If you let the sauce simmer for long enough, 4-5 hours, or pressure cook it the starches of the tomatoes will break down and you won’t need to add sugar. The acidity will also go down the longer it’s simmered too.

I fail to see how this crime fighting measure involves more cops, guns and racism so I don’t think you’ll be able to convince the “tough on crime” “pro life” GOP supreme court on this.

I mean openais not getting off Scott free, they’ve been getting sued a lot recently for this exact copy right argument. New York times is suing them for potential billions.

They throw the book at us

Do they though, since the Metallica lawsuits in the aughts there hasnt been much prosecution at the consumer level for piracy, and what little there is is mostly cease and desists.

It’s an easy target but also a near worthless one. What does the CCP gain from getting a bunch of terminally online Linux nerds on their side? No one making real decisions that could effect China is on here.

4chan is also a soft target but you don’t see parties or governments investing in propagandizing there because it’s full of basement dwelling incels who can’t do anything besides maybe shoot up a school.

It will eventually have to happen, cars, including evs, are not sustainable, at least at the current levels of usage. If you look at any climate report looking into it the choice is between Americans driving a lot less or severe climate change. I hope murica will make the right choice but the more we tie cars to ideas of freedom and peace of mind the harder that choice will be. It will be tough to fight considering the tens of thousands of hours of car ads most Americans are exposed to pushing that narrative, so it will require just as much reinforcement on the negatives of cars, traffic fatalities, CO2 emissions, airborne micro plastics from tires, maintenance and repair costs, obesity, sprawled cities, etc.

It may not happen in our lifetime, or at least when your healthy enough to bike/hike , but eventually we’ll have to transition away from personal cars. Id prefer to build towards that future now for the reasons listed above but if you want to delay that’s fine, you’ll just have to explain to your grandkids why you did.

Yeah maybe there are are 2000 mountains, but how many have mountain bike trails? If there are trails then there is probably some organization maintaining them like the state or national park service who can also run the shuttles. Shuttles are also pretty cheap and can stop at multiple trail heads based off requests. You can also rotate where the shuttles go each day / week so if there’s a more obscure trail/mountain then you can just wait until it comes up in the schedule. The towns would also probably want to run the shuttles as well since it will bring business to the area.

Ok, let’s assume we want less people on the mountain, what gives you the right to go to the mountain then? Because you can afford a car? That doesn’t seem fair. Also most people have a car so it’s not restricting that many people. If we say only 30 people should go to the mountain a day that’s way easier to enforce if we say only 2 shuttles of 15 are allowed. It’s also fairer as who gets to go is just determined by whoever signs up first, as opposed to whether someone owns something.

I think many people would like to socialize. There’s a loneliness epidemic and many people are looking for friends but don’t know where to meet them. If I was looking for friends with common interests like mountain biking the shuttle up would be a great place to meet them. Just because I want to get away from civilization doesn’t mean I want to get away from socializing, I hike regularly with groups of people and they mostly enhance the experience. If you aren’t into that that’s fine too, just put on your headphones ignore everyone and set off on the trail solo, nothing stopping you from doing that.

For the last point like I said usage can be controlled, even better then cars, but assuming the same usage a shuttle is less pollution then multiple cars. If like you said there are 5-6 cars at a particular trail head then one shuttle carrying all those people will cause less air and noise pollution and make it safer for animals.

No I haven’t lived in rural America but most Americans haven’t either. Most live in the suburbs, cities or towns. It’s like saying people need to eat less sugar and we should stop using it for every food and people saying “what about the diabetics who need sugar” yeah they do but that’s not the majority of people. We can make exceptions for them while also overhauling our food industry to remove this thing that’s causing health problems for most people.

As for the mountain bike scenario ideally you would take a train to a town near the trail and then the town can have a shuttle up to the mountain. If we did fully invest in public transit this wouldn’t add too much to your trip and has some other benefits.

• This would be good for the park and wildlife in general as less traffic would make it easier for animals to migrate. Less roadkill

• This would lower the amount of development needed in the park as parking lots wouldn’t be necessary.

• It would make mountain biking more accessible for people who don’t have a car or can’t drive.

• It would make it more social, you could meet people on the shuttle on the way up, if there are regulars then a community could form.

• It would reduce the amount of air and noise pollution.

That would work if we invested as much into public transit as into cars. This goes back to designing cities for public transit instead of cars. If we did that with the money we currently are putting into cars we could have high frequency metro lines where inner city interstate / highway routes and high speed rail for inter city interstate/highway routes along with frequent bus service in the cities/towns on the lines. We think public transit is inherently slow and unreliable but that’s because we never invest enough money to make it fast and reliable.

llms suck because they steal content and are unreliable since they don’t link back to sources

Open ai makes a deal to pay media org for there content and makes it so they can link back to original article

“Ars technica sold out”

As long as they aren’t using there platform to promote dumb reactionary views like Kanye or j.k. Rowling just let people enjoy themselves. To the extent that people view snoop as political it’s usually in regards to him representing weed / black stoner lifestyle and it’s broader acceptance and legalization, which I’m all for. Even the article you pointed to where he praised trump was for getting his friend off for a non - violent drug offense which is good, even if trump did it. It would be better if he was letting off the average lower class black person in jail for that but something’s better then nothing.

I feel more comfortable walking around them, they never blow stop lights /signs, always go the speed limit, never honk (except when parking I guess) and are very patient. If they see a pedestrian they just stop instead of creeping forward making you question whether to walk in front of them and then getting mad when you won’t cross in front of their still moving car like people.

Lol, love how French Guyana is “Europe”

Idk, the colonists had a vested interest in expelling the French from the Ohio territory, so that they could expel all the Indians and take the land. Also most of them still considered themselves English, and therefore despised the French so public support for the war was probably pretty high.

Depends who owns it / who payed to have it constructed. If the tenets own it and payed to have it constructed, or payed someone who payed someone… Then it’s a condo or a co-op depending on whether you own a unit in the building or own x% of the building which entitles you to a unit.

If another organization, almost always some form of government, payed to have it constructed and owns it then it is public housing.

If it’s anything like cities skylines original, houses just pop up according to demand with seemingly no construction cost calculated, probably because it would add a ton more complexity with mortgages and speculative markets etc. for little gain to players who mostly just want to play with trains and metros.

Trump said in a Truth Social post Tuesday. “Biden’s hatred of Bitcoin only helps China, Russia, and the Radical Communist Left. We want all the remaining Bitcoin to be MADE IN THE USA!!! It will help us be ENERGY DOMINANT!!!”

Didn’t COMMUNIST China ban it mostly because it was putting strain on their grid? Not sure how wasting states worth of electricity to fuel a glorified ponzi scheme is going to help with energy dominance but who am I to question the self-proclaimed genius.

That’s a very solvable problem though, AI can easily be run off green energy and a lot of the new data centers being built are utilizing it, tons are popping up in Seattle with its abundance of hydro energy. Compare that to meat production or transportation via combustion which have a much harder transition and this seems way less of an existential problem then the author makes it out to be.

Also most of the energy needed is for the training which can be done at any time, so it can be run on off peak hours. It can also absorb surpluses from solar energy in the middle of the day which can put strain on the grid.

This is all assuming it’s done right, which it may not and could exasperate the ditch were already in, but the technology itself isn’t inherently bad.

You can get the film replaced, for free the first time, then like $20 after. Mine basically came all the way off on the fold for my z flip, but then I went to a galaxy store and they replaced it and it’s fine now.

It’s not the capitalist auto companies who are going to get hurt though. The price advantage of the Chinese companies comes from low labor costs and government subsidies, so the auto companies will just move there production to whatever country offers the most subsidies and least labor costs because in our current globalized world capital can move freely.

The real losers will be the unionized auto workers who’ll be abandoned while capitalists maintain or even increase there profits in the third world. These sorts of race to the bottom always harm workers, whether it be with clothes and shein , or EVs.

… But no one is being thrown into the woods with a random stranger or a bear. Like the original question this is a hypothetical meant to prove a point. The original point seems to be “the average man is dangerous” , this is meant to show that point can be prejudiced/sexist. It’s meant to show that the argument that some people are saying they’re afraid of a group therefore we must validate that fear can lead to some bad places and shouldn’t be used. This argument is at the core of what the comment I replied to.

Would you say the same if the argument was about the inherent danger of black men? If a bunch of white women were online saying black men are dangerous we wouldn’t say that black men calling it out were “magically claiming false victimhood” we’d say those women’s fears, even if they are truly felt, are a product of prejudice and unfair and they’re spreading of these ideas is damaging.