• 0 Posts
  • 24 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 27th, 2024

help-circle









  • They replied elsewhere, that victim is a personifying trait and that applying it to inanimate objects makes no sense.

    While corporations can be the victim of an attack in the technical sense, we wouldnt feel bad for the corporation because a corporation has no feelings that could be hurt, or any hopes that could be dashed, or whatever other reason someone might feel bad for a victim of something.

    In the table example, the table is a victim of the spilled drink but that is a meaningless distinction because a table that is a victim is exactly the same as that same table when its not a victim.

    You could say that the owner(s) of the business are the victims however, as they do have hopes and dreams and ambitions that are affected by these things. While you might still conclude the owners aren’t owed any sympathy, its for different reasons than a table would receive no sympathy.


  • I’m going to address work from home first because I think its already settled. Whether companies want to admit it or not, the general public now sees work from home as a benefit that converts to actual money. What this means, is its become an expected benefit in certain industries and its never going back. Companies that force large groups to come onsite arbitrarily are finding the negatives far outweigh the positives, as they now need to hire massively. The one caveat is companies that just use return to office as a way to fire people.

    Essentially, its a right we benefit from now, although shitty companies will continue to do shitty things.

    For the rest, ive yet to see a single person explain exactly how a city built for cars with very limited public transport, can effectively be changed into a public transportation/biking/walking city.

    I’m not an architect or anything, but dont we need to move buildings? Destroy massive portions of cities? I dont know the answer but my feeling is its not talked about much because there aren’t any good plans.

    Maybe we need to essentially create new big cities so that we have the opportunity to plan their building without cars.

    Maybe we could wait for people to abandon cities to the point they are vacant enough we can shuffle people around until renovations complete?

    Edit: is it wrong for me to think the government should be negating the negatives of these transitions? For example with the shuffling idea, the government could cover the costs of forcing people to move, even if it still is relatively close by. Maybe even make it fun, can choose groups of temporary housing near friends and family or coworkers if you like them. Cash infusions?


  • In my opinion, people should change as quickly as possible, I think thats going to be extremely important for humans across the board moving forward.

    That said, I dont know how to apply that thought societally, everyone has different tolerances. And also, most people I meet resist change without thought, so my guess is it would be incredibly slow as everyone would be mostly concerned with making sure its not an inconvenient solution.

    Just giving it a few minutes thought here, I want to say this is a problem that should be solved by local government, as that would be the largest scale where you could vary the approach by specific population needs.

    Maybe some farm heavy states are going to essentially need most of their vehicles, who knows.

    Probably first we need to all agree on the problem though…

    Edit: idea! Maybe use federal government to set the goals and direction we should be heading in, and let local governments handle the how and how much and how fast.






  • Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoMemes@lemmy.mlPiracy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    No worries, happens to me too!

    As an aside, at least for me, that first thought that pops into my head when I am trying to understand or interpret something, can be so silly and strange and outside the box, I will legitimately laugh at myself sometimes because of it.

    And if it makes you feel better, my first thought reading it was actual sailing too, but only for a moment as I added more context to it. Not sure why I would think of real sailing considering where we are posting but something in the way it was written lends to it.


  • Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoMemes@lemmy.mlPiracy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    The specific case here was the professor had a financial stake in new books being sold.

    I do agree updated editions with new information could be important, but again when theres a financial incentive to sell new books, the obvious lean will be towards making new versions even if there is no new information.

    Since the books can be required, they should be required to show proof they have substantially added to their edition or else relegate it to a minor revision (maybe adding sub-editions like 1.0, 1.1, 1.2; where you only need the first number to be current). Right now its a whole lot of, “Trust us you need this book and the only pre-owned versions are out of date”.

    As a side thought, this is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if they use the book costs to weed out those that will not allow themselves to be abused to that degree. This would leave only those who would conform to their leader/manager/teacher and are less likely to try to change the system.