Probably so, but it’s still just immersion. If you work in Celsius every day for 2 weeks you’ll be able to switch Celsius without an issue.

No, it’s just a familiarity thing and not even rare. It’s like switching between metric and imperial units, if you’re used to seeing something in one format it can be jarring to switch it in your head at a moments notice. A lot of people in the US use 24 hr time if they have a job relating to documentation or if their working hours can cause confusion.

For example, I have a client that has to document received material and they are open from 04:00 - 22:00. They use the 24 hr format because it is common to receive material at both 04:00 and 16:00 and having to make an extra column to type am or pm on their logs is stupid and is just another opportunity to make a mistake.

It’s really not a big deal to anyone, if you get a job that uses it then you switch your phone and within a week or two it’s second nature. Every blue moon someone will notice that all your clocks are set to a 24 hr clock and someone might ask why or what you do to need it, but that’s it.

Not really true either, it’s often called military time as a colloquialism because people will know what you mean and it strangely feels more normal/easier to say than “Twenty Four Hour Clock.”

EDIT: Also for the nomenclature, I personally still refer to time in the 12 hr format when talking, but if for some reason I have to say the 24 hr format it depends on the number. I would also say fifteen thirty for 15:30, but I would say fifteen hundred for 15:00.

8 million people across 2,700 locations, almost all non-violent, to protest…

Do I need to refer you back to the original meme or do you actually think protesting counts as doing something in the US? Protesting hasn’t been effective since Republicans learned they can just ignore you.

The President of the United States was throwing a rally and, furthermore, we now know that Trump’s people coordinated with groups like the Proud Boys. That’s not exactly spontaneous or lacking centralized organization.

Also, I 100% guarantee you that if it hadn’t been MAGA, there would have been bodies on the ground well before they got to the Capital steps. The people in charge right now are the ones who are pro gun and ok with killing people they disagree with. They are also the ones who would argue for executing people for treason because that’s what the constitution says.

It’s not that a violent revolution couldn’t happen, but there has to be something or someone to rally around and there just isn’t yet. No one with the clout to actually pull this level of support has gotten to that point yet.

If January 6th had been angry and violent liberals the crowd would have been fired on when they started trying to get into the Capital building.

The people who are against what is going on are typically the non-violent, non-gun owning, and sensible people. The people in power and who support what is happening in Iran are the ones who support violent revolution and have no problem killing people they disagree with.

Democrats have been saying that for 30 years. The excuse that you need guns to prevent the government becoming tyrannical was a farce since 1900, there’s no way that individuals with AR-15s could overthrow the military unless the military lets them do so at which point you didn’t need the AR-15s in the first place.

You can make an argument for home defense or hunting, but a shotgun or bolt action rifle are generally more than enough for that.

re American? Because it doesn’t make sense to say you’re ind

I’m gonna guess Canadian indigenous, probably a tribe that fled to Canada or was already residing in both countries such as Huron, Dakota, Sioux, or Cree.

Just moved my parents onto Mint, they were hesitant at first but now doing great. MS is digging it’s own grave.

Honestly, the UN has been a farce for a long time because of this exact issue. If a handful of countries have veto power then the whole point of the group was moot from the beginning.

I doubt Trump was thinking that far ahead. It’s far more likely that he did it simply because big Ag was backing him and they don’t need the subsidies to survive like small farmers do.

That’s why I said that being considered smart out and among the masses isn’t really an indicator of your intelligence. I remember at my college orientation they asked the crowd to stand up first if they were first in their grade, then second, then top 10, and then top 15%. By the end almost everyone was standing. I’ll go on to say that that university has an 85% graduation rate. So right there we established that those that graduate, barring some non-educational issue or those who are intelligent enough but unable to attend, are likely in the top 10-20% when it comes to educational comparison.

Even then, these are poor metrics for being “smart.” There are a lot of ways to be smart, you can be book smart, you can be emotionally intelligent, you can be wise, and you can have common sense. If it’s not uncommon for people to say you are smart as part of conversation then you likely are subjectively, but objectively that says more about the people around you than it says about your objective intelligence. Something like 20% of American adults are functionally illiterate.

Reading your listed accomplishments I would say that you are smart, and having the intellectual maturity to recognize your strengths and weaknesses is another measure of intelligence.

With the barriers to entry that Lemmy has it’s not that unlikely. It’s like an incel going onto 8chan and saying, we can’t all be the most edgy people we know.

According to this website there are only around 40-70k daily active users (monthly vs semiannual). If you look at total users we’re sitting on about 1.3 million with 11 million posts per day and 23 million comments per day.

So 0.015% of the world population on an obscure site which is not mainstream accessible.

EDIT: Just because you were one of the smartest people in your class doesn’t mean you are “smart.” I would argue that it says more about the other kids in your class than it does you, most people are fucking stupid.

OK, so you need to reach a threshold of 5% of the population before you’re allowed to have rights, got it.

You’re just attacking me, not my argument

If if was just a matter of a handful of business owners being racists, then those racist businesses would be out-competed by non-racist businesses that appeal to everyone

You skipped the whole counter argument (comparing to scabs and unions) that this lacks the social structure to support that behavior. If you tried to open a business that wasn’t racist then the racist people would come and threaten you, this isn’t happening with the Uber situation.

Because it isn’t! The scenario you described is literally the exact sort of thing the Civil Rights Act exists to stop! You are literally advocating for allowing denial of service based on protected classes!

The thing is that Uber is not performing any discrimination, they are enabling other people to discriminate against each other and attempting to still provide service through it. Claiming that Uber is discriminating is functionally not true.

You’re being pedantic, they don’t care as it pertains to whether they will provide you with service. They do care so that they can match yours and other people’s requests.

The difference in what I am saying and what you are saying is scale and you are completely ignoring the rest of my argument. The scale at which you would have to be a minority for this to impact you significantly is somewhere in the 1-5% range (as in your minority is only this percentage of the local population) with the assumption that the other 95-99% are opposed to you. This is why Uber providing this as an option is different from the cases which the Civil Rights Act was based around. Hell, this is why scabs are effective against unions as well.

A diner not serving black people is impactful because a handful of people are the business owners and are effectively gating you out. Uber allowing those people to select only a specific preference means that anyone who doesn’t set restrictions will break that system and actually benefit from it (more business).

This also goes both ways and is potentially international, Japanese could choose not to serve non-Japanese, a black person could choose not to serve white people for comfort or security.

You’re fundamentally not understanding why Uber allowing people to make this decision is not the same as 1960’s segregation.

But that’s not how Uber works, Uber pairs drivers with riders and has no guarantee for service even now. If I open my app and there are not drivers available then no service will be provided, this isn’t Uber discriminating.

Uber doesn’t care what your race, gender, or political leaning is, they want to provide you the service you want. So long as the option goes both ways this only hurts the people who opt into the program, not everyone else. The only way this could hurt others would be if those who choose to opt in (as in they only want a certain thing) get priority in the scheduling or if you live somewhere where you are the overwhelming minority.

In the first example, if you say you only want female riders so the system sends you every woman that comes into the system instead of putting you in the same queue as everyone else but skipping you if the next client doesn’t match your preference. In this case you are being skipped in the allocation of riders and actually missing opportunities due to your preference.

In the second example, if you are still living in a sun down town then getting Uber rides is probably not your biggest problem.

Even now, Uber drivers are independent contractors and can cancel service whenever they want. If the driver pulls up and thinks you’re sketchy they can cancel the ride, there is no obligation.

I mean, as a company whose business is pairing riders with drivers, it begs the question why this isn’t already an option so long as drivers can also choose not to drive for people flagged as a certain way. If a MAGA person only wants white people driving for them then that will reduce the effectiveness of the app for them, provides service for someone who otherwise would be difficult as a customer, and it prevents them from harassing or bothering potential victims.

If I want to, as a driver or rider, I think I should be able to choose not to be driven or ride with someone who has been flagged by others as overly visible. That might mean someone who won’t shut up about MAGA while I or they drive, it might be someone who has 15 bumper stickers about their beliefs, or it might be someone who has their car wrapped with Hatsune Miku. The consequence of this decision might mean that I have to wait an extra 15 min for a ride or it might mean that because of my actions people no longer wish to ride with me.

Yes, I think that’s a good idea.

I don’t think it’s technically discrimination. Uber is a middle man business which pairs independent contractors with paying customers. If the customers or contractors have a preference then all it’s doing are matching those preferences.

More likely than not this will actually lead to those who use this option to have substandard service (either slower response or less available rides) than those who do not.

Men would only choose their riders gender for bigotry reasons

That’s not necessarily true though. Many men also feel more comfortable with another man in a variety of situations. Prostate exam, counseling, and barber are all good examples. Some guys are just super awkward with women and might not want to feel awkward while paying for a ride. Hell with the severity an accusation of wrong doing can have some men might not want to ride solo with a woman they don’t know.

The same goes for women, not all women choosing this setting are doing so for safety, sometimes people have a preference. Uber is organizing willing independent contractors to the preference of paying customers. If the customer states they want a specific gender as their driver I don’t see why that would be a problem so long as both parties are fine with that.