I like the attention to detail that they did Plato as a beefcake.

For balance: I think it would be funnier if it was more horny. The bulge on the deer was far too small.

I think I’d still argue the free open source part is inherently left wing. Why would I, a right wing libertarian, lend my time to developing a piece of software that I am unable to make a profit from? I have no motive.

Something like bitcoin is the kind of tech project of that mould that i think attracts the right wing libertarian. Just my opinion though.

Eh, there’s plenty of educated right wingers. Not fascists as much, but the kind of fiscally conservative economists who preach austerity are often as not highly educated, just lacking in empathy.

The philosophy behind FOSS is inherently left wing and anarchist; communities working together to provide and produce tools for the common good, without a profit motive. Coupled with the lack of advertising and promotion of the sites, people have to seek them out, leading to a self-selecting user population that skews left :)

Perhaps, parental figure of as yet undetermined gender

UwU

Aren’t you going to at least bonk me first, officer?

Ok but anarchist wolf is kind of a daddy

FUCKING DOING OUR JOB AS TRANSPORT MODELLERS AND DOING A FUCKING COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS YOU’RE NEVER GOING TO GET FUCKING MODE SHIFT FROM RURAL USERS UNLESS YOU RUN A FUCKING METRO STYLE 10 MINUTELY SERVICE WHICH IS FUCKING UNFEASIBLE WITH THE FUCKING RESOURCES WE HAVE AVAILABLE.

IN THE FUCKING UK WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF FUCKING ABANDONED RAILWAYS FROM THE PERIOD OF FUCKING COAL MINING THAT WOULDN’T HAVE ANYWHERE NEAR THE FUCKING DEMAND NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY SETTING UP AN EXPENSIVE AS FUCK SIGNALLING SYSTEM TO BRING THEM UP TO MODERN FUCKING SAFETY STANDARDS, ALONGSIDE REPLACING THE FUCKING RAILS, SLEEPERS AND BEDS.

IF INSTEAD YOU CAN HAVE A FUCKING PUBLICALLY OWNED FLEET OF FUCKING ELECTRIC ‘MINI TRAINS’ THAT PEOPLE COULD USE FOR INFREQUENT BUT NECESSARY TRIPS, THAT COULD REMOVE A FUCKING SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO MODE SHIFT, WHICH WOULD BE PRETTY FUCKING RAD

In the UK at least, ‘you alright?’, shortened to ‘right?’ is just used as a greeting. In the same way that ‘how are you doing’ got shortened to ‘howdy’. It’s just another form of greeting or pleasantry.

If you’re actually interested how someone is, you’ll ask without the contraction (‘are you alright?’), and with a different intonation.

I think that’s a fairly reasonable way of doing conversation; I don’t have a problem with it.

Yeah, agreed.

I disagree with your sentiment, and think the examples work. If your aim was to run a coffee shop forever and you quit, then yes you have failed. If, on the other hand, your aim is to enjoy and have the experience of running a coffee shop, then doing so for two years and stopping is a success. Similarly with a relationship. You can have succeeded in having a mutually fulfilling relationship that you both have happy memories from, even if you then grow apart. It succeeded in its aims of spending time enjoying being a relationship.

No one is going to behave like that in reality. That was the point of my comment. The artist wouldn’t enter this scenario in person.

I think people do need to learn that lesson. I grew up as a man, and never thought twice about cycling home after dark, or going on a date. If asked I would be able to tell you that women do in fact have it worse when it comes to experiencing violence, but it didn’t crop up as a consideration in my day-to-day.

I’ve since had a small amount of the experience women go through after cross-dressing on queer nights out. Presenting femme gets you treated very differently, and this comic’s purpose is to present you with an in-your-face reminder. It is a piece of art; it’s not supposed to be an accurate reflection of reality.

Ah, thanks

I’d make the point that this is a comic. You wouldn’t say that in real life, which is why the comic works. It’s jarring, and the bluntness forces reflection.

DMHS?

Where in the post does it say anyone is being forced into it? OP was asking why their team wanted to meet up face to face, the first reply explains why teams would want to do it, while acknowledging that not everyone wants to.

Gen Z is lazy and will die really quickly

At least we’re not too lazy to type our sentences in full.

“Does anyone here have enough humility to understand there’s a similar checklist of things an automobile solves?”

Firstly, this feels a very confrontational way of phrasing the question. It carries with it the assumption that you are right and everyone else is wrong, which I don’t feel is a helpful way of approaching a discussion.

Yes, of course people realise that car ownership is the only viable solution for individuals at the current time. You have engaged with a community who are passionate about and engaged in urban planning, so they are going to be more switched onto the challenges than most.

The entire point is that on their own they are not a sustainable solution long-term. They are hugely inefficient energy and space-wise, their infrastructure causes massive damage to the communities they carve through (see this Guardian article for a breakdown of some NA case studies), and they currently cause a huge amount of environmental damage.

So, the question becomes: how can we remove the need for car ownership? There’s a host of ideas, from better high speed rail links to eliminate long-distance trips, to micromobility and demand responsive transport for short-distance, to better constructing our cities to begin with to allow for amenities to be walkable. Are we going to eliminate car use in rural areas? Of course not; there’s no point running a bus service for a village of 10 people and a goat. Can we eliminate 99% of car trips for those in built up areas, improving air quality, walkability, and accessibility? That should absolutely be the goal.

TL;DR: hurr durr fuck cars

Only if you’re part of the group who, as a group, don’t agree with the groupthink. That is, the group that define themselves in opposition to groupthink. Those with completely independent views to the group. That group.