Want to reduce the time it takes to get somewhere? Reduce the security circus at airports. This will cut off way more of the travel time for the majority of flights, wothout the downsides of supersonic planes.
You're going to have some security in any case and have since at least the 1970s. And it typically takes me <10 minutes even if I allow some extra time for the potential that it could be longer if it rarely is with pre-check.
Yes but compare it to trains or busses. If I want to take the train/bus I make sure I am at the station 10 minutes before the vehicle departs.
In my experience the good time to arrive before a flight (with luggage to check in) is roughly 1 hour before (and this nearly wasn't enough in some cases).
If we talk about a short flight that can add more than 50% to the flight duration on the ground for (1) putting the luggage somewhere, (2) going through the security funnel and (3) getting to the plane.
Sure I get why things are shaped the way they are, but if I wanted to cut travel time I would first have a long deep look at that.
If you are flying to/from popular destination like Europe in August, you can stuck for two hours just in the luggage drop queue. Extra hour for security check queue and one more for border/customs check queue. Another 20 minutes just to walk to the gate.
I admit I just avoid Europe at that time of year, although I'd note that Eurostar from the UK to the Continent can be pretty bad too at any time of the year.
In my dayjob I often run the tech for events, nearly once a week. In my experience known recording/publication tend to make discussions worse and not better than closed room discussions — especially if the topic is controversial. I'd love it if that wasn't the case, but that is not what I observed.
That is because with published recordings it often becomes purely performative, where people aren't actually interested in honestly engaging with each others thoughts, but instead (ab)using the recording as a stage to make a public statement. It essentially becomes a thinly veiled PR battle with multiple actors trying to control the narrative and the ones that prepared well (so not the general audience) tend to dominate the discussion. In my experience that is the opposite of a good discourse.
In the latter case the audience is only the audience that is already present and they are part of the discussion, if everything goes well a feeling of "we need to resolve this issue" is established, with a collective feeling emerging in the room. There is no guarantee that this happens and that there is a result, but in my experience (with well over 400 events) the tendency speaks for the closed room, especially with touchy subjects.
"the tendency speaks for the closed room, especially with touchy subjects."
I do agree to that
I just would have prefered a closed room debate with him invited to adress those issues, not the cancel mentality and then speaking in a close room about him.
Fighting fascism is required of every person who wants to keep a working democracy, regardless of your fiscal policy ideas or how egoistical you want your government to represent you.
Democracy is what allows you to remove bad leaders/parties without having to fight a bloody revolution. Fascism yearns to remove that possibility. Hence anti-fascism being needed.
That being said: Which part of the talk did you find especially extremist?
This "anti-fascism" talk sounds all nice and noble. But we all know that actual left-wing extremists have taken over the term now and most members are terrorist-adjacent. The irony is that antifa and other such "anti-fascists" are way more fascistic than their hypothetical and currently non-existent "fascists".
> The irony is that antifa and other such "anti-fascists" are way more fascistic than their hypothetical and currently non-existent "fascists".
Ah yes, the non-existent fascists that:
1. Marched openly as neo-Nazis in Charlottesville (2017), chanting "Jews will not replace us," resulting in the murder of Heather Heyer
2. Organize under explicitly fascist banners like Atomwaffen Division, The Base, Patriot Front, Blood Tribe, Golden Dawn, CasaPound, etc., all of which self-describe using fascist or Nazi ideology
3. Attempted to overturn a democratic election on Jan 6, 2021, including coordinated efforts by elected officials to submit fake electors and pressure state officials to "find" votes
4. Advocate ethno-states and mass deportations, including prominent figures calling for the removal of citizenship, voting rights, or legal protections from minorities (see CPAC speeches, "remigration" rhetoric in Europe, AfD platform language)
5. Celebrate or inspire political violence, from the Christchurch, El Paso, Buffalo, Halle, and Oslo attackers, all of whom explicitly cited fascist or white supremacist ideology in their manifestos
6. Promote leader-worship and elimination of dissent, e.g. calls to jail journalists, dissolve independent courts, criminalize opposition parties, or rule "by decree" (explicit in Hungary, echoed rhetorically elsewhere)
7. Attack independent media and academia as enemies of the nation, while advocating state control or punishment for ideological non-compliance
8. Receive normalization or support from sitting politicians, including endorsement, retweets, pardons, or refusal to condemn clearly fascist groups when given the opportunity
Calling this non-existent requires either ignoring explicit self-identification or redefining fascism so narrowly that only a 1930s uniform and a written and signed oath counts. But that definition isn't what any serious person would dare to bring to a discussion.
Meanwhile, "antifa" is not a party, not a centralized organization, has no manifesto, no leadership, no unified program, and no plausible path to state power. Are there idiots who claim the label antifa? Sure. But there are idiots in literally every subset of the population. Conflating street-level illiberal behavior with an actual authoritarian nationalist movement collapses basic political distinctions however.
Ad too few tickets: I happen to live close by the venue (CCH in Hamburg) they fill up. And they do fill it up. That is the limiting factor.
Some person that wanted to get a ticket not getting one is bad, but what is worse is to have more visitors than you or the venue can safely handle. This and of course you still want it to work for the type of event you're doing, with multiple stages, parallel talks, ideally minimum walking distances, not a lot of extra tech to rent in terms of projection, sound etc.
To my knowledge the 3C congresses have been a story of growth and having to move to the next-bigger venue throughout the years.
When I grew up my parents literally had no understanding of what the internet was, nor what I was doing on it. That wasn't a problem because all the rest of the upbringing they did prepared me well to handle every situation I encountered there. There approach was to let me and my brothers learn early how to judge situations and risk ourselves and trusted us to set those boundaries ourselves.
This meant while other kids were constantly insecure how to handle a specific situation, we knew quite well (in comparison) what was totally harmless and where you had to get careful. Thus we were the only kids who jumped into water from bridges, but also the only kids in my village who never broke any bone during our entire childhood.
If you want your kid to be safe, isn't the best way to do it to teach your kid how to make the decision what is safe themselves? Otherwise they have to always rely on a parents (or other figures of authority) to make that judgment for them. But the parents aren't always around and if they call everything unsafe, potentially nothing is.
I agree with you so much. Great parenting is education, not restriction. I don't want my kid to not talk to strangers because I told him its something bad that you shouldn't do. He won't talk to strangers because he understands the implications and what can happen.
A kid with no education and restricted access will just find a way to do whatever he wants to do. A kid with good education and unrestricted access will know to steer away from bad stuff and talk to adults when he finds something strange.
One of the proudest moments of my grandfather (in my household, he was the most tech savy) was when I found a way to "bypass" an restriction program around age 11. From then on he decided I "outgrew" this kind of limits and just gave me unlimited access to the family computer and the internet.
But years later he confessed, the "click" moment for him was not that I could bypass the restriction, but that I trusted him enough to show him and that I self-reported the situation. And this is pure education and has nothing to do with restrictions.
I read so many parents here that want to "educate" their children but want to offload that work to some service or program instead of putting the work in. You prefer spending 5 hours configuring your child's nintendo switch rather than sitting down with him for 1 hour to explain to him what he can encounter on the internet, how he should behave and react and building the bond needed for him to trust you enough to come to you when needed.
The thing many parents get wrong about education is to think that the kid learns what you tell it. You tell the kid X is dangerous, so now the kid learned X is dangerous. That is not how it works at all. What the kid learns is that it can't be trusted to judge danger itself, since always when it tries to do something itself found okay a panicked adult will tell it this was dangerous.
The lesson isn't the meaning of the words you say to your kids, the lesson is how what you say relates to them and what they observe you doing. And this isn't just about this example of traching them to make a sound judgement, this can be expanded to nearly every educational problem one could have with their kid.
E.g. extremely commonly you will find kids who develop bad behavior despite their parents "telling them not to" will not only witness the bad behavior by their parents, but will be ignored, ridiculed, disrespected or mistrusted whenever they do in fact behave well.
And it all boils down to the simple notion that you can't just tell your kid a thing and expect that to be the lesson.
The US' main problem (seen from the outside) is that there seems to be no long term strategy just a sports-like us-versus-them mentality, where each team just thinks about how they can win more by making others lose. Winning the points is the goal, while all people forgot this was supposed to be a friendly game ans some even forgot which sport it is supposed to be.
This may well be the end game of capitalism, no pun intended.
I think exposing more of the internals helps. Consider what a mechanic can extract from the sound of an engine: in that sound a lot of information about the state of that engine is encoded. And it is a lot more than some programmer could abstract by simply having the motor vibrate if it is okay and have it not vibrate if it isn't. This however means you have to trust the user they will devolpe a sense of meaningful differentiation.
Physical objects interact with their environment in certain ways as a reflection of what they are, it is certainly an interesting question how this could be extended into the digital domain.
If you don't speak Hungarian and you have a Hungarian friend write a text for you that you submit to a collection of worthy Hungarian poetry, do you really think you are the correct person to answer questions about the text that was written?
You know what is supposed to be in it, but that's it. You can't judge the quality of the text and how it is fitting the rest at all. You can only trust your friend. And it is okay if you do, just don't pull others into it.
IMO it is extremely rude to even try to pull this off and if you do, shame on you for wasting peoples time.
https://rust-for-c-programmers.com/ch20/20_3_rust_s_approach...
If Rust pushes any concept it is the use of traits: https://rust-lang.github.io/book/ch10-02-traits.html
reply