I suggested “Fedlings” in the main thread and I think that could work for the fediverse at large.

I really like it too. If it takes off, no need to attribute it to me. I’m sure other people have also thought of it.

I like “Fedlings” personally.

https://lemmy.world/comment/18865484 Your welcome to read my other comment, but I doubt you are knowledgeable about this subject.

If you are woried about the swap I’m sure care exaust and tires particles which are know to damage environement a lot. Trains are electric so at least polution will be localized near power plants and thoose can be eventualy replaced by renewables.<

Okay. So firstly, “the swamp” is an important and endangered part of the environment. It absorbs flood water and run off, it is a sink for greenhouse gasses, and it absorbs a lot of the toxic pollution from cars including exhaust particles and the shed particles from tires. In Florida and Georgia specifically, flooding is a major factor in the civil engineering and design of roadways and population centers, and the elevation is mostly at or below sea level. Both of these states are prone to weather patterns that lead to storms, hurricanes, flooding, and tornados

There is 4 lanes, you can remove one or two and set train tracks which don’t have a lot of constraints compared to cars due to train wheel being steel and having better adherence.<

So we’re not just talking about one set of rail on I95?

I’m going to preface what I say next with two points. One, there is already a rail system down the East Coast (including the east coast of Georgia and Florida), with an Amtrak line that runs stops between Georgia and Orlando Florida. Two, at least part of that railroad line is endangered because a lot of the East Coast, including parts of Georgia and Florida is sinking due to salt water intrusion.

Additionally, I95 (one of the major interstate highways that runs from through Georgia and Florida) is also running along the eastern coast and is endangered more and more every year because of the same salt water intrusion and sinking coast line.

There’s two options for rail. Diesel powered rail which would require refueling stations or at the very least places to store the fuel. But I doubt that’s what people mean when they say passenger rail. This would add to traffic (fuel delivery and maintenance isn’t going to be done using this train) because trucks would be required to carry that fuel.

You’d also still need to build ingress and egress points for the rail, things like park and ride, things like stations, things like dropoff areas. This will have to be in addition to what is already there because what you’re expecting is that more people in Florida/Georgia will use rail rather than drive. So no. We aren’t just taking two lanes off a highway and dropping in some railroad tracks. That’s not how that works.

To move the same volume of people in the event of a tropical storm, hurricane, or flood, a train has to be able to be powered. So I’m going to assume (since most people who argue for trains are people who think it’ll be more environmentally friendly) that we’re talking about electric rail. Meaning you’re going to need electricity to power those rail lines. What happens when power isn’t available? Where do we put electrical substations? Where do we put the rest of the infrastructure to support the rail? I’m guessing we’re clearing swamp land for that.

People who still need a car for whatever reason<

Evacuation due to weather is a big one. Can you evacuate on the train? If it’s running, sure. Should you? Questionable. Is it easier and are you more likely to be able to take things with you that you don’t want destroyed in a different vehicle? Pets? Old people with equipment like wheel chairs and other aids? And before you go “of course!” I’m going to remind you that buildings that are fully up to fire code expect paralyzed people to just figure it out. Elevator? Don’t use the elevator. Stairs? Guess I’m dragging myself down the stairs if I’m able bodied enough to do so. My multi-thousand dollar piece of medical equipment? Unless someone is willing to help me drag it down serval flights of stairs, the recommendation is to leave it. And it may not be reimbursed or replaced by my insurance company. Assuming I have insurance.

Tickets on the train that is already available? $140 a ticket one way.

High speed rail doesn’t pay for itself, and to get Floridians to use it you’re going to need to make it affordable. This will raise the taxes of Floridians just to build, and they don’t pay state income tax. Meaning this is going to be paid for using federal funding (which Trump has cut repeatedly in the last 6 months), sales tax, tax on titles and tags, and property tax which sounds great until you realize that those people who still need cars when and if this is built will absolutely still use cars, and the people paying the property tax will fight this to the death.

I was going to mention they the “in good faith” bit and respond to it but I’m trying really hard to be chill about this since I’m obviously not talking to someone with any background data for this subject, up to and including anything about Florida, and its water table, or it’s elevation compared to sea level and the kind of storms and acts of nature it normally gets.

There are other factors too, but I’ve spent enough time on this specifically.

So if you would like to continue this conversation in good faith, do some research please.

So what you’re saying is you advocate for the government to clear swampland (fuck the environment I guess), and continue to disenfranchise Native American peoples because you want high speed rail so badly?

Yeah. Yeah. I know you didn’t say that. But that’s what can be extrapolated from your assertion that the government and billionaires could if they wanted to. Don’t normalize this shit. It’s wrong for the government to seize things that don’t belong to it regardless of the purpose they plan to use if for.

Just curious about what your thought is here? How straight are the roads? How often do they have to be resurface or maintenance? Just because there’s a road or highway, the area must be able to support high speed rail? It Or even regular speed rail? Should they continue to clear swamp land in order to erect high speed rail? Is the plan here to usurp the highway for high speed rail? If so, what happens to those people who still need a vehicle in order to get where they’re going? What happens if they need that highway?

“The Okefenokee Swamp is a shallow, 438,000-acre (177,000 ha), peat-filled wetland straddling the Georgia–Florida line in the United States. A majority of the swamp is protected by the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and the Okefenokee Wilderness. The Okefenokee Swamp is considered to be one of the Seven Natural Wonders of Georgia and is the largest “blackwater” swamp in North America.” -Wikipedia

Add to this Indian Reservation land, National Park/Preserve/ Wildlife Refuge land, the Everglades, other swamp/marshland, etc and you start to see that there’s several environmental challenges to a rail system from Georgia to Orlando Florida.

I mean. I tell HA “To play that song I like” and it plays “Lone Digger” by Caravan Palace. Back in the olden days of Google Home I had a routine called “shut up” that would turn off the mic if I told it to (if a show or audio playing mentioned “hey google”.

We have known this for decades. Maybe don’t buy iPads? I’m just pointing out that Apple’s prices for parts and repair were always high and even though it’s a more recent thing that you can get new parts for repairs (with the rise of right to repair), they have been in the business of all overcharging for oem parts for a long time. Back in the early aughts they used to code parts so that if you repaired something yourself with off the shelf parts (same part just not their branding) the device would reject that part on a software level and still not work.

No. My point is that the “all men” phenomenon is a symptom of the bigger problem which is that one demographic is being victimized by a subset of a second demographic and that second demographic as a whole recognizes that there is a problem and doesn’t do anything to change that status quo in a meaningful way but won’t acknowledge that their continued lack of action may be the reason they are collectively being blamed.

Bigger problem -> overgeneralization -> backlash over the over-generalization while maintaining status quo. Wash, rinse, repeat.

If your point we’re just that “gender bias and the resultant discrimination are bad” you could literally have done that with “Men saying all women are whores/golddiggers are doing the same thing and that is also wrong.”

Instead, what you did was took an entirely unrelated analogy to a bad conclusion in what I’m sure you think is good faith, ignoring the circumstances and particulars of that situation so that you can try to make a point in the most clumsy way possible and when people give you pushback about it and add clarity of their own views in response it’s “moving goal posts”.

You made a hamfisted attempt to relate sexual assault and the over-reaction to it to racism and got called out. Let’s not forget what you were initially responding to which wasn’t ops post but a comment at the beginning of the thread which is context for literally just about everything else I’ve said in subsequent comments which plants the goal posts very much where they started out.

"In the US, of 100 rapes against girls and women reported to the police, 18 will be prosecuted.

Jeffery Epstein and his cohort abused hundreds of girls, and all anybody cares about is what powerful man might be embarrassed.  Has anyone proposed or suggested anything to protect girls from rich perverts?

From the founding till 1951, raping your wife was legal in all 48 states. And that protection extended in several states beyond the federal change. Some states even made common-law husbands immune.

The Christian Bible considers rape to be a property crime. in conservative circles, girls as young as 12 are regularly married off to their rapist."

The leading cause of death for pregnant people in the US is homicide.

I think young women considering men to be a threat is pretty rational.

You are the one who acknowledged that the statistic for African American crime has more nuance but also didn’t not speak at all to the point of using it for the purposes of subjugation (something you conveniently ignored in order to try to validate your point).

You don’t stop over generalization by ignoring the root cause. Stop playing games with me. The root cause of the African Americans are criminals BS is literally that to continue to subjugate them and feed the prison population the institution has to make the general populace believe they deserve to be there. The general cause of “all men are predators” is literally that the patriarchy condoned sexual abuse so ardently for so long and continues to do so that the only way we even have conversations about sexual assault and abuse is in forums like this on topics like this one where the topic isnt even about sexual abuse but is absolutely about blaming women for overgeneralizing about it.

You are the one who once again argued poorly that as you spend more time around a bear the likelihood that the bear will attack you will go up, ignoring how that’s exactly what happens to women. The more time they spend around men the more likely they are to be attacked. The men the spend the most time around are very often the ones who end their lives or commit sexual assault against them.

And if you feel like I’m putting words in your mouth, maybe stop and think about what you mean and just say that. Don’t use analogies about subjects your clearly poorly understand. Don’t try to quote me to refute something I said that you take issue with when you didn’t understand it and your response bears that out. The questions I asked about what you were doing? Rhetorical. They were intended to make you think about the root cause of the situation. And also why more men don’t report sexual assault. You sure took them as an accusation though.

Are you encouraging men to come forward with their sexual assault experiences? Are you supportive of them when they are harmed in this way? Do you go out of your way every day of your life to prevent sexual assault or things that lead to sexual assault?

You’re deliberately using something you know is inflammatory as a poorly thought out analogy. That’s my first problem with what you said.

The second problem is that you’re deliberately ignoring how trauma (which most women have) affects the ability to communicate, and further affects how we as humans perceive threats. That’s the second problem.

Third problem is that as it stands women do all of the heavy lifting when trying to prevent sexual assault. All of it. We’re the ones who pushed for rape and sexual assault to have legal definitions under the law. We’re the ones who pushed to criminalize a lot of the stuff that the original commenter for this thread bought up. We’re the ones who created and implemented strategies to lower the chances of sexual assault. In my experience it is women who go out of there way to look out for other women. Do men go out of their way to look out for other men?

Men have most of the privilege in this situation and do just about nothing to actually help (to prevent sexual assault, or to make sexual assault/worse things unacceptable in society). Now they’re feeling the pressure to do something about it so they don’t get labeled or grouped with “the bad sort” and their response isn’t to blame other men. It’s to blame and shit on women. Their response isn’t to try to help prevent sexual assault or speak up when they see something. It’s to lash out at women for using hyperbole. Which you admit that all human beings do.

You immediately assumed that because I don’t agree with what you said I must think all men are rapists or sexual assaulters, or that I think that it’s okay to accuse all men of this thing. That’s not the case. But what I’m asking you to acknowledge is that this is a story on the internet with scant details about the interaction from a person who’s got every reason to lie by omission.

And you’re so stuck on not wanting to be labeled or grouped with bad actors that you are actively blind to what other people are trying to tell you which is that this is a problem created by a patriarchal society that is enabled by that same society and therefore is a problem created by men for men that men actively can help solve but don’t.

Nah. Don’t play the word games this way. Women and girls have to operate under the assumption that “all men” specifically because to do otherwise puts them at significant disadvantage and in significant danger. Unknown unknown - I don’t know this man, or those men, but statistics say 92.1 % of sexual offenders are men and 1 in 6 women will experience rape. There’s a sexual assault every 68 seconds.

So while it may seem unfair to say “all men” because obviously not all men, I have a lot of questions about how op wrote this post.

All bears aren’t gonna try to eat you. There’s lots of circumstance where that’s not going to happen. But the question is do you assume you are in danger from every bear you run across?

The thing about the statistics for African American crime is that a lot of them are deliberately misleading and weaponized against that demographic. You acknowledge how bad of an analogy this is but I i don’t really think you understand just how flawed the argument is. Rape and sexual assault are about exerting power and control. The statistic you used is an example of using statistics to exert power and control over a narrative specifically to keep the demographic in question oppressed or subjugated.

If we’re strictly arguing against weaponizing statistics against a demographic I can understand. But if op is questioning a woman or women being cautious of him because they have a reasonable fear of being assaulted that’s not the same thing.

Women take extra precautions as a matter of course in their daily every day lives to avoid sexual assault and worse. This is something they do both consciously and unconsciously. And still the most likely person to kill a woman is their male significant other or someone they know. Someone they probably trust.

There is a possibility that the person who told op this has trauma related to this. Maybe they lack the ability to communicate nuance. Maybe they are just an asshole. Maybe this was a specific attempt to get op specifically to leave them alone. We don’t know the context.

They’re upset about your use of UBO. They are actively targeting users who have it enabled. That’s why it’s trying to force you to sign in.

For what it’s worth, I second the others. Don’t disable Ublock Origin. Try a different YouTube front end if you have to. Google can kick rocks with that nonsense.

Are you also using something like ubo?

I’d love to see a live show, but honestly, I don’t think this is a good idea. It’s better for him to forgo it and just retire from touring completely.

So, there’s a inherent problem with blocking working both ways on a forum style site or platform like Lemmy.

When you block someone and the block goes through, if it works both ways, that means your comments or exchanges with that person disappear. The problem with that? They disappear for you and the person you blocked. Anyone else who comments can see the thread. But you both no longer can. So say someone comes along and responds to you on that thread. Or to the other person on that thread? Will their comment go through? Will you be able to see their comment? Will you be able to reply to their comment?

It becomes more complicated and further can affect users not related to or involve with the block depending on how it’s handled and for the most part that’s problematic.

I think we should be differentiating a “block function” (and neither the twain shall meet) from a “mute function” (a one way filter).

I feel like this might genuinely just be better than giving people a false understanding of what the filter they are using does.

This is what I do when I want to search Lemmy. I put Lemmy: “search for this” into the search box and see what comes up. It works better than Lemmy’s internal search function a lot of the time.

Thank you for this post. I have been talking the ear off my one Linux friend since I installed Bazzite and I’m sure he’s got better things to do with his time than help me every time I text him with a problem or a question. A lot of online forums on the subject talk over my head so I need clarification even when I can find the solution to my problem.

No. They can’t sue you for asserting that you libel’d them because you are not causing harm to their reputation. You can make assertions about anybody on the internet, but they have to prove they were harmed reputation ally by what you said and they would lose because they don’t have a reputation attached to who they actually are in real life associated with their Lemmy account. They’re full of shit and this is an attempt to strong arm you.

Report them and block them and be prepared to block and report any new account a harassing you until they get themselves an IP ban.