@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Kalcifer

@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works

All of this user’s content is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

The Supreme Court of Canada will not review a Québec ruling that bars Canadians from suing the U.S. Government over it's involvement in Project MKUltra (www.cbc.ca)

“Supreme Court won’t hear appeal in Montreal MK-ULTRA brainwashing case”. The Canadian Press. 2024-05-30T16:39Z. CBC News (cbc.ca/…/mk-ultra-supreme-court-of-canada-class-a…)....

Hector Aubertin went on a cross-Canada roadtrip with his pet goat named Jimmy (www.cbc.ca)

Jimmy the goat was rejected by his mother, so Hector Aubertin stepped up and became his best friend […] “Everywhere we go, people are doing double takes,” Aubertin told As It Happens host Nil Köksal. “He’s probably had his picture taken easily 100 times.” […] “After the first week or so, we formed a bond. I...

Kalcifer, (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

One plausible explanation for our results is that background ambient noise levels differ between urban and rural areas, causing electric vehicles to be less audible to pedestrians in urban areas. Such differences may impact on safety because pedestrians usually hear traffic approaching and take care to avoid any collision, which is more difficult if they do not hear electric vehicles.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Anecdotally, I’ve heard some newer EVs emit a sort of whirring sound when they are moving slowly to alert pedestrians.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Some newer ones do emit a sound when moving slow. I’ve never looked into it to find their actual rationale — I’ve always presumed that it was for pedestrian safety.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I don’t quite understand what’s misleading in my title, given that quote. Would you mind elaborating?

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Your title says that people are more likely to be hit by an EV than an ICE.

No it doesn’t. It says that EVs and H-EVs are more likely to hit a pedestrian than ICEs. That doesn’t necessitate that more people are hit by EVs than ICEs. A reason for this potentially being that there are more ICE vehicles than EVs and H-EVs.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

So it is! [source]

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

No thanks, electric vehicles being quiet is a bonus.

Now if they had the forward sensors made a moderate lebel honking noise when a potential collision with a oedestrian is detected, that would be great.

Personally, I’m not bothered by the sounds that EVs emit at slow speeds (the minimum sound is required by the NHTSA) — I think they even sound kind of cool. I do agree that collision detection is also useful. I would argue for a combination of mulitple safety systems. That being said, I do completely understand the noise pollution concerns of vehicles; however, given that the sounds are only emited at very low speeds — IIUC, these sounds are intended match the sound pressure generated by a vehicle travelling at 30kmph — it shouldn’t be too much of a problem; I believe that it is worth the benefit.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

That doesn’t make much sense. ICE vehicles have got so quiet, especially at low speeds, that most of the noise is tyre noise.

What doesn’t make sense? The point that you just stated was precisely the motivation for the study — there was a concern that EVs and H-EVs are too quiet to be safely perceived by pedestrians.

There were far fewer models of electric and and h-ev cars being available during the time of they’ve taken their data from (7 to 11 years ago now) than ICE and even compared to how many there are now. Therefore it’s entirely possible that an issue with a particular model (for example visibility issues caused by a pillar blindspots) could skew the results.

In the “Strengths and weaknesses of the study” section of the paper, they touched on the age of the data being a weakness. In addition to the concern that you pointed out, there are also new regulations that have been put in place to mitigate these issues — e.g. the NHTSA mandates that cars have a minimum amount of sound that they must emit [source].

It would be interesting to see if they can get the same results with 2019-2024 data.

Agreed.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

especially given safety features that now exist on newer cars

Do note that the dataset that they used is from 2013-2017.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

More pedestrians are injured in Great Britain by petrol and diesel cars than by electric cars, but compared with petrol and diesel cars, electric cars pose a greater risk to pedestrians and the risk is greater in urban environments.

I don’t understand this statement. More pedestrians are injured by gas cars but electric cars are more dangerous?.

If I understand it correctly, the reason is because there are more ICE cars than EVs and H-EVs. In absolute numbers, this makes it so that ICE vehicles collide with the most pedestrians, but, per vehicle, EVs and H-EVs collide with the most pedestrians.

No easy solution is immediately coming to me, other than pedestrians getting more and more used to cars not making any sound.

I’ve heard some newer EVs and H-EVs emit sounds (usually some sort of whirring sound) to alert pedestrians. Keep in mind that the data in this study was from 2013-2017. There have been some innovations made to mitigate this issue since then.

The 2024 Vancouver Mayor’s Budget Task Force Report recommends selling naming rights and running sponsorship campaigns for Vancouver Assets (bc.ctvnews.ca)

A volunteer-run group tasked by the City of Vancouver to analyze its budget is suggesting the city generate revenue from city assets through selling naming rights and running sponsorship campaigns....

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

putting a “maintenance of this made possible by sponsorship of xyz” on a plaque makes sense to me. But sponsorship should be a subscription, not a one time payment.

An important thing to add to this, I think, is that it’s important that the sponsorship has no final say in the direction, or management of the asset. It should just be treated as an advertising/philanthropic opportunity for the sponsor.

One concern that I do have is over-reliance and dependence on the sponsor. It would not be great to have a situation where the City is beholden to some corporation.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

hey’re basically saying librarians shouldn’t be random political appointees.

Again, the ethics of this law heavily depends on if it applies to libraries which are publically or privately run.

They need to actually be librarians

It’s risky, imo, to define this through law.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Any way we talk about this is going to be reductive, the system we are talking about cannot be summed up in easy terms.

Great strides can be made by simply trying to avoid reductionism. Ofc, FPTP isn’t helping this cause.

Centrists are always running an average function over the Overton Window and just adopting whatever the algorithm says as what they believe.

Is that not what a centrist is, by definition? I don’t mean that a centrist is literally doing what you are describing, but a centrist is someone who sits in the middle of the left/right dichotomy. By this fact, they would have to be right in the average of the Overton Window.

The good thing is that because centrists by and large don’t actually have beliefs

This is a strange statement. Centrism is by definition a political position, and, by extent, requires beliefs.

At this point in US politics I cannot see a difference between centrism and liberalism

Liberalism is not dependent on the left-right dichotomy, and it is not nebulous like centralism. It is quite well defined in poli-sci. You can read about the beliefs that it encompasses here.

calling them liberal implies something is going on other than being ideological penguins who are afraid to be on the edge of the circle so they waddle into the middle and attempt to disappear into the crowd as they squawk away.

One important thing to clarify is that when the term “liberal” is used as a pejorative, it is, generally, and weirdly, not used in reference to liberalism (at least that’s how it seems to me), but, instead, as some vague reference to the also nebulous term “leftist”.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

If there’s no case law, then what makes you claim that there was no individual right prior to Heller? You can’t know what the legal standard was without precedent.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

IIUC, I just think that the intent/mentality is somewhat altered in what you described in this comment. For example, you said “Positive rights oblige others to provide something (like healthcare).” — positive liberty isn’t necessarily about forcing people, in an authoritative manner, to do things for, or to, another person. It’s essentially taking the position that people should have the freedom to experience life on a level playing field, if you will — it is interested in lowering the amount of barriers preventing people from doing what they want. I don’t think your wording is necessarily incorrect, I’m just not convinced that the connotation is the same.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I have read it, and find it bullshit.

What exactly do you disagree with? It’s really just a definition. If you are encountering people who are advocating for authoritarianism while calling themselves libertarian, then they are misappropriating the term.

Libertarians always manage to decide to “strategically” vote for the Republican that promises authoritarianism but also promises low taxes.

This is very likely to be a faulty generalization. Also, there are policies on both the Democrat, and Republican side which can be construed as authoritarian.

Again, it’s not about what Libertarians say they support, it’s who they actually support.

I’d be very hesitant to call stategic voting “supporting”.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I don’t agree that can work with violence.

What are you referring to?

I also don’t appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.

I apologize if I have offended you — that wasn’t my intent. What exactly do you mean by this?

I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it’s leaves on his side of the lawn.

This depends. A violent outcome need not be in response to an action, but it can stem from it. Laws carry with them the threat of force.

I wouldn’t want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner.

If a country allows for a citizens arrest, everyone holds within themselves the power of enforcing the law. Though you may be referring to the idea of paying for private police and leaving others without. If so, this is more of a question of positive and negative liberties. Having a public police force would be a positive liberty, imo — in that case, it potentially doesn’t align with libertarianism, but that is very debatable.

Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare

Do note that if a corporation is not allowed to use violence, then that means that they cannot take it upon themselves to protect their property. Perhaps you think that that is how it should be?

If the government WASN’T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios.

I’m not sure I follow this point. I don’t think that I have argued that the government shouldn’t be allowed to use force — it wasn’t my intent if my previous statements were interpreted in that way. The point that I’m trying to make is that the government should be kept in check. You have pointed out that threat of violence is what must be used to uphold the law. The only way for the people to keep the government in check is for the people to keep the government under threat of violence. If the distribution is just right, then no minority group in a democracy can hold the majority of the power.

I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions.

Which 3 questions are you referring to?

more equal is more better

I don’t understand this point. Are you stating that you don’t believe in individual equality?

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

The relationship between libertarianism and taxes is rather complex, imo. The main issue with taxes that a libertarian would have typically revolves around the interpretation of the NAP. It could be argued that the enforcement of taxes is an aggression that has not been consented to, so, since a libertarian is more in favor of negative liberties, they would take the position that they want freedom from being compelled to pay them. Do note that, like many things, there is a spectrum of this belief — not all libertarians completely oppose taxes. Many libertarians recognize that some amount of taxation is necessary for a properly functioning society. What is essentially universal among libertarians, however, is the minimization of taxes.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

The distinction between positive and negative liberties is, indeed, a rather blurry one, but there is generally a difference in mindset between the two. That being said, libertarianism seeks to minimize the size and influence of the government, but they don’t seek to abolish it — those that seek to abolish it are anarchists (I’m not sure if I am reading your comment correctly, but it seems that you are advocating for anarchism rather than libertarianism when you said “freedom from a governing authority”). It’s important to note that negative liberty is a concept that distinguishes a certain class of liberties — it doesn’t require the presence of a government.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Such a thing is impossible.

What is your argument to support this statement?

The current system is working exactly as intended

If the current system is intended to be capitalist, then it is not working as intended, as was described above.

Kalcifer,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I think the distinction is important so as not to detract from what is arguably more horrible and worthy of condemnation — pedophilia.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • anitta
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • osvaldo12
  • love
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • everett
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • DreamBathrooms
  • ngwrru68w68
  • megavids
  • magazineikmin
  • InstantRegret
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • cisconetworking
  • Durango
  • provamag3
  • tester
  • Leos
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines
    •