I work in aerospace regulation and the latest media coverage has been quite upsetting for me. There is a huge difference between delegation (how the aerospace regulator gives approval power to people in companies) and self-regulation, but I’m not clever enough to summarise them in this format. So instead I’d like to share two facts that can summarize the outcome instead.

1. An airliner is a chunk of metal full of people 30,000 ft in sky propelled to near the speed of sound by burning kerosene in a tube. With all of that is safer than driving in your car or going for a swim. That’s aerospace regulation at work, and it has always included delegation. It’s almost the safest industry there is even when you include Boeing’s criminal fraud and attempts to abuse the system.

2. Boeing had to ground their fleet for years and now is being charged with criminal fraud for deceiving the FAA (the aerospace regulatory body in the USA). Self regulated industries rarely face consequences.

I’m not saying it’s perfect, and I wish I could explain the process better but I think it’s very effective and has a proven track record across the world. Almost all modern countries use the same regulatory framework because it delivers incredible safety at a reasonable (by aerospace standards) cost to the government.

I hope more industries transition to a similar framework. If we had an FAA for finance and environmental protection, I think we could end scam shell companies and illegal pollution in a decade. But it would probably be “big government socialism” so there isn’t much hope.

Like evasive chimpanzee said we need to poop INDIRECTLY in crops. Hot aerobic composting for example has excellent nutrient retention rates and eliminates nearly all human borne diseases. The main problem would be medication since some types tend to survive.

Also urine contains almost all of the water soluble nutrients that we expel and is sanitised with 6-12 months of anaerobic storage. So that’s potentially an easier solution if we can seclude the waste stream. Again the main issue would be medications.

I don’t have the answer, if it was easy we would have done it already. The main issue is we don’t have a lot of people working on the answer because we’re still in the stage of getting everyone in the world access to sanitation. Certainly the way we’re doing it is very energy and resources intensive, unsustainable in the living term, and incredibly damaging to the environment. We’ve broken a fundamental aspect of the nutrient cycle and we’re paying dearly for it.

The other problem is, like recycling, there isn’t a lot of money in the solution, so it’s hard to move forward in a capitalist system until shit really hits the fan.

1. We mine and manufacture nutrient dense fertilizer at massive environmental cost.
2. We use the nutrients to grow plants
3. We eat the nutrients in our food
4. We expel 95% of these nutrients in our waste
5. We dump our waste into the rivers and oceans with all the nutrients (often we purposefully destroy the nitrogen in the waste since it causes so much damage to rivers and oceans)
6. We need new nutrients to grow plants

Before humans there was a nutrient cycle. Now it’s just a pipe from mining to the ocean that passes through us. The ecological cost of this is immeasurable, but we don’t notice because fertilizer helps us feed starving people and waste management is important to avoid disease.

We need to close the loop again!

I chose NOT diddling kids!

She did encourage him, on purpose, because she thought he would be easy to beat. Your source completely supports that, and that was unethical and foolish of her.

However I can’t find any evidence that she or the DNC donated to him or his campaign.

Perhaps you can make a small adjustment to correct your comment to avoid the spread of misinformation!

Adanac strikes again!

There were at least 50 of these flags across 30 or so cars that I saw. But yeah, those aren’t HUGE numbers so if they organized offline and distributed the flags among themselves it could be about anything.

I saw it on the 417 between Ottawa and Montreal. This picture is in Ottawa.

With the trucker convoy sticker and the anti-trans save our children sticker, I’d say the ods are is horrible.

It’s better than modern pick up trucks though. Not sure whether this says that the APC should have seen the guy or whether we should just accept pick up truck drivers running people over because they can’t be expected to see people lol

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fenton-appeal-1.4397286

Only one cop was punished. His sentence was losing 60 paid vacation days, probably 2 years without vacation at his seniority.

“It is difficult for us to conceive how convictions for the mass arrests, found to be unlawful, of hundreds of individuals in contravention of their Charter rights are not at the more serious end of the spectrum of misconduct.”

The panel that sentenced him admits his behaviour was heinous, but gave him such a slap on the wrist.

He argued in court that what he did was fair and it’s unreasonable to expect him to have done better.

The people who were arrested and forced to stand outside in the rain without food or water for hours won a 16 million dollar class action settlement and had their records expunged. But it took nearly a decade because the police was trying to weasel out of it. A decade with a wrongful criminal record sets you back more than 16k/person.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/g20-toronto-police-regret-1.5767958

TL;DR: effective communication requires that the language part of the brain of both people map VERY closely. It’s no surprise autistic people and NTs don’t communicate well together, but communicate very well within their own groups. How much you need to adjust your communication depends mostly on how important it is to get your message across, which if you’re a teacher should be a lot. It’s your job to communicate effectively lol. Your teacher was shitty!

Honestly I’m mostly replying to the “I’m not reading that but I agree”. That made me chuckle. Like I could have had “Aurora_TheFirstLight sucks” in the middle of that and you’re all “It’s cool I agree lol”

Damn that’s a lot of people declaring that THEY’RE the ones who speak clearly and THE OTHERS only think they’re speaking clearly.

Brains are fairly unique to the individual. When you have an idea, this represents a unique neural activation pattern no one else has.

Being a social species, we often need to communicate these ideas to other people. This means we need to get that unique neural activation pattern into the other person’s brain. That’s where language comes in.

Language is a massive part of the brain that we work on our entire lives. The entire purpose of language is too make that part of our brain as close to identical as everyone else’s. This way we take our idea, convert it into a neural pattern in our language center, transfer that pattern using words and non-verbal communication, then the other person receives it hopefully without massive transmission loss. They’re now able to recreate the unique idea you have.

One of the defining features of autism is that the language part of the brain develops very differently in autistic people than neurotypicals. This means that neurotypicals can communicate well together. Autistic people can communicate well together. But communication between autists and NTs will be poor because of that difference.

Many people are arguing about who should change their communication to adapt to others. I don’t think this is a useful question because the answer is unique to the individual and is based entirely on need. If you’re an NT who needs to communicate to many people with autism, or have someone very close to you with autism, you will likely make an effort to build an autistic language map in your brain. If you’re autistic and need to communicate with NTs, you’ll likely build an NT language map in your brain. I can see these mapping strategies like using metaphors etc… in this very thread.

Unfortunately since autism is in the minority, there are more people in the latter group than the former. This means the pressure is felt by autistic people more than NTs. This is a natural consequence of the need to communicate in society, not an ethical dilemma. One natural consequence is that autistic people will prefer to have autistic friends to ease their communication burden.

Everyone accepts that there are people that they can’t communicate well with. People who speak a different language, people with a different culture, people who have a very different life experience, people whose brassica develop differently. All these groups will have a different language sector of the brain and communication will suffer. It’s not efficient for everyone to try to be able to communicate perfectly with everyone else. The goal is to be able to communicate very well with your friends and partners, communicate work concepts with colleagues, communicate basic concepts with most strangers, and avoid unintentionally making enemies with everyone else as best as you can. The onus is on each person to achieve theses goals for themselves.

There isn’t really a right or wrong in this situation.

The consequence is the water is shut off. There is no avoiding that.

The neighbour is PAYING for every drop of water that comes out of the hose. Who uses that water isn’t up to anyone except the neighbour since he owns the water he paid for.

Any other interpretation of property rights is due to people trying to punish the poor for their poverty.

Everyone is out here defending landlords saying things like “there are good and bad landlords AND tenants”. Just the fact that 99.4% of rent is collected ON TIME shows the problem isn’t tenants. If 99.4% of landlords were “good landlords” we could have a “both sides suffer” argument but we’re at least 50% away from that.

Yeah, housing can’t be an investment AND affordable. Investments have to grow faster than inflation. Affordable things can’t do that.

That being said it’s hard to blame “homeowners” because the goal is to make more people into homeowners, it’s kind of backwards to antagonize the goal itself.

Certainly though the current perception needs to change, you don’t buy a house as an investment, you buy it so that you get to keep your “rent” as equity, and you get to lock down your “rent” over 25+ years so that it effectively gets cheaper in relation to your income.

The government simply doesn’t understand technology. If someone said “I bought a book, but after 6 years the publisher came in and stole my copy and burned it” they can understand that. But a single player game, which is in many ways the same as a book, these old politicians just think “spoiled millennials just want free stuff handed to them. Stop playing games and grow up”. No one would say that about a book.

I want to be able to enjoy my private, legally purchased, leisure activity without the risk that the publisher steals it from me through deceptive practices. Is that really too much to ask for?

What an awful video! You should be ashamed! I should be ashamed just for watching it!

I like the presentation of the video, very level headed and measured discussion.

TL;DR: 1. The video misses that the Barbie movie criticises the patriarchy/hierarchal structures both before AND after the Ken takeover 2. Fight your own fights against the patriarchy, not other people’s fights. Fighting other people’s fights undermines their agency. 3. Support the fights that others choose for themselves against the patriarchy/hierarchal structures. We each win when we all win

I have a hard time with any discussion of patriarchy and the Barbie movie that fails to mention that the movie criticizes the patriarchy/hierarchal structures from two points, both before AND after Ken brings patriarchy back to Barbie Land. The before “patriarchy” does a great job showing the hierarchy of Barbies, the fact that Kens are allowed limited power in the barbiearchy but they’re always second class citizens, the fact that the most shunned person in Barbie Land is a Barbie that doesn’t conform, showing that hierarchal structures place non-conformists LOWER than other second class citizens.

Barbie’s existential crisis doesn’t start because the mom has bad self image, it starts when the projection of that self image prevents Barbie from conforming to the social norms. It’s NOT OKAY for a Barbie to look, feel, and behave in a non-conforming way.

I won’t add to the critique of patriarchy during the Ken mojodojocasa house portion of the movie because the video does great work.

Second, I also disagree with his solution that men should fight women’s battles for them because men have the power. Men don’t dismantle the patriarchy when they stand up for women, they REPRODUCE IT! The idea that women simply can’t get what they want without men IS the patriarchy and flies in the face of all major feminist movements where women FOUGHT the patriarchy and WON on their own rights. Men dismantle the patriarchy when we fight for our OWN rights and against our own disenfranchisement caused by the patriarchy rights like:

• The right to express emotions other than anger
• The right to wear clothing that reflects our inner selves
• The right to work in “feminine” fields without compromising our “masculinity”
• the right to share intimacy with men without having our sexuality called into question
• Freeing masculinity from it’s current rigid, limiting, toxic definition

Where men, women and various intersections of marginalised groups help eachother is by supporting eachother’s fights, not by fighting on other people’s behalf.

A simplistic example is you’re at a party and you see a man hitting on a woman. Perhaps you think he’s being obnoxious. Telling him to stop takes away the woman’s agency. You DON’T know what she wants. Maybe she likes the guy but he drank a bit more than he should have before having the courage to act on her signals. It’s when SHE says no, or is clearly uncomfortable that you support her and step in. Currently in society a woman in more likely to be visibly uncomfortable than say no outright, partially because she doesn’t trust that people around her will support her. Changing that means everyone feels safe being their true selves because they know they will have support against hateful, abusive, oppressive, or non-consentual behaviors that are currently accepted and rewarded by the patriarchy.

The other part is to chastise people who reinforce the patriarchy. A man who says women can’t be engineers, or that a male nurse is a fg, or a woman who calls her boyfriend a pssy for being vulnerable are all reinforcing the patriarchy in harmful ways. Same with a boss who says that he’s looking for a South East Asian nanny because they are the best nannies, or he needs a gay friend for his wife so she gets off his back. The patriarchy marginalises many minority groups so it’s important to see it in all its aspects. Letting these people know that what they’re doing sucks helps set the social contract and free everyone from oppressive hierarchal structures.

That’s fair.

It’s funny, conservatives seem to be able to make Canada shittier no matter what. We try to get dental care in the provinces but they’ll stop it’s implementation. So now we have to pay extra to get the private sector to fund it, and they win again since we just privatised some of our healthcare.