wanted to step down and now he did it.
At this point I suspect it's a new scam. These people are clearly deliberately not paying their lawyers. Once the lawyers are done, they move on to new ones.
I'm wondering whether the lawyers are complicit – I guess not. But I honestly have no idea whether Trump & co. are generating profits through this scheme.
Edit: so, one way to establish a scam in this way is for the lawyers to demonstrate how they'd defend other conservatives. By defending people around Trump, these lawyers, for example, might be introduced to potential conservative clients. When they find enough clients they call it a day, and cancel the contract with the powerful people who don't pay them.
So maybe they are only performing token work at the moment? Handing in documents late, not bothering to read evidence etc
That is brilliant actually.
Most lawyers do the minimum work possible anyhow in my experience — have ditched four so far.
The very first one failed to write the letter he promised and yet billed me for our one hour meeting (where he failed to disclose costs). I naively thought he was an anomaly. I did win my case with my fifth lawyer eventually.
Mods appears to be flexible with rule and take gentler approach when it’s not abuse. That’s a good approach.
The line can be blurry between US News that’s relevant at the local/national level and fit better within c/usnews, and relevant globally and may fit better in c/worldnews readers. Here I’d argue it’s the former.
I dressed up as Darth Vader and took my kids out. It was popular. I had several kids assure me they were on the side of the Empire. Then when they got past me, they were like, “I’m really a Jedi,” and run away. It was a good time other than I was completely blind. I couldn’t have chased those little younglings down if I’d wanted.
Anyway what were we talking about? Broke dipshits who chose irrelevance when they had the option of being rich and silent? Meh.
Lets get 1 thing straight, no he most likely didnt invent this, a team at 3M did. You always see these stories about rich kids and how they did this amazing thing while at their internship where their dad is the lab manager/owner when in reality these companies just wanted a poster child who was just some intern that is still learning about what titration means. I would bet that the extent of this kids biochemistry knowledge is that mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.
I stayed at a holiday inn last night thats how I know. Do you really need proof that a 12 year old in middle school figured something out that people with PhDs have not done?
If this kid did anything other than throw shit at the wall then ill deliver a video of me eating my entire stack of textbooks from college.
Considering I know someone, personally, who also made a scientific advancement at a young age, yes, it is possible.
They taught themselves python, then how to inference and train machine learning models, then used image recognition models to detect their sister’s illness, which had visual signs.
They had to get help from someone with a phd to test this on a larger scale, cuz resources, but I absolutely believe a middle/high schooler could do it.
If you read the article, you’ll realize that he didn’t invent the active components that fight cancer. He invented a new vehicle to deliver such components - the soap.
For all intents and purposes, the headline is accurate. He invented the soap to treat skin cancer.
Little Bobby invents a robot that can peel potatoes. Will you say that little Bobby didn’t really do anything because he didn’t invent robots, blades or potatoes?
Little Bobby had an idea for a potato peeling robot and then somebody else took his idea and actually made it while Bobby is still daydreaming about it.
Will you say little Bobby invented a new kind of robot?
while you may not like the example, the truth is a lot of these types of things required organizations and teams to develop (modern word for invent, because I have had interactions with people that illiterate), but that doesn’t fit in the popular narrative of the genius inventor who through hard work and determination made the world better and got rich for it.
theguardian.com
Newest