4WD gets you through

What do you mean, the same group of people? You take the vaccine once, usually when you are a child. So if you got it for your kid, and they decided you are an archaic, brainwashed fool and didn’t get it for theirs, there you go.

It’s the “they don’t even think about it” part that makes me feel this way.

With cars, it just leads to wasted space and resources.

Working in a hospital, that same thinking leads to Dialysis, Metabolic Disease and amputations. I see it multiple times per day.

Often intelligent people, but acting moronic. Not using their intelligence. That’s quite apparent in SUVs. They cost a fortune, so it’s usually not stupidity. It’s just them being mindless. And without a second thought about others.

I stand by my choice of words.

Sometimes, yeah, an SUV makes sense. Then again, driving it into a congested city, that doesn’t make sense.

If I saw someone driving it through a mountainous region, I wouldn’t say anything. That’s fine. :)

And having it being used by one person without any gear or load at all for 98% of the time.

Kinda like an immediate moron-indicator. Whenever a new neighbor moves in, or an existing one buys an SUV, we know not to interact with them. Saves time. Same with looking for work. If the boss drives an SUV, just move on. I love moron-indicators, but I prefer smaller ones.

What do people like about them? I get Americans. They have big roads and lots of space. Here in Europe, you have trouble parking a SMART.

In the end, how is that different from not praising all the library coders and open source parts?

Praise goes to the marketing guys. And rightly so. Without them, nobody of consequence would buy or use the code. ;)

You do get searchable auto-transcripts of videos now, so that’s a good thing. Some people work better with videos and find them more accessible. Best of both worlds. As long as they are not auto-playing and pre-caching, I’m fine with them existing.

I have never heard of alt+left, and I’ve been using the Internet since Mosaic was all the rage. Shame on me, it seems to be implemented in all browsers. How could I have missed it?

The poor should be the standard metric.

How to make the world work with the least amount of employment imaginable.

30% doesn’t sound absurd. 300% would sound absurd. “AMD IPC gains for Zen 5 CPU jumping one generation?” Maybe.

It’s not my post, nor my picture.

The worlds population needs a revolution. It would be 6 billion peace-supporters versus a few hundred thousand war-likers.

The only power able to end all wars is the power of unity.

It’s a Holocaust picture

Exactly the point I apparently failed to make. It never worked. Yet we are holding on to it. Just with the added caveat that the weapons are now money, and the wilds are gone.

You do? I wonder how that would work. Can’t see it, personally.

A light form was tribalism. If you didn’t go with the flow, you were expelled. With enough expelled ones, new tribes were formed. It kinda created human diversity for a while. There was only so much room on the river, so at some point more elaborate systems emerged. And the people with the biggest huts made those rules. Rules were made so that they could keep those huts. Extremely simplified.

We now don’t have places to banish people to. That’s why the cry for housing is emerging. Someone took the wild away. They should provide an alternative. I believe that’s the whole idea behind wanting the rich to pay. For some reason they were allowed to own everything. Often for centuries.

It makes little sense to people today. How was anyone allowed to walk somewhere, stake a claim, and own it forever? Even defending it with lethal force? Why aren’t we anymore?

Well, it takes some time to grow up to be able to find food and water. How long until we can walk even?

Food, water and means to provide an upbringing until offspring can care for themselves, those could be considered basic rights.

Housing is so far into the technological advancements, building up on so many other systems, I fail to see how that can be a right.

Air and food on the other hand, and sensible means to acquiring those. Well. There certainly is room for discussion. When people start owning land, keeping others to effectively do those things, they should have to provide alternatives. Or we have to abolish ownership of natural resources at all. Both can’t work together. That’s ineffective, of course, and makes planning and advancement difficult.

The price of capitalism and ownership of nature should be compensation. Nothing natural about social structures. If they want to continue those money games, they need to play by the rules of nature. Or they’ll go down with chopped-off heads at some point.

Absolutely. So instead of building up on that, declaring everyone may own something, making them mini billionaires in principle; yeah, make owning land illegal. That would be the natural conclusion.

You are basically saying: other people owning things and keeping me from building a house and a live should be illegal. Your solution: Make everyone own something, so they can build a house! Houses for everyone, hurray! But hey, my family is twice as big as yours, my house should, by right, be bigger. And hey, my farm supplies for ten families, it should, by right, be bigger. You don’t want to farm, let me buy your land and provide for you. And so the circle begins.

I’d say, that thinking is what got us here in the first place.

I haven’t read up on official human rights. Who made them? Did someone bother to ask most humans?

This is a Sunday-morning coffee post, not a detailed world-view. Feel free to ask, but refrain from shooting things down. It’s not like I’ve spent hours on this.

How are they defined, human rights? I’d say anyone in my way to spread my genes keeps me from being a human.

As a pragmatist, I’d say breathing and eating, and perhaps warmth and caring are human rights. We can’t do any of them on our own after being born, and without them some really crappy humans emerge. Breathing should be top tier. Anyone disturbing that should be under heavy focus. Can’t do anything without air.

After that, once we are fairly independent, doing things to keep people keeping me from growing up and procreating should be my right.

Killing someone else would keep them from doing that, so not being killed by other humans seems like one. Killing others would disqualify me from being human, and I would give up my rights by that act. Straightforward stuff.

Mix in social structures, and it becomes complicated.

Being homeless? Build a commune somewhere. Why insist on being near that techno-tribe with internet. It’s nothing but a tribe, has nothing to do with survival or being human. Having modern amenities can’t be a right. Other humans invented them at some point.

Which leads to something no human should have a right to: owning land. Because owning land keeps humans from realizing their purpose and keeps them from being free to be human.

Housing is a right? That’s ridiculous. That’s a technological achievement from other people. So is monetary wealth. How can those be a right. If nobody came along inventing them, nobody would have them. Can’t be a right. At all. That is just the consequences of capitalism and ownership of natural resources.