You must log in or register to comment.
Everyone should have to retake the driving test (both written and practical) every five years. And if you don’t pass on the first try or are in a crash where you are found at fault, it should be bumped up to every year for the following five years.
People drive dangerously because they’ve forgotten rules, or rules have changed, or they’ve had a physical or cognitive decline. And yet we’re like “yep, you took a test once decades ago, good to go.”
Dangerous driving kills so many people.
I’m guessing they would do this if they could justify the cost to voters. I recall having to wait months for my driving test. Sadly, I have a feeling it’s easier to kick that problem (i.e. accidents) down to someone else’s department. But I’m totally with you. Yesterday I almost got ran over by someone that treated a stop sign like a yield sign.
So i drive a lot for work every day, and people not knowing traffic rules at all is a big problem. But people not even caring is so much worse. Everyone is the most important person on the road. The amount of time people cutting me off, backing up onto the road or merging on a highway without even looking or caring is crazy. These people probably pass a test, but you can’t force them to care, other people look out for them so it doesn’t matter to them.
Also turn signals. Where i live, there are a lot of roundabouts, and it keeps the traffic going. But for them to work properly, you have to use turn signals, so you can go as soon as you see a blinking light. But most people don’t care because it doesn’t matter to them if the other person has to wait, because they are out.
I agree about people not caring about anyone else, and I think it’s gotten worse since covid.
Totally agree! Also ppl like to bash on elderly persons. Statistically speaking you are most likely to be hit by a young or middle aged man.
If someone couldn’t pass a driving test, they shouldn’t be driving. This should apply to everyone, elderly or not. It’s just that elderly people are less likely to be in as good of a condition as when they got their license for the first time.
I meeeeeean, there is a elderly guy in my neighberhood that only drives with his wife as a passenger, becuase he said he can barely see past his hood.
I agree with that i also think they should offer a more complex test that will extend that time to 10 years. After a certain age though you’re only eligible for a 5 year extention.
I agree, and it could work like that here. (your driver’s license is only valid for a certain time) But as far as I know, you only need to retake the tests when applying for renewal if your license expired multiple years ago. Otherwise, you only have to fill out some forms.
At least old people & those who’ve had their license taken away need to redo their tests, which is better than nothing, but not enough in my opinion.
Yeah at the very least, they could easily make it a requirement to pass a written test at every renewal. Hell, they could do it as an online test you can do it home before you come in, I don’t even care if people “cheat.” Make it open book. Then at least people would have to flip through the book every few years which is better than nothing.
On toilets with two flush buttons for different flow rates, if there is a larger button and a smaller button (with no other singe), the larger button should correspond to the lower flow rate. Odds are more people are flushing for pee, and don’t need the extra flow, and the more common action should be represented by a larger button. For people who are unsure, lazy, or not looking, they’re probably pressing the larger button just for pee, and wasting water if that were to correspond to more water usage, which is wasteful.
Isn’t this how they actually are? I’ve only seen 2 of these in my life, but both had the big button for a piss rinse, and the smaller one for the shit shoot.
Every time I’ve encountered the ambiguous buttons, I have asked other people and have been told “smaller is for less water/bigger is for more water” and I feel like an asshole wasting water for a little pee. One time I did experiment and did try both buttons and didn’t notice a difference really, but i couldn’t measure it fully.
piss rinse … shit shoot
I actually LOL’d. Thank you.
I made myself chuckle, too.
You’re welcome.
Votes should be inversely weighted by age. The vote of someone who’s going to clock out before the next election even rolls around shouldn’t be worth the same as the vote of someone who’s going to have to live with the consequences for half a century or more.
Ooooh dark. I like.
Vote 1! @Sordid
Voting age should be raised to at least 24, so that the frontal lobe is fully developed.
Not really my belief, but you’re opinion marginalized me, so I’m counter-proposing.
Then cap the voting age at 50 when cognitive decline of the frontal lobe really kicks in, if we are talking about fully developed brain function.
Neural plasticity has even declined once you are past your 20s. One of the reasons people find it much much harder to learn a new language past then, for example.
reasoning, memory, and speed of reasoning reaches a decline threshold when you are around 40.
My unpopular opinion is I guess that humans were never evolved to live as long as we do (and certainly not meant to labor as long) so everything in our brain gets very wonky. Empathy is also one of the things stunted with age. There is a reason the “grump old man” trope exists.
EDIT: Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. Pretty much everything regarding age is arbitrary because you are “developing” until your mid 20s and then you start declining, brain-wise. It is all arbitrary. And then the above poster doesn’t even check that I am a different person than the original comment and sends me a hate message somehow thinking that I am wishing death on him (why would anyone wish for a stranger to die?) for simply pointing out that our brains get weirder with age especially because we are forced to work for much longer and often have less empathy.
Perhaps there’s an IQ cutoff you’d favor as well? Perhaps a psychological exam? Surely the mentality handicapped shouldn’t vote, right?
You speak to me of empathy?
Read and think critically. It is all arbitrary. If we cut off people at 18 or 24, why shouldn’t we cut them off at 50? There is scientific evidence both ways.
Not to mention that IQ is pretty much a farce and completely biased by certain types of education and only measures a small subset of human brain function, The cutoff would also be completely arbitrary.
Not everything is a personal indictment on you or your beliefs.
Or have the voting age be 18 years old to the average national life expectancy, although i really haven’t thought this through too much. I assume if such a situation were to exist, it would be much easier to cut Social Security and Medicare without losing the elderly vote, so that probably would backfire.
But what about the reverse argument?
The elders know much more than the young generation, shouldn’t they have a larger say?
Basically, Japan is the most developed nation on earth. Not because of technology, or culture, or anything of the sort. But they were the first developed nation to have their birth rate drop and pyramid start shrinking. In that sense, their policies are ahead of every country on earth that still keeps admitting massive amounts of immigrants to keep their populations up.
The St. Anger snare is fine.
Context?
On the Metallica album St Anger, the drummer Lars decided to use the most obnoxious sounding snare probably ever recorded. Said something to the effect of making it sound like it was recorded in a garage. The rest of the band didn’t sound lofi, so it REALLY stuck out.
RIP your inbox
This is the hottest take I’ve heard in a while. Bravo.
Regular expressions are not that difficult and coders that refuse to learn them because they “look like line noise” are terrible at their jobs.
I can write a basic regex independently, but as soon as capture groups or positive/negative lookahead or lookbehind start popping up I’m back to the docs every time.
Absolutely, the syntax is difficult to remember, but knowing about concepts like lookaheads etc. is already far beyond what “regex is line noise” coders will ever achieve.
And there’s always regex101.com to help develop and test your expressions!
Not a coder. But knowing basic regex, makes my life so much easier. Even in things like excel.
Hell, you can even use regex to search your stash in Path of Exile 2.
Level 2 of these people: learn regex and try to parse something non-regular like XML or C++ templates with it.
Same people who did not pay attention and hated the “useless” formal languages lecture in university and who have no clue about proper data structures and algorithms for their problem, just hack together some half-working solution and ship it. Fix bugs with extra if statements instead of solving the real issue. Not writing unit tests.
Soo many people in software development who really should not be there.
I’ve always thought that regular expressions are just specifications for state machines. They aren’t that difficult.
Easy enough to write. But reading and maintaining? That’s the hard part.
Becoming a parent is not a right, it is a privilege (I guess). You need a license to get married, drive, hunt or fish, your dog needs one. There should be some sort of class and background check you must pass before being allowed to procreate. Just the basics like: this is the level of care and support this small helpless mammal needs to be healthy and grow to maturity. This is how much, minimum, that quality upbringing will cost and do you meet that bare minimum level of competence and income to raise a healthy baby.
Digital Marketing doesn’t work. Digital Bubble is here and it will burst hard ending the “free internet” in a process. The more you work in marketing, the less you are inclined to agree… or even listen…
This will not be preaty.
You can change your (psychological) reaction to everything. All psychological suffering is chosen by yourself and can be stopped if you choose not to suffer.
Of course this is simple, not easy. Almost no one can do it.
Most people I meet don’t believe this and hate that I’m saying this.
That ability to make a choice is itself a result of being in the right time+place and receiving the correct guidance+education.
Like someone who read your comment might look into this and slowly learn to be more resilient, but if that same person doesn’t read it, never receives any guidance and has to suffer psychological abuse from those around them, would you really blame them for being the way they are?
Obviously, yep. We are all victims of our circumstances and if you never get in contact with this concept or are not in a mental situation to want to believe it to be true, you’re pretty much out of luck.
This really makes me wonder if free will even exists… I mean, 90% of what we do and what we think depends on environmental stimuli, the remaining 10% depends on genetic makeup and the natural variations/mutations of our brain cells.
Makes me think the same. I personally believe that no, the concept in the sense that “anything can change and could theoretically happen” doesn’t exist, but… I also believe it doesn’t really matter either. If there is free will, then anything can happen, if there is no free will, then not anything can happen and it is determined, but since we currently can’t predict the future and determine what’s going to happen, both situations have the exact same outcomes.
For me, most of these philosophical questions that are (currently) not definitively answerable I liked to ponder for a bit, but dismiss relatively quickly. I don’t really care if there is a free will or not, if there is any meaning to anything or not, basically whatever. What I care about is the current situation as far as I can discern it, and my actions that I want to take in the current moment based on that. My biology determines that and I just let it happen.
You should elaborate a bit, I can get two possible interpretations of this - one which I agree should be a more popular opinion, and one which I believe is nonsense and should be made fun of.
If someone betrays you - you can either be upset at this, feel terrible for a long time
Or you can be thankful for them showing their true colors, thankful for the opportunity to enhance your people-reading skills, i.e. learn how to prevent this better (or identify that it simply happens sometimes, even with good prevention skills), perform the correct consequences (i.e. cutting them out of your life, minimizing your dependence on them), and then move on with the new state of life.
I’m not saying one won’t feel bad at first - but there’s no reason to continue with that past the initial automatic reaction, how fast you can “move on” depends on how good you are at this. After handling the situation properly, there’s no reason to continue to feel bad, feeling bad about it is just a motivator to do something about it, if there’s nothing to do anymore, there’s no reason to feel bad anymore.
You can extend the same line of thinking to literally anything - you get fired from your job, you go hungry, you suffer some debilitating injury/sickness, you get put in a concentration camp due to be executed (“Man’s search for meaning” is an example of this).
Which interpretation is this, and what is the other one?
Somewhat in between, more towards the former I guess?
I wouldn’t say it’s nonsense nor that it should be made fun of, I simply disagree on calling it a “choice”. It’s more like a D&D saving throw, and sometimes the DM just makes it mathematically impossible for you to pass it, but I concede that “choice” is less verbose than that.
I agree that you can change your psychological reaction to everything, and that it’s not easy, but it’s not, like, an API call to a well documented open-source library, and you don’t necessarily have full control over what that change is.The other interpretation is basically your opinion, but actively dismissing the fact that it’s
nevernot always effortless or painless - I’ve heard that here and there, by people I’m not really fond of.Yep great examples. And I see a LOT of Lemmy posters just unable to accept any of this. So much doomscrolling and choosing to be pissed/unhappy about every little thing.
Purely as a thought experiment, this is mostly just vacuous logic. Sure, you can kill yourself, or kill everything you love or hate, or make sacrifices that are probably infinitely greater than the suffering itself (you could choose to stop caring about human suffering, most would much rather suffer than do that).
In practice however this is even worse than vacuous, it’s just wrong and insane. You can’t choose to not be schizophrenic, physical and psychological pain aren’t two neatly distinct categories, saying it’s “a choice” is just drawing a completely arbitrary border on where choice starts, and no shit people get angry at you because unless you heavily qualify this kind of statement further, anyone would think you’re doing the purest form of bootstrap victim blaming argument possible. Anyone would think of that one time they suffered the most in their lives and you’re saying “you chose that, that’s on you”.
If I try to be as charitable as I possibly can, I would assume this is an attempt at criticizing self-pity, highlighting that we are often our biggest obstacles to healing and that will plays a greater part in our agency than we recognize. I’d agree with all of that, but that’s being really charitable, I don’t think your statement makes that case at all.
See :D told ya it’s unpopular. Yeah, it’s “victim blaming” essentially. You might not believe me, but I have been a victim most of my life in many situations. I also have or have had mental disorders.
In the end, you can only control yourself. And so while it is of course not my fault if I am being abused or whatever (it’s the fault of the abuser) it is actually very much my fault if I don’t find ways to remove myself from that situation. Of course, every situation is different. The difficulty of “fixing” it, and how to do it, massively differs. But in almost all situations, “suffering” only makes it less likely you’ll get out of it. If you feel too bad, most people are more likely to feel powerless, to not think clearly, to be defeatist and so on.
Life literally always has challenges, things that make you feel bad. No matter how good of a situation someone has, you’ll always find people that are miserable in that situation. I’m saying you can actually be fine with your situation, whatever it is.
It’s not reasonable to assume that everyone has that much control in any situation. Removing yourself from a situation is not always possible. What can you do if it’s caused by your environment, like family, school, etc.?
Life does have challenges & there always exists someone who can be miserable in a given situation. That doesn’t mean that everything should be normal.
You can definitely affect some things & you might be able to choose how you see some other things. Still, some things are outside your control or “as they should be”.
I’ve never said that anyone “should” have that much control. In fact I literally said almost no one can do it. The controversial thing is me even suggesting that it is possible.
I think the notion of “choice” or “fault” here is a little questionable, I understand your argument broadly (that’s what I tried to do in the last paragraph), so maybe it’s mostly just a language issue (I don’t think saying it is your “fault” or “choice” really means the same thing as saying that it’s “up to you”).
But I believe you’re contradicting yourself when you say that you both have to act and get out of situation such as abuse (not be defeatist) and but also learn to be fine with the situation (which reads like admitting defeat to me). I think this confusion between an actionable scenario (you can change things around you) and a non-actionable scenario (you can only change your outlook) is at the core of it.
Regardless I agree that self-pity is an absolute poison, but I’d tend to believe the way you put it is perhaps more controversial (because of what it implies or leaves out) than the point itself. Choosing not to suffer can also be a form of defeatism.
Yeah but you can not suffer and still act to get out of the situation is what I’m saying.
100 percent true. But I disagree that almost no one can do it. I think lots of successful people do it. I mean, the ones who went through a LOT of failure before they reached success.
I personally have done it in my life regarding a few things. Stoicism is a great resources for doing this, in my opinion anyway.
Basically you can’t always control shit that happens to you, but you CAN learn to control how you react to it.
Disabled people should have to ask for a seat on public transit if one isn’t available; other people shouldn’t immediately get up when a clearly disabled person boards, nor should anyone expect them to without being asked. Similarly, you have no right to criticize someone (who doesn’t appear to be disabled) if they’re sitting in a seat designated for disabled people and they don’t get up when a visibly disabled person gets on.
First of all, the disabled person might not even want the seat. If they do, it’s reasonable to expect them (as an adult) to advocate for their own needs (i.e. ask). It’s actually more offensive to assume that every elderly or otherwise visibly-disabled person is incapable of that.
Second of all, not all disabilities are easily visible. I’m a mid-twenties guy and I was born with an auto-immune disorder that sometimes makes it very difficult or painful to stand/walk. It’s happened multiple times that strangers on the bus have chewed me out for not giving up my seat, even though (statistically) there were probably other people sitting in disability-designated seats that needed that seat less than me and the visibly disable person who just boarded. I can’t fucking believe I have arthritis in my twenties, either. I’m just trying to cope with the shitty circumstances I was given and the last thing I need is to constantly have to justify myself to ignorantly self-righteous strangers.
No one really seems to talk about overpopulation as a real problem and it kind of freaks me out. Climate change, micro plastics, war, economy is all bad, but the amount of people that keep multiplying with no bother in the world is crazy. Factory farms are already out of control and it’s just gonna grow exponentially.
I think people are freaking out about very low reproduction rate and aging population in rich countries more than anything, since that’s the demographic trend right now. Also factory farming is not like an inevitability of high population density, that’s just profit and lobbying. (I put the usual land use per kcal graph at the end, it’s not perfect because of the reality of arable land…etc, but still a very good reference)
Also to be fair, one country did try to handle overpopulation (and more broadly the risks of a sudden boom in population) and have been dragged through the mud for it for like 40 years.
Amazingly, the same countries who are at risk due to aging/decreasing populations are the ones now refusing as much entry of people from other countries as they can.
Cultural replacement fears and international bad actors who are happy to pour money to the right wing influences, because they are often nationalistic and against international unions that form power structures that are always against someones benefit.
any policy you can implement to address “overpopulation” is eugenics. so there is nothing (ethical) to do about it.
maybe start with not incentivizing the production of children with all the tax cuts and loans and whatnot. and revise the pension system so that it finally does not rely on working like cancer
id argue those incentive programs are, themselves, eugenics policies, but I also think ending them is complicated, as doing so in one jurisdiction and not in others is, you see, eugenics.
too many dudes in this thread thinking eugenics and pedophilia are unpopular. They’re very popular and that’s a very bad thing
The Beatles are highly overrated. I respect the impact they had, and I acknowledge that the music I like (metal) would not exist without them, but I’ll go out of my way to avoid listening to them.
It was easier to be a big fish in the pre-internet music pond. I would never said the Beatles are bad, they aren’t. But aside from understanding the historical significance, I would never ever put the Beatles on regularly.
Just as I don’t watch B&W films every night. Charlie Chaplin was great, for the time, just simpler than what I actually actually enjoy.
I’m also on this camp. I get the significance, but I think I just didn’t resonate with what they wrote, and the “old” production.
Here and there I found a great version someone else performed and was surprised to find it’s a Beatles song, then I heard the OG and went “yup, still not for me”.
Older men having sex with sexually mature teen girls is fine, under reasonable circumstances. The world seems to think this is always coercive or predatory or harmful, but there is no reason any of these things are universally true.
The age of consent in almost all nations is around 18. This stands to reason, since society expects people of this age to be able to make reasonable decisions. Depending on the country, people around this age are given agency to emancipate themselves from their families, take on hundreds of thousands of dollars of student debt, join the military and possibly die for their country, drive an automobile, buy alcohol or tobacco, etc. If we believe someone is mature enough to do these things, then we should certainly give them the lawful right to have sex with whomever they like.
Meanwhile, women often find maturity, status, or wealth to be attractive qualities in men, and men find youthfulness to be an attractive quality in a woman. Of course, this differs person to person - everyone had different sexual preferences. But there are general trends, and based on these trends, the pairing of younger women and older men is an obvious one.
The typical response to this is that “the only reason a man would want to date a woman that young is so he can have someone to control and manipulate” - which is crazy. The primary reason men want to date younger women is because they are hot. However, because there is a social stigma against age gap relationships, most men are put off of their interest to pursue younger women. So what you end up with is only dirtbags pursuing younger women - the men who do not care about negative social stigmas.
However, if you are a man who is interested in dating younger women, this whole situation works to your favor - if you are willing to tolerate the social stigma, you end up with much less competition for the women you find most attractive.
All guns should be surrendered and destroyed en masse. They are fun, but society would be happier, healthier, and with far less suicides and DA without them.
I’ve seen too many close calls to consider them safe for society at large.
Go back to swords.
It boggles my mind people can bear a device that can end lifes in an instant and feel like they are fun. I guess this is making my unpopular opinion.
I mean people have fun with many things which are dangerous. Fireworks are dangerous, rock climbing is dangerous, driving is dangerous.
I’m strongly anti-gun, but I’m willing to admit they are fun.
Wouldn’t that be nice?
But the truth would be: someone will find a way to make guns on their own, then the rest of us would be defenseless against that.
This is the reason why militaries have nuclear weapons despite wanting peace.
Guns don’t defend against guns.
Edit: People who have to deal with the public who might be armed don’t do it with a gun in their hand, they do it behind bulletproof glass. The odds that a given gun is going to shoot a bad guy moments before the bad guy shoots a good guy are a fraction of the odds that that same gun will be used to accidentally kill a child.
Knife does?
If you think they would be the consequence of banning and removing guns from society, you can test this theory by looking at any country which has already done this. What you find is that gun violence is extremely minimal in these countries. So turns out your worries are over nothing!
And you know who protect such society? That’s right, folks with guns!
Militaries having guns is a very different thing to the general population having guns.
All guns should be surrendered and destroyed en masse.
Quoting the original comment directly.
This does not say the militaries can have it.
Someone where I live was charged with 3D printing a gun. I believe he got jail time
this is legal just about everywhere in the usa.
Which exactly proved my point. You can make your gun at home.
If you see one getting caught, imagine how many at large.
If you see one getting caught, imagine how many at large
That sounds like FUD. Intentional?
