Sure, for a basic machine that allows for better than 20mph, or 35kph.
What makes you say that? Wearing a helmet is always recommended, since it provides protection against debilitating injuries whether the cyclist moves at 35km/h or is at a standstill. The basic risk of injury stems from being a mere participant in traffic, after all. Just like the basic risk of a debilitating defect in a piece of electronics that gets used every day stems from it getting used every day.
Trying to compare that to my phone is a false equivalency. Try trolling someone that hasn’t had both university level ethics courses, and university level debate courses that I fucking hated. The debate ones, not the ethics. Ethics I breezed through. Debate is some absolute bullshit because you have to entertain the viewpoint of liars, like you.
While I don't understand how ethics figure into this, I'm glad that you understand how a debate works! I'll graciously ignore the no doubt involuntary ad hominem (which you as an expert will know has no place in any kind of discussion) and will ask you to now employ the most useful technique you've likely learned in that course and rephrase the original point I made in a way that makes me go "Yep, that's what I said!", because from my point of view there must be some kind of misunderstanding. What (did you think) was I equating with what?
dass jetzt schon eines der teuersten weltweit ist und dabei mittelmäßige Qualität erzeugt
Ich habe das schon mehrfach gehört, aber Ich verstehe immer nicht wirklich, wo genau diese Einschätzung herkommt?! Von 8 Milliarden Menschen würdest du die Qualität der Gesundheitsversorgung der deutschen Bevölkerung... so in der Mitte ansiedeln?
yes, however as far as I am aware there are no laws in the us against any private vehicle usage on private land. Unlike the FDA which criminalizes owning or consuming certain chemicals.
You may have reached the limit of that car-metaphor there.
Exaclty … certain types in certain areas with a reason. That’s regulation.
Which is just what I wrote, yes. Excising every unmaintained or outdated vehicle from traffic everywhere for example is just as valid a regulation as excising a certain type of food - any food - from general consumption. There'd simply have to be a good reason. And once there is, yep, what can and can be eaten gets dictated.Again, that's already how it works, in traffic and in cuisine.
This would mean they’d be against food safety regulations, would it not?
It would not.
Having traffic laws isn’t the same as banning cars, either.
Of course it is. Part of traffic legislation literally involves banning certain types of vehicles, either in certain areas or on any kind of public road in general.
All this would be bad enough, but it also serves to compound a fall-of-Rome mood that feeds the narrative of nationalist politicians: From Budapest to Paris, the failings of Brussels, and the lack of any comeuppance, give anti-European rhetoric an easy ride.
No, Mari Eccles, in writing this and even titling it "How the EU always gets away with it" you are literally manufacturing anti-European rhetoric.There might be useful and interesting information in this article, but it's... like a moebius strip of lack of self-awareness.
Monetary needs and all that. If it’s a startup with VC then there is either not enough people paying or not enough private users supporting by other means like bug fixing, support, etc. Or greed by VC.
Well, VC is greedy by design. A VC-funded business will never be optimized for longevity, a good product or happy customers. They may achieve those things en passant, but they're never the objective.
For example: Any case of "there is not enough people paying" can also be rendered as "the scale and moving speed of the business is way off".
Happens regularly on that route. Some people just don’t take the alps seriously.
Hm, my understanding always was that this kind of thing just can't be helped, as it's rather the mountain that doesn't take humans seriously, i.e. every season in every similar location around the world there will always be a certain level of attrition among the thrill seekers, pretty much regardless of level of experience, caution or preparation.
The divergences between EU Member States’ laws governing the retention of data can hamper criminal proceedings and affect service providers operating across the EU.
I'm positively disconsolate over the revelation that law enforcement can, at times, be inconvenient.
I fully agree that a universal retention policy for member states would be sensible, but I also suspect they won't like the retention time I'm suggesting.
It’s the same reason wokeness has become used as almost a slur. Being aware of social injustices is great when it’s based in reason. The reasoning falls apart when I am legally being forced to pretend something is something when it’s not. The trans issue is reasonable until you get a situation where someone can change their gender day to day and I now become forced to pretend. The same idea for breasts, I’m being forced to pretend like almost all women use them as sex organs regularly. It’s hard because they are multipurpose. Would you say an unerect penis is not obscene and acceptable to be shown in public and in the presence of children? Just because it’s not being used as a sex organ in the moment doesn’t mean it doesn’t still carry some significance.
I'm convinced there's some kind of culture clash happening here because I feel like I truly wasn't able to follow most of that.What does "changing gender day to day" mean and what would it force you to pretend?For that matter, what is that force? I think the only force we've talked about before is the legislation that specifically forces women to behave differently from men but I don't think that's what you mean. Taking that legislation away, for example, would take away that force after all, it wouldn't introduce a new one.I do not think that breasts are or ever have been, on any creature or in any sense of the word, considered a sex organ. Is that really what you meant?
I do not think it's really relevant to the topic at hand but I can straightforwardly answer a straightforward question: I do not consider a penis, unerect or erect, to be either obscene or unfit to be visible in public, no matter the ages involved. It's a penis, half the people have them.
Because some people are not arguing in good faith. Sometimes it’s best to call them out on what they’re doing so people learn to recognize the behavior.
This comment section is not the first time this topic has been thought about and discussed.
Well, I see it like this: A conversation can only ever be had under the assumption that all participants are acting in good faith. If that assumption breaks down then the conversation simply cannot continue. Once you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that your conversation partner does not want to share information with you or does not wish to convince you of their point of view but instead has some kind other motive that does not involve listening to and understanding your points, then there's nothing else to do but to exit the conversation.
Whereas with a woman you would have to specify as to whether she is exposing her genitals or breasts.
I feel like we're kind of looping back to the beginning here - why do you think a woman would have to specify that? Why is it reasonable to burden 50% of the human population with that obligation?
Some of these users are unironically repeating rape cultural word for word and in this case with the add on of “I’m just asking questions”. Thanks for sticking it to them. =)
I really don't think that's a useful mindset. We're all just people here, having conversations and - ideally - socratic dialogues. What could be gained by sticking anything to anyone?
It's ok not to understand something, that's always the default. And I'll try to support that sentiment by admitting: me neither! 😅