I can hear it and am not American.

Try snubbing your nose while saying"those people"

Ok, now I’m not a linguist and also not English, but in my opinion there’s a difference. “People” is a broad undefined group. “Persons” is a more defined group.

Adding “those” in front also alienates them further. So by saying “those people”, you are distancing yourself from them, despite them being your family. That is the amusing part for the person you talked to. You mildly insulted your family.

In a similar vain, “some people say” all the stuff that you won’t to be heard saying yourself, even if it’s your own opinion.

Or in some places (this might be more local) using "you"or even “one” instead of “me” when answering personal questions. For instance if someone asks: “How does it make you feel?” and answered: “It makes you feel sad” then the person answering it is distancing themselves from their own answer by literally answering on behalf on some unknown “you” when they should be using “me”. Using “people” is sort of the same just on behalf of someone else.

Yup, that’s how it’s done when there’s a heat exchanger.

However there’s a reason why the boiler room is usually locked off in a 30 story building. Bleeding a radiator might be relatively harmless, but there’s no way of knowing what the pressure is supposed to be without knowing the entire system.

Some (lower) buildings might even have direct district heating without an exchanger, which is absolutely no go to even bleed.

That depends entirely on how the system is set up. I would only ever consider increasing the amount of water in the system if I was absolutely certain that my apartment was on a completely separate and closed circuit than the other apartments. You should contact the janitor or whatever it’s called.

Without doing any actual calculations, I think we agree that the current distribution of people is maximized to customize as many as possible in the available customer section. However, if we were to include the entire land square meters and height of a stadium, including making space on levels above the playing field, I do think it would be possible to reach a population density lower than Kowloon City. (Which again was pretty extreme).

Are you sure? It’s not just the seats. If we sum up all the entryways, access corridors, store areas, playing field, locker rooms, office spaces, lounges, rest rooms etc. how much space does each person actually have available in a stadium if distributed equally?

Sure it’s not as much as a suburban house, but it might very well be more than a small apartment.

Despite being a shitty president and an overall fool, he actually had a way with words. Remember 2017?

>Former President George W. Bush reportedly thought President Trump’s inauguration speech “was some weird shit.”

Europe is generally planned according to 1000 year old desire paths.

It’s due to different reasons, but very little to do with car manufacturing.

Cities in Europe are blessed and cursed with being established long before cars. This makes it expensive to expand the roads, and it is also difficult to increase the size of cities outwards, because there’s not a lot of available land anywhere. So when populations increases, it makes sense to make public transport better, because it’s the cheaper and only option.

It’s not all good though. Only the largest cities have good public transport. Smaller towns are increasing outwards because rural land is cheaper. Parking is limited or costly in the centres, so people drive out of the town for shopping where parking is free and easy. This kills the businesses in small town centres despite their population growth. A large group of the population living outside the capitals is currently getting more and more car dependent, not by choice, but by necessity.

Japan is different. They simply planned ahead and invested heavily in public transport in the years after the war, 1947-1987 before their population grew. They literally built railroads and the Tokyo metro before it was needed. With huge success. The cities grew with the public transport.

Another historical difference is that while both European and Japanese public transport started as government projects and both have since been privatized, the fragmentation in European states and municipalities have made it difficult to do in a profitable way. It’s usually government subsidized, and therefore still depending on local political will to budget for it, while the larger Japanese railway companies are (somewhat) less dependent on local political budgets. In short: JR rail can more easily add another departure if they think it makes sense, whereas a European railroad company would need to know how much the government is willing to pay for having more departures etc.

I do have hopes that Europe will catch up again, because the long term environmental pledges are pushing politicians in the right direction. It’s no longer enough to only consider the cost and corporate interests. The people want less pollution and traffic and vote accordingly.

I liked that game. The controls were horrible, but the story was okay and it featured a lot of new game mechanics for the time. They tried too much really. It was more of an experience than a game.

You can’t make anyone understand anything.

You can however question their belief and motivate them to consider other options.

I know you’re looking for arguments specifically for your opinion, but you should really try to avoid using arguments at all. If you set an argument, they will attack the argument and use this to dig into their existing belief on whatever is the actual topic of disagreement instead of addressing the actual topic. If you “attack” them, they will “defend”. This does not change their opinion.

It’s better to question them, so they have to think about why they believe in what they do. By questioning, you also show that you do not understand or agree with their opinion.

It also keeps the discussion about something that exists on their side. As soon as you introduce an argument, the discussion turns to being about something that you introduced, and that’s not at all what you intended to discuss or change. Be careful with that. They will attempt to make you present arguments. Don’t let them do that. It’s about what they believe.

The ads have reached a breaking point.

If I can’t block them, I’m just not watching the YouTube. I’ll never pay.

It used to be funny to link a relevant YouTube clip, but it’s not funny if you have to sit through half a minute of ads just to see something silly.

It’s also not really a long time streaming service like TV channels or netflix etc., because the homemade content sucks in comparison to an actual documentary that I can also watch without ads on other services.

It’s like Google completely misunderstood the point of the service they initially made. Also following a decade of users attempting to “monitize” their fucking crap, you can be sure that there’s nothing worth watching on YouTube that couldn’t have been better presented in a gif or in text.

Then the player is also fucking up lately. Usually if I go there, I’ll check the written description while the ads play, just to see if the content is worth the wait, but nooo… you can’t even do that anymore, because the app will start reloading between the multiple ads and the screen scrolls around and minimizes the description and comments. They’re literally hiding any information on the clip except the title until you’ve watched the ads.

It’s fucking garbage. Enshittified to death.

Repeating: Google, if you’re listening: I’ll never pay for YouTube, no matter how intrusive you make the ads. Enshittification is not encouraging me to pay.

Well, I stand corrected. I guess we’ll need to wait for the ice on the North pole to melt before we can make a more stupid voyage.

The picture was about sailing the longest direct line.

It’s not the longest anyway, but that’s what it was about. Technically one could sail infinitely many times around Antarctica in a straight line.

Knowing a clock is more than just telling time.

When you’re walking with your homies you gotta be able to call out “gyat 3 o’clock” , so your fellow bros know where to look.

There’s a lot less commercial interest.

Not just no ads, but also no users trying to push products or gain karma for account selling and all that crap.

It’s interesting how most of Musk’s wealth is in stock and such, when people start cashing out on it. What’s his liquid wealth?

I assume he’s been wealthy for long enough that he’s been able to cash out interest and dividends to make him a wealthy man, constantly accruing money simply by having money.

Seeing him tank on everything he touches( bringing down the value), I have to wonder if there is a limit to his liquid funds. The world’s richest poorest man or something.

Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

Exactly.

I’m surprised to see users on Lemmy being this dead set on banning stuff for kids just because "we tried nothing and it doesn’t work*

Social media is bad, phones are bad, I get it, but banning is not the solution.

Kids will grow up in a world with both social media and phones. IMO school should prepare them and be a practice ground for it, so they don’t make the same mistakes as we - the parents - did.

Like posted elsewhere, my kids are better at it than I am. Banning phones is projection all the way.

I’m perfectly fine with disallowing phones during class, but an outright ban is an extreme reaction completely missing the problematic issues and potentially making it worse.

Social media is a problem for sure.

Also, thank you for asking what schools are supposed to do.

The problem is schools not managing to encouraging pupils towards learning.

I know I’ve said this before, but the teachers curse is that nothing is taught until the pupil understands it themselves, and is willing to absorb the material put in front of them. Encouraging pupils to want to learn ought to be top priority for any school. Banning phones is a lost cause, because they’re already lost at that point. They’re bored, so they rock on the chair or fiddle with a phone. I seriously don’t think that social media addiction is the core issue here. It’s an issue for sure, but it’s not what is keeping kids from learning. Boredom is.

Regardless of technology, paying attention is entirely up to their own willingness to learn. Teachers should be feeding the desire to learn, not in a “fellow kids” kind of way, but by showing them why the curriculum is important to them.

I totally acknowledge that there’s no reason to have a phone in class and that social media is bad, but it’s relevant not issue in teaching.

Their friends are pretty good too. Whenever they hang out they do other stuff. They plan to meet for some purpose and that’s what they do. Keeping up to date on social media is something they do on their own time when they’re bored.

It’s like they grow out of it, once they’ve seen enough crap.