Alas, I’ve read tons of comments, even on this community, about how the US is “too big” for trains or walkable cities to work. I think the car-centric mindset cuts across the political spectrum — or put another way, the topic hasn’t been fully politicized yet.
I don’t know much, but “just wait out the striker” is a skill too, no? The judoka seemed good at feinting and dodging punches, which isn’t something you practice in judo.
I think hobbies by itself isn’t the right advice. Practicing chess, photography, or guitar alone in your house isn’t going to feel less monotonous. The next step is to join a chess club, organize a photo walk, find some people to jam on the guitar with. There’s always new things to explore within hobbies when other people are involved.
I worry folks are downvoting because they take the title as an endorsement of anti-feminism. This is an explicit statement that this sub is in no way anti-feminist. Read the sidebar.
I’m not comfortable blaming women for how horrible dating is, but I take your point that people can sometimes be pretty disrespectful.
But given that we’re making a comparative claim between generations, I wonder if this really explains the difference. Is disrespect on dating apps so much worse for gen Z men than Millennial men that it’s making men less feminist? I’m skeptical.
I have already responded to multiple people who asked for sources, which you apparently didn’t bother to check. One source I cite mentions a 20-50% increase in tire wear. A simple internet search will bring up literally dozens of articles.
It’s always amazing how the laziest and nastiest people on the internet, like yourself, are always the most ignorant. You don’t need to start shit to support your point.
You’ve completely misunderstood. EV tires are designed to wear slower because EVs eat through tires faster. If you put more expensive wear resistant tires on a lighter conventional car, it would obviously wear even more slowly.
Your link is not journalism. It doesn’t even cite its sources. It’s literally a blog entry by a tire company encouraging you to buy tires. The multiple experts cited in the actual news articles I posted say increased tire wear from EVs is a huge environmental problem.
I don’t know if you’re willfully misreading me. I am saying that EV tires only wear slower when they do because they have to be specifically designed to withstand the extra friction. But EVs wear equivalent tires faster than non-EVs because EVs are heavier. If you don’t understand this, I’m not sure how to explain it to you.
Imagine someone saying “Chairs for obese people last longer than those for normal weight people.” That may be, but only because they are designed that way. You can’t change the laws of physics. EVs are heavier. As the many experts across the actual journalistic sources I cited say, that means more friction and more wear.
That might be so in Europe. I am not so optimistic about the US, where car sizes keep increasing. We seem to want to “consume” the extra efficiencies with more powerful engines and bigger range.
But those cargo ships exist whether we’re also driving a bunch of cars or not. It’s just totally orthogonal.
If anything, switching to heavy EVs will increase the amount of pollution caused by cargo ships. Bringing up cargo ships makes no sense as a defense of EVs
What is the climate denialist outfit you’re referencing? Each article cites multiple experts and different sources making multiple different claims. None of them rely on a “single study” and they are all from high quality sources, so your claim is ridiculous on its face.
What does this mean? What is the “it”? What does “compensate” mean? Equivalent EVs are heavier. At the same speeds, tires will wear faster and accidents will kill more people.
Then you’re responding to the wrong comment. The comment you’re responding to is one where I say that tire pollution is worse than brake pollution. In the thread where I say that tire pollution can be worse in some ways than tailpipe emissions, I specify that EVs are still better than ICEs for the climate.
So you’re responding to a comment where I didn’t say what you claim I said, while accusing me of holding a position I don’t hold.
That’s not how science works. I understand that you’re trying to criticize the field, but lack of predictions, even reliable ones, is not itself a problem it has. For one thing, even false theories can make reliable predictions, like Levoisier’s defunct theory of caloric in the 18th century which has now been replaced by modern thermodynamics. The caloric theory can be used to make mathematically accurate predictions, but the underlying theory is still wrong.
Similarly, evo psych can make a lot of reliable predictions without saying anything true. On the contrary, one criticism of the field is that it’s unfalsifiable because an evolutionary theory can always (allegedly) be proposed to fit the data. Which is to say, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
One example: it is proposed that the fusiform face area of the brain is a domain specific module evolved for face detection. It’s present in other animals that recognize conspecifics by their face. In humans, damage to the area leads to face specific agnosia. The theory makes accurate predictions, but is it true? It’s still being debated.
You seem to be confused. My claim is not that there are no challenges or criticisms to evolutionary psychology, or that the topic isn’t very hard to study. It’s that these are live debates in a live field because that’s how science works. It is misunderstanding and arrogance like yours that spreads misinformation online.
Your argument is akin to saying “something is hard to study so it doesn’t exist”. We can’t get evidence for how psychology evolved, so psychology didn’t evolve. This was the mistake of radical behaviourists like B.F. Skinner, who thought internal cognitive states were impossible to measure, so cognition must not exist. That is obviously an error in inference, but also a lack of imagination.
If you actually take a graduate level course on scientific methodology or on the philosophy of science, you will learn that “falsifiability” is no longer a viable standard for scientific validity. This is because, logically, no claim is falsifiable: one can always adjust background beliefs to evade a logical contradiction. See the Duheim-Quine thesis.
Moreover, if your argument were correct, we would have to reject evolutionary inferences altogether! What you say about the cognitive system is true for, e.g. the immune system or the endocrine system. But that’s ridiculous. Evolutionary claims are part of the bedrock of the so-called Modern Synthesis in the biological sciences of the last hundred years. Yours is similar to bad arguments made by creationists.
Your “No True Scotsman” response is just deeply confused about what evolutionary psychology even is. What a mess.
Ugh, your comments are everything I hate about the internet. Both of us know that only one us does research on cognitive science, and it’s not you. Yet, because it’s the internet, you think you can get by with bluster and false confidence.
Of the many mistakes you make: No cognitive neuroscientist would say, without huge caveats, that we can’t make deep comparisons between animal and human brains — not after all the groundbreaking work finding deep functional similarities between bird brains and human brains in the last 10 years. These are groundbreaking findings in comparative neurology, and it’s pretty obvious you know nothing about them. You go on to propose a standard of evidence which require that we can predict protein synthesis based on genetic variances, which is laughable. You also seem to be completely unaware of phylogenetic analysis, which is actually the standard way we make many of our evolutionary inferences.
Look, I’m not even an evolutionary psychologist. I have no skin in that game. But I do hate bullshit artists on the internet.
TL;DW: The “just buy everyone a car” instead of subsidising transit argument doesn’t work. Even on the least cost efficient bus routes it doesn’t make sense. Also “demand responsive transit” is worse than fixed routes.
This is a great take down of an idea so stupid that I didn’t realize people were pushing for it. The stupid idea being replacing fixed route public transportation with government subsidized on demand rideshare.
People should check again. After I decided to avoid Amazon, I’m surprised by how many things are cheaper and/or better quality at my local stores. I think Amazons reputation for lowest prices is less true every year.
Yes, sometimes Amazon is cheaper. But one reason I quit amazon was because, even when it’s cheaper, I got so much counterfeit and super low quality disposable junk.
Seriously, take another look at your local stores. I suspect many people aren’t and are just making assumptions. I was surprised to find my local pet store offers free delivery, and literally everything at my local mom and pop hardware store is cheaper and better quality.
US Pedestrian deaths rose a troubling 77% between 2010 and 2021. (www.ghsa.org)
cross-posted from: lemmy.ca/post/12581895...
Judo vs Thai Boxing (v.redd.it)
Does anyone else feel like every year is like the movie 'Groundhog Day'? Same holidays, same birthdays, same work week, etc
Poll finds that fewer Gen Z boys identify as Feminists than Millenials-- and the same % as Gen X. (www.mensjournal.com)
I worry folks are downvoting because they take the title as an endorsement of anti-feminism. This is an explicit statement that this sub is in no way anti-feminist. Read the sidebar.
Yes, also Teslas (media.mastodon.scot)
North America before illegal immigration (lemmy.ml)
Get gud (lemmy.zip)
True next-gen graphics (feddit.de)
Todd Howard: “You may need to upgrade your PC for this game”
Just Buy Everyone a Car (www.youtube.com)
TL;DW: The “just buy everyone a car” instead of subsidising transit argument doesn’t work. Even on the least cost efficient bus routes it doesn’t make sense. Also “demand responsive transit” is worse than fixed routes.
Modern consumer logic (lemmy.ml)