Transit is inherently a public matter managed by the government.

so I comment with ancap-leaning assumptions. so maybe it often is but it could be privatized or be privately owned (including expressways)

The apparent benefits are in part due to subsidies and other externalization of costs.

well idk I had in mind a quick vehicle for emergencies, independence from bus or train times or things out of your control, etc. Frequently these things “other people” are running are unreliable so then people give up on them. And versus a lower tech option (walking, bikes, scooters, etc.), cars can shield from storms or snow a bit.

zoning laws require developers to add parking spaces to their projects – it is not possible to eliminate those requirements

it seems possible. either devs can factor in building their own parking without it being required, or if there’s enough demand some spot could be created as private parking lot, or shuttles could take people to destination.

livability of cities

sounds subjective. which can be fine (I might share your goal too). But the car drivers probably think they’re plenty livable already. So, perhaps I might ask for more precise definition of goal or what livability means.

publications

ahhh I thought I saw something on no or low tech magazine.

I thought I saw this one design where there was basically one central road or rail and the city built off in either directions from it

then of course there’s floating cities…

So in my personal experience, I wasn’t able to figure out veganism or vegetarianism more until recently, but it still doesn’t feel sustainable for me.

I tried a few times and didn’t have adequate nutrients, and would feel like I needed meat so would eat it. Lately I realized that mainly in my view vegans and vegetarians replace meat and dairy with beans, rice, legumes, nuts, seeds, etc. - that is basically their “meat”. So once I figured this out, at least I feel more able to sustain the diet. I think before I was simply not getting enough protein or complete proteins, because “just don’t eat meat or dairy” is vague and doesn’t suggest what to eat instead. I have also known vegetarians who had deficiencies.

So lately I’ve been able to go a few days at a time without meat and it feels ok. I feel my current limit may be like a week while four days feels comfortable.

I also crashed doing this recently when I did some like “lifting” exercise and no matter how much veggie protein I tried to get in, it was feeling inadequate.

It feels like reproduction, physical work (and maybe mental at times), or strenuous exercise require meat.

Otherwise there is a strong tradition of celibates of being vegan or vegetarian; in many lives of saints I keep reading that they vowed to abstain (which means no meat, but might allow dairy or fish) or ate only “vegetables” (which I assume must mean some of the specific proteins I mentioned, likely beans and something, unless they miraculously feasted on something insufficient which is alleged in some cases of saints).

So there is a Western spiritual consideration of avoiding meat for spiritual gains, even if the meat would otherwise nourish the body and give more health and longevity.

Even those who are married or engaged in physical work can tolerate days of abstinence which are obligatory (in Catholic tradition anyway. Orthodox too I think). Other religions like Hindus I think also are vegetarian but they have milk, which definitely can make the diet more sustainable because milk has a lot of nutrients in it that other plants don’t give the same amount of.

Yeah so for kids too veganism is unhealthy I think (religiously fasting isn’t recommended to a certain age, although maybe abstinence has been spoken of as being ok, I forget).

As far as environmental impact goes, in general I was thinking about this, food seems to be rough on the environment. Because how “green” is growing a bunch of beans? They’re probably going to be grown by tractors, requiring all kinds of fuel and factories to produce it. idk how many farms are using animals to plow with - but then that’s kind of an “animal” product and not vegan. It almost feels inescapable that animals will be used for food. Or will die when veggies are being harvested. I know a farmer who just ran a deer over the other day while cutting hay (idk if the animal died). But yeah the standard vegan diet is probably pretty harsh on the environment. If they aren’t using tractors, then I would be curious what vegans think of using horses and if they use them? What does the ideal vegan diet look like that isn’t having a negative environmental impact?

However on the other hand, it does seem to take less resources to make meat at times so they may have a point there. But then this argument goes back and forth because we have enough resources to feed people with meat. So it may use more of the environment but we have more environment that can be made use of.

So anyway I’m comfortably “flexitarian” currently, limiting meat intake. Mostly because it’s easier to not cook meat some days or have to clean up as much. That’s as far as I feel comfortable going with veganism. I think that’s a reasonable compromise.

private cities could

publicly owned ones, naw because “muh freedom”

I’m kind of anti-car so maybe we could talk out some solutions. but they also have a lot of benefits and the cons (as mentioned in the post) haven’t been seen as outweighing the benefits for a lot of people.

maybe getting rid of zoning would allow more housing and shops and things to be built next to each other?

or yeah maybe you could close some roads and keep others open so there could be some spaces with less cars

idk has anyone hashed out a decent “urban planning” guide? also keeping in mind remote workers so the city may be less needed for collaboration?

because ironically if the OP anti-car points are for environmental reasons, cities themselves are kind of anti-environment. so maybe getting rid of cities is the outside the box solution to cars being bad in cities?

Western thinking was dominated by Christendom, which recognized differences between the genders. I’m not sure women (or men really) were encouraged to play sports much at all like as we see there being pro sports players today. such sports probably would have been thought to be excessive idleness, perhaps.

separating genders preserves the modesty of the participants. in a contact sport, they might have indecent interactions. A lot of men or women would think it against the dignity of their respective gender to be competing against the other. The market could offer genderless competiions, men would tend to dominate them. I suspect many men and women would voluntarily choose not to participate in such competitions.

I suspect also in the east there are similar objections to women in sports. it only strikes me as an apostate secular western view that genderless sporting should be a thing.

@[email protected]

@[email protected]

To me the OP study is common sense, but has become perhaps politically incorrect or taboo to acknowledge. Once children hit puberty, their bodies start to become able to reproduce and thus start to become attractive for reproduction.

Presumably then the study is conflating postpubescent adolescents with prepubescent children and calling all of these “children” which it is “wrong” for adults to feel attracted to, except that basically our biology hasn’t changed while societal norms have shifted to tell people to wait to older ages to reproduce.

Regarding attraction of prepubescent children in “normal” men, either this could be because the children are made to look like adults or thought to be like adults. This one I can’t wrap my head around as much and would need more information to be able to respond to the study.

At least in my experience, I felt pretty “adult” at a young age once I hit puberty and was attracted to those my age and older who were in probably in their 20s and 30s of the opposite gender.

Mostly the issue here is about having teens wait a bit to be able to become mature enough to sustain a family. I suspect “age of consent” discussions are a bit of a distraction, or a necessity for legal considerations, but I felt able to “consent” to certain actions at a young age but wouldn’t have been mature enough to take care of a family. Thus there is a gap between base biology and the skill of the intellect.

Also society is literally degenerate and unable to bring up young people to be skilled and productive at young ages which complicates the discussion. There are some exceptional students graduating college as teens or preteens for example, which to me attests to the actual capabilities of teens or preteens. But society sometimes “infantilizes” adolescents in to adulthood, perhaps underestimating their capabilities, and this is spilling over in to thinking of teens up to age 18 as “innocent children”. At least when I was a teenager, I was pretty aware of a lot of bad things I could do. But lots of people mature at different rates, so we try to take averages to accommodate some people maturing at younger and older rates.

Anyway, the OP study is a bit ambiguous on what they consider “children” to be and what they did to establish that “normal” people were attracted to “children”.

This line argument is outside the scope of Western Civilization’s history although the conclusion is agreed upon

The traditional Christian opposition to it was on religious grounds, that it was still observing Jewish customs which were “honorably buried” and no longer observed

But as Christianity is the fulfillment of true Judaism, circumcision itself was never objected to as it was instituted by God

Hence yes Christians oppose circumcision today (or, at least Catholics and orthodox traditionally did, idk about protestants) but for different reasons than some of the anti-circumcision posts I see online at times

although this is a science community, this is kind of a religious topic, so I think my comment fits in in response

The medical benefits or lack thereof are kind of a separate consideratoin

this article suggests it’s gonna depend on your laptop’s specs, if you’ll be able to play it in 4k or not, so if it’s an old computer it may not run depending on how old, or you may need to buy something or set something up to make it work:

https://www.netbooknews.com/tips/can-my-laptop-output-4k/

Can My Laptop Output 4k?

The resolution of an external display depends on that display and the graphic card of the laptop. An NVIDIA 600 series and up with the help of either an HDMI cable or DisplayPort; AMD Radeon 79xx/78xx/77xx series and higher, R7 or R9 270 or higher will be sufficient enough.

a bit off topic but what’s the best way to follow your posts? I see in your profile a bunch of links to social media, is a mastodon feed most representative or do you have like a blog?

what’s your setup? I’m missing the context - like what is your TV and what is the device you’re sending info to the TV with

What is it, I don’t understand what it is to be used for

termux is a shell that can be used on android, and there are various shells on desktop, so I guess this is like termux but also with the ability to run the same on both desktop and mobile? That’s interesting, although the comments on another article suggest the project is in a state of incompletion

maybe a few proprietary apps?

I also dunno why linux users don’t promote more, most people don’t use it simply because they don’t know of it, in my opinion, not because it’s too complicated or other reasons people bring up

the steam deck release might mainstream linux use more later next year maybe

is this supposed to be like termux on phones

gee I hope so :^)

Linux is not yet there as a daily driver for the average desktop user

ehhh it’s mostly about marketing, a kind of catch 22 situation - it’s there enough for a lot of needs, and the desires that people have beyond what’s available could probably be added in if more people started using it

I’m sold more in the public domain direction

“The public domain is only as public as you allow it to remain”

Well I don’t find copyleft to be fully public, as it forces people to use the license and worry about abiding by its terms and about using compatible licenses and all of those kind of issues

“The copyleft is much closer to a socialist/anarchist abolition of property”

It’s not though in my view, it’s basically enforced by government and closes off commercial use sometimes and forces people to go along with whatever the rules are with the license; it’s like an authoritarian socialism, and definitely not anarchist as that would allow you to do whatever you want with the code (public domain would be anarchist, to me)

So the forced socialism isn’t really anarchist I guess is what I mainly don’t like, it probably requires just getting rid of intellectual property / IP altogether though to have actual / complete software freedom

ironically to me the fsf doesn’t even offer truly “free” software which would be software in the public domain

it would take probably getting rid of “intellectual property” altogether to get to that point tho, I’m aware of issues that exist with the current “public domain”, although I wish people and the FSF would recognize this alternative vision of what some people think free software is or at least be aware of it when describing their vision

sounds interesting but idk if it 'tis

could be useful, I back my stuff up prior to posting but also if my computer and backups crashed I guess this would serve as an additional backup

it just downloads the pics and titles right tho, not text within text posts?

so can we do this with our proflies and therefore download all our posts

what do you think of hive and steemit, don’t they do something like this?

I thought I heard of another forum doing this and since money can be made from each post it’s incentivized spamming