• boonhet@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Turns out you can improve both public transit and driving! It was sort of being implied by haters that driving was going to get way worse under him IIRC.

  • Nomorereddit@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    5 hours ago

    What matters is what’s meaningful, not what’s expedient.

    This isn’t impressive. NYC roads are in rough shape, and patchwork fixes are routine work often dressed up for press. I don’t care about cars.

    Bikes cause negligible wear. Vehicles are what degrade roads. Designing n repairing infrastructure around cars feels outdated.

    Focus on what actually moves the needle: stronger schools, addressing the $25 billion deficit, supporting people in need, and investing in water infrastructure.

    Those are lasting impacts.

    • ITGuyLevi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 hours ago

      You ever hit a pothole on a bike because it looked like a little water and you didn’t want to go further into traffic? Definitely a painful and potentially expensive experience.

      Yeah, big shit needs to be accomplished but these initiatives compound and get the public behind fixing stuff and making life a little better. Would I like to see empty rentals be taxed at 2-5x the rate of occupied dwellings, fuck yes, will it happen soon, probably not.

    • rmrf@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I think potholes are way more meaningful to bicycles, scooters, and motorcycles than cars from a usability standpoint

    • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I get the sentiment, but we don’t have much in terms of hope in our government/politicians these days. Hopefully this is just a stepping stone.

  • metakrakalaka@lemmychan.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Great things happen when the wealthy pay their fair share.

    This is exactly why they never want us to see it happen.

    • Banana@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I know you’re joking, but it is so depressing that this is EXACTLY how so many government officials think and how so many constituents have been brainwashed to think.

      • Omgpwnies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        19 hours ago

        and, equally if not more depressingly, governments can make waaay more money by TAXING THE FUCKING RICH!

        • pivot_root@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          17 hours ago

          The typical conservative response to that is “but then they’ll take their businesses elsewhere and now you get nothing.”

          The typical conservative response also fails to even consider just how difficult, expensive, and risky it is to move a large business to an entirely new region. Real estate has to be purchased and sold, employees have to be relocated or replaced, logistics have to be established in the new region, valuable business connections and contracts will have to be severed, and for brick and mortar businesses, the competitive landscape will be different.

    • NotSteve_@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Car infrastructure doesn’t need to make a profit don’t you know? Its just public transport that needs be a net gain for the city

    • expatriado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      23 hours ago

      if this about cars, only the most libertarian would question, if we’re talking about trains tho…

      • homes@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        22 hours ago

        I wish those movies were still funny today. They were so great in their time.

        They aged terribly

        • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I find the first one aged better than the rest. I still laughed out loud after watching it recently. The later movies, not so much.

        • FE80@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          I’m so glad someone finally had the bravery and moral courage to take on the scourge of…Austin Powers movies. Truly this is the cause of our time.

        • Mac@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Can you share examples?

          I don’t remotely remember the one i saw.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            14 hours ago

            Well, just off the top of my head, from very old memories, there’s tons of sexual assault. Also lots of making fun of fat people and people with different bodies in general. I’m sure there’s a lot more.

            • SuperApples@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              12 hours ago

              There’s also the fact that half the ‘jokes’ were just a scene going on longer than you’d expect.

              I think a lot of the body shaming jokes don’t land not because we are uptight PC wokies, but because when you don’t stigmatise something, it loses its social power. Oh that person has a mole? So what? The boomer humour was ‘oh, it’s bad to have a mole, but you should never say anything about it!’ when you don’t believe either of those statements there is no joke, and the scene goes on for like 5 minutes…

            • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              14 hours ago

              I wonder what will be considered horrible in 5-10 years from now? What awful thing we are doing now that we are unaware of?

    • redsand@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      You thought Trump’s weird enthusiasm for the guy couldn’t get weirder. Just wait.

    • slowcakes@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      33
      ·
      12 hours ago

      What the fuck is a cis people, we are you so obsessed with people’s sexuality, isn’t people good enough? Why does a certain sexuality have to do that, why can’t anyone?

      • MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        It’s important to remember there is no default or baseline for defining a human person. With race, if someone just says “person” without specifying race/color, does that imply “white” (or whatever other default) to you? And if I just say “people”, does that mean straight people only and not gay people?

        How about gender? Are “people” just the men, or just the women? Cis/trans is the same. There is no default here, just a bunch of people with different backgrounds trying to do their best.

        Also, if it just so happens you’re one of the folks who considers “cis” a slur, I’d ask if you feel the same about the most accurate terms for your gender, race/ethnicity, etc.

      • Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Cis people are people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth. It’s basically anyone that isn’t transgender, nonbinary, or intersex.

        It matters in this contect because while transgender people can advocate for their own rights, they don’t have the leverage needed to succeed unless cisgender (cis) people help.

      • starlinguk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        “Cis” is not a sexuality. The only person going on about sexuality is youuuuuu.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Of course.

    Actual uplifting news and it’s something Zohran Mamdani did. Sucks that this guy isn’t eligible for the presidency.

      • MrKoyun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        17 hours ago

        …because Zohran Mamdani isnt already the president and isnt being supported by the richest men in the world and is actively being worked against.