• 1 Post
  • 26 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 17th, 2023
  • 1st@kbin.socialtoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world•Bike Riders of lemmy, you okay with me riding my eScooter in the bike lane?
    181·
    1 year ago

    I’ll be much more irritated if you’re on the sidewalk. It’s more dangerous for pedestrians and for you. When you’re biking you expect to have to pass people whether it’s because they’re a slower cyclist or using a escooter. My old apartment had an exit at a blind corner and dealing with escooter riders on the sidewalk was hellish. I would pull out slowly so that pedestrians had plenty of time to stop, but when scooters became popular I had to start creating forward at a painfully slow pace because people going bike speeds somehow thought it was okay to be on the sidewalk.

  • 1st@kbin.socialtoUkraine@sopuli.xyz•"We've used 5% of our defense budget to arm Ukraine. And with it, they've destroyed 50% of Putin's army." - Ad targeted to Republicans to support Ukraine
    131·
    1 year ago

    It’s worded in such a way as to be meaningless - half of what? The original number of Russian soldiers, the original number plus Wagner and other extra troops, the current number deployed with/without mercenaries? Plus Russia’s numbers don’t look like US numbers, don’t quite look like Ukraines numbers.

    That said heres the first source I found:

    Russia’s military casualties, the officials said, are approaching 300,000. The number includes as many as 120,000 deaths and 170,000 to 180,000 injured troops. The Russian numbers dwarf the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.

    …

    Russia has almost triple that number, with 1,330,000 active-duty, reserve and paramilitary troops — most of the latter from the Wagner Group.

    Those numbers refer to the current number of deployed and undeployed Russian soldiers plus mercenaries, which is clearly not the numbers the ad is using.

    To be clear, I fully support Ukraine and fully support the US guaranteeing missile manufacturers that we will buy new missiles even if the war ends tomorrow to incentivise greater production. I just think the ad played with the numbers until they said what we want them to say.

    Source for both quotes: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html

  • 1st@kbin.socialto196@lemmy.blahaj.zone•Libertarian rule
    1·
    1 year ago

    *I realized this is a reginal phrase so I figured I should clear it up at the beginning. When I say freeway or interstate I always am referring to roads that get federal funding and meet the US interstate code.

    If you say that the government gets it with imminent domain and that sucks, well, that’s another topic, isn’t it? Since that’s what it currently does.

    Yeah, my only point here is that this is regularly brought up as a benefit (although I recognize that you personally never did), and I don’t think that it does have that benefit to any degree.

    For each of your next two points I think we may be talking about different things. My understanding of your argument was that all roads can (and maybe should be) privatized. With “all” being operative. In that case the road my house is on is not optional for me to not pay for. If you’re only suggesting that highways and freeways should be privatized I don’t think that is as ridiculous a notion.

    I do think even in that case it’s worth noting that this would end up being a tax on people who live in rural areas but work in cities. Which is a roundabout way of saying mostly less wealthy people. I also understand that you’re in California while I’m in North Carolina so for you it probably means people that live in the suburbs, while for me it means people living in towns that the industry left 30 years ago and have to commute.

    I also think it's worth pointing out that the freeway system is a military operation with economic benefits, not vice versa. Part of the US interstate code requires that a tank be able to drive on every part with many locations (I don't recall how often they're required to be) that a fighter jet can land and take off in case we ever have a war on the continent. (This is just for freeways, not highways.) * (see edit)

    This isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it causes cheaper public transport options to become available.

    If it does that I agree, but in most of the country that system doesn’t exist. Within cities we’ve spent the last 50 years eliminating every cost effective public transit option. And for rural areas it’s never existed. I would be far less opposed to it if we created those options, but I have seen the government take away our options with the promise to give us new ones that never come far too many times to trust it.

    Once park and rides in rural areas, free or cheap bus systems in cities, good sidewalk networks, bike lanes, and bike paths (ideally also trollies if we can somehow swing it) exist across the country, I’ll change my tune. But not until they exist, and definitely not on the promise that “we’ll make them next”.

    I guess I don’t have strong opposition to private highways, but roads with residences I do. I still don’t see the benefit of them, but I don’t think the downsides are that dramatic.

    Getting sources was really time consuming and I’m replying on my phone so I’m not gonna bother this time, but if I’ve used any facts that you doubt the validity of let me know and I’ll find sources.

    Also, just wanna say it’s nice getting into a respectful debate online. It’s been a while. Thanks!

    EDIT:
    I can’t figure out how to strike through text on kbin, so I’m using code text to emphasize the paragraph instead. I apologize, this is commonly repeated misinformation. The US interstate system was built with military and economic ideas concurrently not with the military at the forefront and economics benefits secondary. There is no requirement that tanks be able to drive on the interstate (apparency paved roads are actually bad for the treads), on top of that there is not a requirement that airplanes be able to land and/or take off from it. Apparently the idea was proposed and rejected when the interstate act of 1956 was in front of congress. The closest this paragraph comes to the truth is that Eisenhour did propose the interstate system to congress after a test of military readiness that came to the conclusion that military vehicles could not cross the country in a timely manner with the currently existing infrastructure in the 1950s. Given this the paragraph is barely relevant to the debate.