Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?
Check out my digital garden: The Missing Premise.
Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?
Well, nothing is 100% safe, and we allow plenty of things that are demonstrably unsafe to continue. So if you compare bike-car collisions against say, firearm suicides in the US, you’ll see that bike-car collisions aren’t that bad.
The fundamental argument is that nothing is totally safe, but some things are safer than others.
More like if you contextualize the incidents of bicycles and pedestrians with cars, you might realize they’re safer than you think. This is absolutely false for cars and pedestrians though in America at least.
It’s cute af too, with their little tongues sticking out
The current Lt. Governor of North Carolina is black and worse than Trump. Idk about the sexual assault stuff, but he’s still an absolute piece of shit.
Every answer so far is wrong.
It can be used for good purposes, though I’m not sure if characterize creating a personalized Jarvis as good per se. But, more broadly, capitalist inventions do not need to be used only by capitalists for capital ends.
There’s a few ways in practice.
Court decisions are binding broadly. The conservative capture of the Supreme Court is political genius, honestly. They tend to have the final say regarding policy.
Federal agency rules are also broadly binding. EPA rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions, for example, apply everywhere in the country.
State legislatures are often less polarized, which facilitates a more productive legislature.
State agencies, like a state environmental department, mirrors its federal counterpart but is more localized.
Non-state organizations can get things done, though their interests are often limited and not necessarily in the interests of the broad public as state and federal institutions are.
International institutions can ‘set the tone’. They may not have any power to actually do anything within a specific jurisdiction, but people within those jurisdictions can draw policy inspiration from international organizations and try for something locally binding.
Exactly
What’s particularly strange about it is that it doesn’t really serve any purpose for a vast majority of people aside from a government-approved official statement that someone finds their in-laws unbearable.
That’s a pretty good purpose. Everybody can save face by taking part in bureaucracy. That sounds like I’m being facetious, but I’m serious. Think about the alternative: avoiding them awkwardly all the time or telling them to screw themselves directly, which will engender negative feelings. At least with the bureaucracy, the sentiment gets filtered through a impartial, uncaring medium.
Anecdotally, this was my experience as a student when I tried to use AI to summarize and outline textbook content. The result says almost always incomplete such that I’d have to have already read the chapter to include what the model missed.
I use Enhancer For YouTube to remove hide almost everything except the video. I even keep the comments collapsed.
It’s such a nice experience.
While he had fake electors last time, they weren’t as widespread as they’ve become over the last 4 years. He also didn’t have the coordination of the Heritage Foundation either like he does now. He also didn’t have a House of Representatives willing to steal the election last time.
He has a lot going for his machinations this time.
What did your neighbor say about it?
Hey! Technically, none of my tests ever showed covid either. But I 100% had it because my SO got sick right after me and she tested for it.
That’s fair
Vote.org is an classic site for voter registration. It has existed many years
I will be in a perfect position to snatch a discount H100 in 12 months
You’re only partially right. There was a penalty for not having healthcare that was reduced to $0 where it has stayed since 2017. When that happened premiums shot up because healthier people decided to not get insurance. Considering health insurance is about pooling risk, healthier people left weren’t there to subsidize the relatively sicker folks. So, it’s also a problem of incentives
Eww. Grow up and love yourself, dude.
Well, you asked if I was arguing against improving safety when compared to fatality rates for any activity.
But for me to have made that argument, I’d have to have said that there is no rate of fatality that would justify improving safety. So, I was asking if you think that’s true:
But I sucked at wording it clearly. That’s on me.
In short, no, I’m not arguing that. Really, I was just clarifying what the person you responded to was saying. I’m not making an argument either way.