veritas_veritad

would be or would not be- I'm confused by your statement

it's not just the small chance of dying, though- it's the very real and cumulative effects of driving cars in general. We have laws around being able to pump raw sewage into rivers and lakes as well as laws around leaving depleted uranium anywhere remotely possible of causing harm (and even then it probably still isn't great)

You're welcome to leave the city via some means that doesn't pollute the atmosphere. Walk, bike, etc. It's really whiney of you to feel so incensed that you can't just do whatever TF you want because "mah freedoms" when those activities are contributing to a degradation of the livability of the planet.

Yes, we as a species have reached the point where there are things we _can_ do that we _ought not_ do. Sucks I guess?

have you caught any thieves yet?

broad in specific cause, yes- "living near high traffic causes dementia" would be a more suitable headline in your opinion?

false dichotomy- there exists a world in which cars are not the normal mode of transportation because everything you could possibly want is within walking distance and intra-city travel is something you do only occasionally.

don't you mean "reverted to"?

Taking minor offense that solarpunk is considered an invented fiction. Permies have been lusting after it as a reality for at least 10 years haha

but how/why would 5G increase coverage?

I for one appreciate your pushing so hard. Your increased compensation means that I get to charge more for myself.

Thanks for the clarification

The cant of this article is kind of grossing me out. I don't disagree with the predictions of this, but I reject the notion of people as being "useless" because they can't interface with technology. Such a position is a paperclip maximizer (https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer) of efficiency. There are other worthwhile things.

Are artists useless unless they can produce design? Are "idiot" friends who make us laugh but are generally low-achieving "useless"?

> That said, I'm quite biased, have to justify the years I lost somehow :)

I dare you to write a study to excavate and delineate the potential effects of this bias on hiring.

Not to mention, that's not how/when unions got formed. Unions, as a derivative of trade guilds, formed exactly under the conditions we are seeing today. The capitalists _needing_ in-high-demand skilled laborers. If you consider that unionization requires a large concession from capital, it makes sense that unionization can only form during periods when labor is strong.

Yes, of course unions help marginalized workers, but that's only because they have been put into place by powerful workers to help out when that time inevitably comes. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.

the fault found in THAT line of reasoning is that the established scientific culture/institution doesn't even play ball by its own rules.

Political biases in every aspect from results interpretation to what questions we're allowed to ask, historical "just so" arguments that are sometimes falling flat (much to the detriment of the health of the planet), the lack of "negative results" studies due to funding biases and the replication crisis work together to cause a profound skepticism of the body of scientific institutional knowledge to be in some ways _more scientific_ than just reading and accepting the latest scientific news.