Yeah but this is a “needle in a haystack” problem that chatgpt and AI in general are actually very useful for, ie. Solutions that are hard to find but easy to verify. Issues like this are hard to find as it requires combing through your code , config files and documentation to find the problem, but once you find the solution it either works or it doesn’t.

Waivers exist and are very easy to enforce in this situation. Either you’d have to sign one with your lease or hoa agreement. If not then then the room would have some sort of access control and in order to go in you’d have to sign a waiver. It’s the same as a gym, pool, rooftop area where you can also easily hurt or kill yourself if your dumb.

Insurance companies don’t care about access controlled areas with dangerous objects, otherwise shooting ranges wouldn’t exist. They care about random people coming into your lobby, tripping and then suing the place because they didn’t sign a waiver.

Partially, even if you got rid of the lawns the houses would still take up significantly more space for both the road infrastructure as well as the houses themselves.

You could go out to the middle of the forest and yell, would disturb less people that way anyway.

You could also have a community workshop in the basement like how a lot of buildings have gyms these days. Similar to gyms it would probably have more machines as well since the cost can be spread out. You probably can’t justify buying a lathe for one project but a lathe for a whole apartment block makes more sense.

Yeah, but most people don’t live in that other 90% . Most people live in urban and suburban areas where most if not all of the land is privately owned. Because of this the problem shown of fitting 100 households into 25 acres is way more common than your scenario of fitting 100 households on 2500 acres

Yeah but they were mostly aristocrats who hated the uppity new rich bourgeois as much as they hated the peasants.

If it’s libertarian it’s libertarian socialist. There’s no property or capital on here, posts get boosted by collective voting, not based off your following or account. There’s not even an idea of karma, your account means basically nothing here. A capitalist libertarian social media would be something like nostr or what bluesky is claiming it’ll eventually do where you completely own your account and your following and you can use that social capital as you wish.

That’s cause there’s effectively no collateral. Cars retain at least some of there value after it’s used and your required to get insurance on it, so if it’s totalled you can get a new one for collateral. Scooters retain even less of there value when used and are way harder to sell, they also usually are uninsured so if you wreck it there’s nothing left for the bank to repo.

It’s be better if the government could do the financing since they are a public good and they can stand to loose a couple thousand if someone wrecks there scooter.

By a truly unbelievable coincidence, I was recently out for a walk when I saw a small package fall off a truck ahead of me. … Inside, we found the latest versions of the Cellebrite software, a hardware dongle designed to prevent piracy (tells you something about their customers I guess!), and a bizarrely large number of cable adapters.

I guess it makes sense signal works with the mafia

Where is this reasoning that “Biden should withdraw” is a Russian talking point coming from besides the paranoid delusions of liberals who blame everything bad on Russia. Putin knows even less then us on whether Biden withdrawing would be good or bad for trump.

It’s not even like this is a fringe idea any more, members of the house are calling for him to step down and even pelosi thinks it’s a legitimate question, are they Russian trolls? We need to have a serious discussion on this and not dismiss the other side as a psyop like alex Jones, otherwise we’re gonna let inertia carry us to a loss like in 2016.

This isn’t 2020 though, at this point in 2020 Biden had a 8 point lead on Trump and even then he only won a narrow victory in the electoral college with Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin, now he’s down by 2 points overall and down even worse in those swing states. Then he was a relative unknown and people were willing to give him a shot against the known evil of trump . Now people have gotten to see him and they do not like what they see, his approval rating is worse then Trump’s was at the depths of the pandemic.

My guess is the fat part of the bell curve is 25-40 here, probably similar to Twitter, younger than Facebook, older than tik tok and maybe Instagram.

What’s your issue with big tech?

I know a lot of libertarians oppose corporatism because they say the corporations market power and monopolies derive from government, but for big tech they mostly come from economies of scale and network effects, neither of which I think right wing libertarians oppose.

If you oppose it because corporate power, even if gained through fair free market principles, is a barrier to liberty than I think your on the left for a libertarian. The recognition that corporate power can be just as tyrannical and coercive as state power is not an idea held by most libertarians in the u.s. who tend to focus solely on state power. Recognizing both puts you to the left of most of them, and on the far left you have Chomsky who identifies as a socialist libertarian and thinks corporate/capitalist power is so much more of a threat than state power that we should give the state more power to be able to reign in corporations.

Adam ragusea has some good video explaining both why we use volume and why we don’t use metric

The idea that they must do x is the normativity they’re testing. You must drive a car isn’t an absolutely true statement, it’s an assumption you make based off your experiences, but many people do fine without a car.

Just like the statement a man must date a woman isn’t true. It may be true for you who are heterosexual and for everyone you know who is dating but it’s not absolutely true. So questions like should a man be able to marry another man may seem wrong to someone who “understands” men can only be romantic with women but that’s a false assumption. That normativity and those assumptions then hurt people who live outside those norms.

You seemed to have missed the part where I said

They may be personally necessary in the current system, but the system itself isn’t necessary, and this is critiquing the system.

You may need to drive because the system forces you to do so to live. But that system that forces you to drive isn’t necessary and we can work to change it. If you are working to change that than good. If you dismiss problems with the current system by naturalizing it with unqualified statements like “I need to …” Then that’s a problem, you should instead say “I’m forced to…”

Like if the government is restricting your speech statements like “I need to not criticize the government” makes that seem unchangeable and just the way things are, if you say " I’m forced to not criticize the government" or qualify it with “I need to not criticize the government because it’s repressive” then that shows there’s nothing natural about it and that some system is preventing you from doing something, not nature. Then you can recognize the system can change and work towards changing the system, instead of accepting it and moving on.

Your still viewing things from a motor normative lense with statements like I need to drive to get to work and I need to park my car. This sort of thinking naturalizes things that are actually part of a system that can change if we decide to. We can collectively decide to ban cars and humanity could continue to thrive, there’s nothing necessary about cars. They may be personally necessary in the current system, but the system itself isn’t, and this is critiquing the system not individual decisions.

The point of critical theory like this is to look at things we take for granted or think are necessary, show that they actually aren’t natural or necessary, and expose some of the problems we ignore because we think the problem is required to live.

You have to step outside the system and look at it like you don’t come from car centric culture and with the knowledge that it’s a choice and not necessary. From that point of view questions like why is it ok to spew toxic fumes in a populated area? Makes sense since you know the system is a societal choice, not just the way things have to be.

With that knowledge you can try and change the system. That doesn’t mean never driving, because it may be necessary to live, but driving less and taking public transit when you can and advocating and supporting public transit and biking infrastructure over car infrastructure.