And for those that are able to keep to just one subscription, switching to another when they’ve finished watching whatever show it is that said service had, they aren’t safe either.

One of the next steps that these corporations are going to take is to add fees for dropping their services, with year long contracts.

They don’t want competition, so they will try to force you to stay.

This but corps

The air is plenty clean as it is

Tell that to the people in East Palestine Ohio. Tell that to the people that live near coal plants.

as long as you don’t live in California

Doesn’t matter where you live if the planet is uninhabitable.

Wanting to breath clean air on a habitable planet isn’t insanity.

It’ll look like what we already have. Swaths of users self hosting, with lots of redundancy to deal woth instances that have problems.

And that might mean it needs to stay small, but that’s OK. Not all success is measured in popularity.

Embrace extend extinguish

Don’t federate with corps, it will only end badly

Our electoral system is inherently biased against 3rd party candidates due to the spoiler effect of first past the post voting. The only solution is election reform that regulates election finances, a switch to approval/STAR voting, and regulation on political ads.

Why would I do that when it can be automated with a script that removes HTML and scripts responsible for ads?

therefore it kinda is piracy.

It’s not an illegal form or copying though. It’s the equivalent or turning off the radio when an ad comes on, then turning it back on once it’s over.

Because ad blocking is a security and privacy feature. We have the right to choose what HTML and scripts are loaded into our browser. Without that right, we have no web security or privacy.

We also have the right to not listen to ads, turning off the radio the moment they come on. Internet ad blocking is effectively the same thing, just automated. Piracy is completely different, because it is the unlawful copying of digital data.

Freedom is inherently dangerous

Only to a degree. Letting your child run free on a playground is significantly less dangerous than letting them run free in a hazardous waste landfill. We can absolutely design safe and free places. We just need to stop designing our cities for the sole use of hazardous waste (cars).

We need to allow more mixed zoning so that we don’t have to travel 20 minutes by bike to get to the store, alleviating the drive to ride as fast as possible.

Not only would that eliminate the need for speed, but it would also reduce the overall number of trips taken by bike. Less trips means less crashes. Same goes for cars.

Add it to the never ending list of benefits to mixed use zoning.

In addition to RiderExMachina’s point, an e-bike will get you to your destination quicker, and with less effort. With how hot things are getting, it’s much more preferable to not arrive sweaty as hell due to how much work it can take, plus it’s better to spend less time in the heat.

I don’t think safety courses and licensing are a huge barrier to entry though, unless we let them be.

Training and licenses generally aren’t free, and e-bikes are already pretty expensive. It would add quite enough of a barrier to entry to dissuade more people from switching to them, which is something the environment cannot afford. We honestly need to be doing everything in our power as quickly as possible.

And yes, training and a license would indeed make a difference with how riders conduct themselves. Including wearing a helmet or paying attention.

I’ve seen plenty of car drivers on the road who presumably have a license, yet they don’t wear seat-belts, don’t pay attention, turn in places they shouldn’t, speed, etc. The first step should be infrastructure changes to increase the number of protected/dedicated bike trails (which in turn allow accidents to happen safely), built in speed limiters, rules on helmets and speed, mixed use zoning to reduce trip count/speed/cars, etc. Such changes don’t have an impact on barrier to entry or and only a negligible effect on our freedom.

Traveling by bike is one of the few ways you can travel without having the government involved in some way, or at least minimally involved. I’d like it to stay that way.

And like I said earlier, most of these injuries are to the rider themselves, which means they were probably doing something stupid in the first place. People are going to be stupid even with a license and training, so we may as well design around it as a first step.

I have a cat. It likes to get into things I don’t want it to. I could theoretically teach it not to do so, but the far simpler option is to keep the layout of my house and my things such that it can’t get into things in the first place. If I keep the closet doors shut, it isn’t getting in. People are stupid, and similarly, we should design our infrastructure to account for that. It’s why speed bumps exist after all.

We are at a point in time in which we can’t afford to wait any longer to switch away from fossil fuels, and e-bikes are one of the ways to do so. The barriers to entry should be minimal.

The majority of e-bike injuries are to the rider themselves, and due to inattention/falling off. That’s not something that training or a license will really help with. Speeding and not wearing a helmet on the other hand, those are things easier to catch/deal with.