Money has always been fake; but it’s never been as fake as it was today; and will be even more fake tomorrow.

The list is so long he doesn’t even make the top 50 worst. So, he’s got that going for him. Is that how you keep healthcare? You send us all your awful politicians, artist, and comedians as a sacrifice? Touche Canada. Touche.

Fucking Canadians. Stop sending us all your reactionary conservative shitbags! I bet they voted for Trump.

I will never forgive you for Ted Cruze.

“Both parties are the same” is incorrect if you are viewing the parties based on their messaging or from a perspective of idealism.

“Both parties are the same” is correct if you are viewing the parties based on the material outcomes of the actions they take and who they serve to benefit.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

-Stafford Beer

The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them

-Julius Nyerere

There may be no “after Trump”. At least not in the way people mean. Meta is currently disconnecting and suspending accounts related to US elections as we are only weeks away from the midterms. From large Senate races like in Florida with Angie Nixon. To local city races in Arizona. They also just did this on the world stage before Lula won in Brazil. Taking down accounts related to his campaign and promoting the other candidates.

Our president is the allowing the son of the fascist dictator in Brazil to be accepted with open arms when fleeing to Miami; and just posted that we need to “save Brazil from Communism” just after a democratic election.

Facebook/Meta has been doing this for decades. But the boomerang has returned. ICE is the boomerang of our direct military actions; especially when it comes to Israel. Our police departments train in Israel with the IDF. The crimes and genocide done to the Palestinians is “training ground” for the brown shirts we have now.

And the broader “left and liberals” in America have less solidarity and resistance in their entire sum population than a single Palestinian child does in their pinky finger.

The left in America needs to realize quickly that our “philosophical victories” will not be praised by the history books.

Who’s the streamer that failed Skyrim picking for hours and gave up? I have this vague memory of this complete failure of a person in a meme.

We are getting deep into safety design factors here. So I appreciate the conversation. No one else is gonna read this. So I’ll expand a little. Because you are hitting a good point.

What you’re talking about is not another independent point of failure in the scope of “keeping the rider alive”. The “scope” is within the design parameters of a locking mechanism.

In my example of power supplies; the redundancy is around the failure of a single power supply. So the scope is “make sure power supplies operate with ‘m’ levels” of redundancy.

A single portion of the system can have redundancy. And that’s what you’re talking about in your comment. But, to continue with my comparison on power supplies, the power supply arrays has no ability to ensure it’s source power isn’t cut. The redundancy in the power supplies is useless if the power source (central power, substation, electrical grid) is cut. It’s a single point of failure still.

So, “zooming out” to a more macro level we would want to ensure redundancy there. Backup power generators being the obvious answer.

Do you get my point? There can be redundancy in the single restraint mechanism (just like redundancy in my power supply array) but the “seat belt” is similar to the “power generator”. It’s another separate level of redundancy.

I hope that makes sense. I zoomed out my analogy from its original intention based on your interpretation of it.

Either way. I like these conversation. When talking about design and safety there is a “scope” that is important to understand. That we assume the same safety requirements are met at the point of which we have no control over or are not considering in that design. It can be outside of the “scope” that the design is meant to control. So, reading a safety standard on a specific locking mechanism is within that “scope” but assumes further safety and redundancy beyond its given scope. Just as we assume a hospital will have backup power generators when designing a single power supply array. A safety standard for a locking mechanism will have redundancy built into it; but assumes, outside of its design scope, that there is further redundancy in “keeping the rider in the seat”. Because it’s entire goal is “keeping the rider in the seat”. The locking mechanism redundancy is tighter, factored around if X part of the mechanism fails then Y part ensures the rider is contained.

Hope that makes sense. All systems will have a single point of failure. The point is to understand the scope of which that system is meant to operate in and add redundancy to it. If we “zoom out” enough all roller coasters safety systems will fail if the ride is hit by an astroid from outer space. The point is in understanding the scope of the system and adding redundancy in multiple independent mechanisms. The scope being “multiple independent systems of restraint”. Which is what the seatbelt adds.

All that’s fine. But, the point is redundancy. It’s not about the safety factor of an individual restraint. You can have the strongest and most reliable safety mechanism; you still design safety around having multiple independent points of failure.

The “seat belt” is a restraint that is not doing anything 99.999% of the time. For some people, that might seem like a “unnecessary” part as the comment I was replying to stated.

But that’s the entire point. And a secondary form of restraint that is independent is the entire point. I just wish someone didn’t have to die before that happened.

What the corporations talking heads decide is “necessary” is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about safety from the perspective of an engineer.

I use to work in power systems and designed redundant power supply arrays. For some customers, like hospitals, they don’t just factor in a “n+1” (n active with 1 redundant) redundancy. They require a “n+m” (often with m>n) redundancy because of the critical operation of their power infrastructure. Because operating standards and regulations force them into maintaining this level redundancy.

Meaning, an array of power supplies that needed 4 power supplies to operate would have 4 or more additional redundant power supplies doing “nothing” most of the time. Because you don’t design around “the average day”. You design systems like this around “the worst possible day”.

So, when the dumb guy that plugs in the wrong power cable, ignores the flashing lights, burns a power supply, and then thinks “hmmm not working, let me try plugging it into another one.” When that dumb guy comes around. People in the hospital have the best chance of survival.

Honestly, everytime I road it I DIDN’T have that feeling because of the knowledge that I didn’t have a seatbelt on.

Youve got a lap bar, and the roller coaster lover in you wants to raise your hands and maybe even push off your feet a little to raise your body into the air. Which would be awesome, if you had a physical strap holding you under the main restraint.

But, I never did, the restraint feels like you can slip out. And, I remember “testing it” too. I sat forward in my seat and stuck by gut out, the operators let the ride go with the restraint clearly not tight enough on my body. I had ridden it enough times to know that I could still click it and lock it myself going up the hill. Which I did, obviously. But I can definitely see how that could happen without the rider even noticing.

But, is is kind of wild, to see this article after all these years. I always felt that the restraints on that ride were bad.

Having multiple independent points of failure is not “unnecessary maintenance”. The entire point is that in the case of “something is not working properly” that there is another independent safety mechanism that would also have to fail for the rider to be ejected. This is basic design in redundancy and safety.

“We don’t need seat belts if drivers are driving properly”

“We don’t need oxygen tanks if planes are operating correctly”

This ride, at least when I rode it, is just an upgraded lap bar essentially. Which is reliant on someone’s physical body proportions being the main thing that keeps someone inside.

Sorry for the reddit link but I’m on mobile and my image upload isn’t working.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rollercoasters/comments/ezy1qr/goliath_at_six_flags_over_georgia/

But it’s looks like that.

Even wooden roller coasters have seat belts. It’s absolutely insane that someone had to die before they put them in the ride.

Every other roller coaster at that park, at least when I went, had at least two forms of restraints. It is far from “unnecessary maintenance”. It’s literally standard practice.

My first thought on that ride as a teenager was “wow, this is the only restraint? No seat belt?”

Living in a home that isn’t bugged.

It’s bait hype. But it’s more importantly about regulatory capture to ensure monopoly. They want the regulations to be around keeping the existing AI companies as the only legal options. They want DeepSeek banned because they are losing to its more efficient and more practical application specific models.

It’s investor hype, yeah, but it’s investor’s pushing to ensure their investments are protected by the US government through monopolizing the industry.

Mamdani and Abdul have really got my straight guy card all bent out of shape.

I think that’s what they were referencing. It was also the 2024 campaign I believe. It was around the same time he was saying “dictator for one day”.

I wish he’d just hit the “gay space communism” button already.

We need more of this. Not, just because “they take our jobs” but because we need to normalize every day minor means of resistance to the tech dystopia we are in. Not because they are individual acts that will somehow change things. But, I’d be a proud parent if the way my kid gets in trouble is not from smoking cigarettes or something, but placing a traffic cone on top of a parked Waymo, I’m all for that.

It’s wild but you’ll see people more quickly call for “property damage” type crimes than you will when someone is incapacitated or hurt and all alone.

My guess is that that’s just marketing using real milk in it. It would be weird if the kid was holding up a glass of water.

Terrorist: A group or individual that at this moment in time should be labeled as terrorists for the benefit of Western Imperialism and/or Capitalist interest. Has no real material or ideological definition and can range from actual violent political organizations that target civilians (example ISIS) while at the same time excluding more horrific groups that engage in the same acts but at the interest of the US state (example IDF). Indivuals or “domestic terrorist” have further vague definitions. “Antifa” being a domestic terrorist organization, despite being an ideology and not an organization. Or individuals like Nelson Mandela were also labeled as terrorist (until 2008). One exception to this vague classification is that no corporation within the US will ever be labeled as such. No matter how much they set our planet on fire or poison our water supplies. Those are just “the side effects of progress”.