I don't even have a car.
I'm 100% sure that these regulations are political, not technical/scientific.
Some regulatory body decided for political reasons that this percentage of parking spots is required, that's it. There's no committee of experts actually evaluating how many spots are needed.
I see that problem also in a kind of "contact guilt" in certain topics.
That is, if there's any polarized issue, there's always the liberal/left/progressive position with extremely clear boundaries to what is acceptable to even discuss. And then there's the vast conservative-fascist spectrum. If any problem arises within that issue, even mentioning it is immediately labeled as outside of the acceptable part, simply out of fear that this could be used as a wedge against the liberal position.
That in turn alienates people, they see an actual problem and the liberal side either ignores the problem or says it's fascist. And the actual problem never gets solved or even tackled, simply because nobody wants to touch it.
This leads to a situation where for a whole bunch of people the fascists seem downright reasonable and then the radicalization pipeline kicks in and suddenly they think Hitler might not be such a bad guy after all.
So essentially, the left feeds the right gullible people out of fear they might legitimize some of their points.
Just an example from Germany: when the first wave of Syrian refugees came to Germany in 2015, they were greeted with literally open arms. Great thing. But if you let about a million people into the country, you also need about 500k new apartments for them, the bureaucracy has to be capable of processing everything, language courses have to be expanded drastically, job trainings have to be organized, etc etc. A whole bunch of problems.
Now, what happened? Nothing. There was great fanfare, the local governments did their best, but nothing substantive happened. Nobody talked about it, because that might fuel the existing resentments. Nobody tackled the problems. And within a few months, we had tens of thousands of young men, who had nothing to do, were not allowed to work, were completely alone and had no money or social safety net. Well, of course a bunch of them turned criminal, which then fueled the resentment even more, because suddenly the fascists actually had what they hoped for: criminal foreigners. Even if the actual problem was tiny, it was the spark that ignited the fascist resurgence.
The title is a bit reductionist, but labour in the sense of getting paid to perform tasks for a ruthless entity isn't exactly the only way to organize work.
There were, for example, quite successful anarcho-syndicalist worker collectives in civil-war Spain. Of course Franco dismantled them and even the communists back then hated them, but for a time they were successful.
Now, whether this is the best, or even a functioning, approach I don't know. But if you look at the state of the current system, it's not exactly working either.
Just in terms of efficiency, it's incredibly bad. Look at all the completely wasted work due to the sheer existence of the management class. That can't be the best system.
Daniel is a werewolf, obviously.
And you know what that bundle of sticks is called in Latin? Fascis. That's where the name comes from.
Also, nationalsocialism is just one of plenty forms of fascism. It's an umbrella term. And arguing that a poster warns of the wrong sect of genocidal nationalist dictatorship, is just absolutely beyond any kind brain rot.
Not for you. And certainly not for the staff working in the shop.
Currently, you're bartering with copious amounts of copium.
... And if the systems you actually interact with go down, you can get fucked as well.
If you want to buy food with Monero and the payment processor for the local shop doesn't work, even if it's a local machine sitting in the back office, you still can't buy anything.
Bitcoin lightning is absolutely hilarious. Your solution to Bitcoins problems is - not using Bitcoin. Wow, galaxy brain move.
The energy cost to maintain the base chain is <1% of global energy use, mostly from renewables
Yeah, that's bullshit. First of all, 1% of energy use for a network that serves a few million transactions per day is really bad. A single 1kW node in Visa's datacenter churns through that in an hour.
Second, it's not renewables. It's everything they can get for cheap. And that's often enough coal, gas, oil. Also, they're driving up power demand as a whole, which means fossil energy is actually needed longer.
Stupidity and self-righteous hive minds.
Like displayed here.