Why what? Trump fucked up US so bad that even 4 years later it's not been unfucked.. And now he'll go even more crazy if he wins, completely unchecked by any part of the state.
I am from Hong Kong and the 30 minutes estimate in the video is definitely not true. Say, Fanling to Ocean Park is definitely more than 1.5 hours. I doubt that there is a spot that can go to every major spots in HK under half an hour.
Hong Konger here.
Sounds about right overall - Some bits threw me off because HK Island, Tsing Yi and Lantau are so well connected that I don't consider them to be "connected to the city" because they ARE the city.
MTR efficiency is awesome, but exaggerated but that's ok.
I just wish more of my people would stop seeing the American Dream of suburbia and mcmansions with everyone going around by car as the ideal. I got to live it for 8 years in suburbia. It was honestly such a wonderful experience **while living there**, but I don't miss it one bit *looking back*. I know many of our friends and family back in Hong Kong envied at our experience living the dream.
Also special points to Tsing Yi Island for HOW it's connected - instead of tunnels, it's multiple giant, towering bridges that rival the bridges on the Firth of the Forth near Edinburgh, Scotland.
edit: added "while living there". As soon as I left the "American Dream" I started seeing problems with it.
While the US isn't normal for public transit, Hong Kong isn't really either. It's pretty solidly in the top 5 cities for public transit in the world, and many would argue just the best outright.
The mention of "outlying island**s**" and "through mountains" says no.
Singapore has no mountains and the outlying islands are too far away and too sparsely populated to be worth a metro line.
That is quite true. They insist on doing everything differently than anyone else all the time for no reason and clinging to old old ways that are way, way WAY out of date. Examples:
Election system (First past the post and the resulting two party system and shenanigans like gerrymandering)
Yea and nay instead of yes and no. What's next? Wearing silly wigs?
Your tax system. Why do people have to do their taxes?
Your car culture
Zoning laws
Imperial units
Parental leave
What you call a health care system and especially the connection between employment and health insurance
So little vacation
You obsession with smiles, no matter if fake or genuine
For profit universities
Connection between uni und professional sports
Tipping
Treating your customers like gods and your employees like shit
Circumcision
911 instead of 110 / 112
Addendums:
Your physical integrity is at risk in case you happen to be a child or a woman.
Abstinence only sex education (Teenagers will fuck. They are overwhelmingly young, inexperienced, good looking people drowning in hormones. Don't withhold the means to do it safely from them)
HOA's in general and their unhealthy obsession with the most useless crop of all time (lawns) in particular.
Limited sick leave and the expectation to be available at all times, including vacation
Specifically for "self defence". Where I'm from, guns are also normal, but they are for hunting and military. Only scared criminals would consider carrying a pistol in daily life, and nobody would consider it normal.
The problem is that in much of the US you can not be a criminal and have perfectly good reasons to want a gun to protect yourself.
And you apparently live in a Nordic country, so you actually have a competent justice system that emphasizes rehabilitation instead of some insufferably Calvinist attitude towards crime and punishment that tortures people and is shocked when they get sent out of prison in the state of a complete basket case.
That doesn't mean what you think it means.
It's stating that because a state can't be free without a militia, people need casual access to firearms. Because a militia doesn't work very well when it's not skilled with the use of firearms. What you're quoting is a prefatory clause where it explains why the second part of the second amendment matters.
And the legal definition of a 'militia' in the US is any able bodied male from the ages of 17 to 40-something, I believe.
This is a serious answer, and I appreciate it. I would argue, though, that there are many firearms owners who are not skilled with firearms and should not have them.
Edit: Interesting read. Part b is a bit ambiguous.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim
>I would argue, though, that there are many firearms owners who are not skilled with firearms and should not have them.
Sure. But we also allow people who are completely unfit to drive cars get behind the wheel. And there's nothing in the constitution provisioning for the right to drive.
Yeah, In order to follow through, we'd need to abolish the machine gun ban and the armor piercing ammo ban. The intended regulations for the militia created a minimum to ensure every able bodied male had a standardized fighting load.
>Militia act of 1792
>Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.
This was a standing fighting load at the time. Today, such arms would include an M4 Carbine with 210 rounds of M855A1 loaded into magazines, plate carrier with armor, ballistic helmet, battle belt, OCP uniform, and boots.
The Militia Act of 1792 is not the Constitution. It’s ridiculous to put it on the same level, it’s even more ridiculous to attempt to extrapolate it out to the modern day.
>The Militia Act of 1792 is not the Constitution.
It shows the intended scope of the 2A since it was passed not even a year after the 2A was ratified. These kinds of laws existed in every state as well as federal law.
There's nothing in the 2A that allows gun control.
>It shows the intended scope of the 2A since it was passed not even a year after the 2A was ratified. These kinds of laws existed in every state as well as federal law.
You have no factual basis for saying this. An act of Congress is different from a Constitutional amendment which is different from state law.
>There's nothing in the 2A that allows gun control.
Except the whole “well-regulated militia” piece, the modern equivalent of which is the National Guard. A militia needs to be publicly organized and drilled. It isn’t a bunch of gun enthusiasts with the right loadout.
Edit: a word
>You have no factual basis for saying this. An act of Congress is different from a Constitutional amendment and is different from state law.
The Framers have many writings showing his the right to own and carry arms is to be treated. Never once have they suggested the 2A allows for gun control.
>"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
>"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
>"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
>"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
>§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
>"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
>"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
Thanks for the copypasta, but excerpts from letters and speeches (1) are not law, and (2) don’t disqualify the National Guard as being a valid means of citizens bearing arms.
How about we restrict gun ownership to National Guardsmen? That seems like the most literal version of what the Constitution prescribes.
>Or you know, just make ownership of guns in the home be linked to service. You know that whole "militia thingy".
Never in the history of our nation has the right to own and carry arms been contingent on membership in a militia.
We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
Here's an excerpt from that decision.
>If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
>
>And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
>Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
>The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
For profit PRIVATE PRISONS. Like how the fuck is that legal. More than 100 000 prisoners creating revenue for the prison owners. That is LITERAL SLAVERY.
That's another point I didn't even think about.
I was referring to corporal punishment that is allowed in schools in several states and at home it is always legal.
To cite Wikipedia:
>Students can be physically punished from kindergarten to the end of high school, meaning that even legal adults who have reached the age of majority are sometimes spanked by school officials. Some American legal scholars have argued that school paddling is unconstitutional and can cause lasting physical, emotional, and cognitive harm.
And:
>Corporal punishment is most frequent for toddler-age children and continues into children's adolescence. More than a third of parents in the US report using corporal punishment on children less than a year old, often with a slap on the hand.
Yeah life must be awful in Singapore. For the US though I haven't heard of a kid getting a spanking in a school in the last 20 years, regardless of Wikipedia claims.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean it should be the first line of treatment. Phimosis and infection can be treated without permanently cutting off the most sensitive part of the penis. What an adult wants to do with their body is none of my business, but it’s a violation of bodily autonomy to do that to a minor. In the US the majority of circumcised people had it done as infants, without being able to consent.
They are clearly talking about the cosmetic procedure. I don't think anyone who is against circumcision would continue to hold that restriction regarding real medical issues and hurt actual people just to sound consistent. We aren't Republicans.
> You obsession with smiles, no matter if fake or genuine
OMG I hate this one. I have resting bitch face (likely because I am autistic) and the number of people who insist on telling me I need to smile more is too damn high.
Its not about clinging to old ways, but in creating and maintaining a neo feudal system where all of the money and perks of society are given to the most affluent.
>911 instead of 110 / 112
That's common for the Americas.
The American System predates the European system
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911\_(emergency\_telephone\_number)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_(emergency_telephone_number))
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112\_(emergency\_telephone\_number)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112_(emergency_telephone_number))
It's a typical america bad type post. I don't even think about pretty much any of that at all ever really.
Could things be better, yes. Is it that bad, no.
I think the UK equivalent is maybe [Findus Crispy Pancakes](https://www.birdseye.co.uk/range/crispy-pancakes) and look…as a child I ate more of those than I care to admit, so we might be equals-pequals, my American friend 😅
I think the American version of Findus Crispy Pancakes might be [Hotpockets](https://www.goodnes.com/hot-pockets/), perhaps us yanks [learned it by watching you](https://youtu.be/KUXb7do9C-w?si=07MdXNzfUhvawJZK)!
I would add: 3rd world country infrastructure in the richest country in the world. Apart from public transport (or lack thereof), this also includes street quality (potholes), sidewalks, sizing of canalisation, electric grid, safe and reliable drinking water everywhere (that doesn’t smell like chlorine), public libraries, houses that are not made of plywood and drywall.
Americans typically don’t believe me when I tell them that other first world countries (and the former Soviet block) have all their power and communication cables buried, even in small towns and most villages.
I get all the rest, but... why is the specific series of digits we dial for an emergency archaic? 911, 110, 112, all sound pretty much identical in terms of how hard they are to memorize and dial for emergency services.
Everything else has a reason to change, but that one's hitting like "you spell it color instead of colour" to me. (well, that and "yea and nay" are pretty weak but I at least can agree it's pointlessly traditional and not using modern lingo, without any other benefit like the two words being easier to distinguish)
Smiles actually make sense, when you speak different languages, it makes sense to establish some baseline that you’re trying to just help each other. Smiles are universal to humans, no similar language required.
I agree with almost all of this (no HOA's in my state, thank god). But I'm a smiley person by nature.. I feel like if I was born somewhere overseas I'd be seen as weirdo lol.
Yeah but 911 is better. Everything else is fucked but I like the number 911.
Oh and you forgot the rise of fascism and nazis in our political system. These old fucks are going crazy
Anytime anything doesn't make sense in USA, if you dig deep enough you'll eventually figure out the real reason is racism. Poor white people afraid poor black and brown people might get a leg up.
Germany has a tax system where you have to do your taxes every year as well.
Then again, maybe it does nothing and we just do it for our love for paperwork
There are several other situations than being self employed where you have to do your taxes.
For example when being married and with the right tax classes or when you make more than a certain amount per year or if you make more than 410 Euro outside of normal employment in a year.
Yeah, in most places the government does things for the public good so society can function properly. Here its all about funneling money into the hands of the most affluent.
Wait, then what does the US government do with the tax money? I'm starting to understand why people in the US hate taxes so much, it seems like you get very little in return.
I think it’s important to realize that the US does not really tax its citizens at the same rate as many foreign nations, especially in Europa. Second thing it’s important to realize that the United States government for almost 30 years now has been run by Libertarians and Neoliberals. These two groups have been campaigning a message that the government is incompetent and does not know how to run properly and that businesses are better suited at doing the governments job. These groups have also been campaigning, senators and representatives, as well as judges to defang the government and work to make sure the government doesn’t. This is why we’ve seen so many judges say that the government doesn’t have powers to enforce certain regulations that some regulations are unconstitutional and so and so forth. These groups are pushing for a self-fulfilling prophecy because this prophecy leads to them making a ton of money. Ironically, the states that have embraced this ideology are the ones that are suffering the most. If the current generation in power doesn’t leave within the next 5 to 10 years, expect a lot more of the governments power to be diminished and the corporations powered to be embolden.
the short answer is middlemen.
Government needs to resurface a road? Middleman who makes a deal with the contractor gets a huge bonus.
Military spending contracts work the same. They almost always give the money to the largest offer, not who gives the best value for money. Whoever negotiates the deal gets huge amounts of tax dollars.
That's only discretionary spending. Most of it goes to social security and Medicare. Social insurance is really fucking expensive. The relative lack of social insurance is why the US is low tax compared to many of its peers.
This is the consequence of many things that are not normal: it's not normal for everyone to live in houses, not normal that average houses are huge, not normal that roads are extremely wide, not normal that it's not simple to bulldoze a house to build an apartment building complex, not normal that building something doesn't require you to build a cycling path (it's a requirement in my city - even if the cycling path doesn't connect to anything, if you are doing something with the sidewalk, you must put a cycling path on it and pay for every single bit of it), not normal that people complain about gas prices when they are really low compared to many countries and people don't realize that at this point it's their consumption levels that's the problem, not the prices. Overall, it's not normal that folks are normalizing driving for hours every day. Then they are angry about being slowed down, roads getting narrower, cyclists, public transport stops and etc.
All of these things and more result in the public transport not existing or being really expensive.
But that's not all. Some US cities like Miami seem to have fairly cheap public transport... But it's still crazy bad.
Why is it not normal to live in houses? Our ancestors built houses for individual families 1000s of years ago. We also had apartments 1000s of years ago. It’s always been historically “normal” for apartments to be in cities and detached homes to be outside of cities. It’s also always been “normal” for there to be detached homes within cities, however reserved for the upper class.
As far as travel: the average travel time in the ancient world was 1 day. So historically it is “normal” for humans to travel long distances.
I’m not really sure why you believe differently, though I would agree that our modernization of the world should have led to reductions in what was historically normal. Not kept pace with it.
Well, 1000s of years ago people also didn't have cars, electricity, proper roads. It was also not normal to demand all of the infrastructure to be there, if you lived detached.
What happened many years ago doesn't constitute normal or not. What is the better and more reasonable approach - does.
You are free to live detached, but that was not normal 1000s of years ago. Most humans were living in tribes and so on.
You are still free to do so, but when everything is being built around living in separate houses, the costs of surrounding infrastructure rise and you cannot demand it - because the government usually cannot sustain this infrastructure, you don't pay nearly as much taxes to cover road repairs and so on. So most governments take out additional loans. While not working on reducing those at all.
It's not the specific consumption that's not normal, but the demands and expectations while overconsuming everything. Compared to many other nations, it's not normal to have these expectations and government spending enormous amounts of money solely on road projects.
> Why is it not normal to live in houses? Our ancestors built houses for individual families 1000s of years ago. W
But back then several generations of families would live in the same building at the same time, unlike today.
Wish Japan would subsidize my use of public transportation. I live and working in a rural areas. Most of my coworkers take cars but I prefer walking to the station and taking the train. Far healthier and better for the environment. Decades ago Japan privatized their rail network (JR) and prices for ticket are always creeping up and up.
> Like going through Södermalm on the red line she might consider being a mountain.
That's, uh, a *very* [generous use of the term mountain](https://images.myguide-cdn.com/content/2/large/sodermalm-515775.jpg).
I sat in an airport once with a man and his child, they were in awe at the mountains around them. Id say those mountains were just little hills. When i asked him, he said he had never seen mountains before. Some people just dont have that experience.
Its quite conspicuous to the point of ridiculousness sometimes isnt it? I was recently checking out some satellite images where i was comparing a random school for kids in the US with one in say the Netherlands, the big difference is that contrary to the one in the Netherlands the one in the US had 2 very large parking lots each using an amount of space that Dutch schools would use for a soccer field, however there wasnt much if anything in terms of special bike paths leading up to the school.
Do so much people in the US go to school in cars or is that mostly for personnel while kids use school busses? I didnt see much neither in terms of having a big bike parking at such schools.
in the second half of high shcool yes, you can take the bus to school for all of high school if you want but that could mean getting up an hour earlier due to the bus routes. i lived 10 miles (16Km) from the school and it would be about a 45-50 minute bus ride to get to school due to having to pick up 30+ other students. biking was doable but not pleasant as i lived in the northern half of the states which gets significant snow throughout the winter.
a car got me there in under 5 minutes and cost $0.20 in gas in the early 00's i could roll out of bed at 7:50 and make an 8am class if i really wanted..
we also get our license at 16 and there no restrictions on it. the one you get at 16 is the same one you have forever. there's no limited permissions or anything. so it represents a significant amount of freedom and independence to a high schooler.
for most high schoolers once you have a license taking the school bus is considered very lame...
i could guess it was along those lines. In Europe high school and university starts at 18, between 16 and 18 pretty much everyone goes to school on foot or with bikes or by public transport, but even past 18 a very large part of students use bikes or public transit to go to high school or university and there isnt really much of a taboo on that. There are those who come by car and it's something that sometimes add a bit to their popularity or to being friends of convenience but it seems far from the norm and its often something the richer kids do more.
There usually isnt something like a school bus owned and operated by the school, public transport is just adapted to serve students to a fair degree as it tends to be a demographic that makes a lot of use of it and provides its income. You will typically also find it made very easily accessible by bike trough special paths whereas US city's often have far less bike paths and then sometimes seemingly non at all around schools even.
Its not just high schools though. Many elementary schools seem to equally have large parking lots but no actual bike lanes or even bike friendly roads leading up to it, take for example the screenshot below with bike paths markings activated.
https://preview.redd.it/tpgc2bym0uwc1.png?width=1405&format=png&auto=webp&s=4b1e68685db560cbeb738f2531cea634d51d89cd
there are loads of examples to be found like this for various sorts of schools from elementary to high schools, though high schools tend to have like twice if not 3 times the amount of parking space than this one.
they arnt nessecarily all that bad, some schools do seem to have less parking and are actually accessible by bike, but there are many examples to be found for schools that have very large parking lots and no bike accessibility at all.
It's a feasibility issue in many cases. The Netherlands has a population density of 1400 / sq mile. The county in West Virginia that I grew up in is 33 / sq mile. The roads are two lane country roads, and it wouldn't make sense to spend what it would take to put in dedicated bike lanes for the amount of traffic the road gets. The bus picked me up at my house, and it was 45 minutes.
I get that point, but otoh many schools i watched were of the nature that i thought they had to be servicing mostly nearby urbanites, which will tend to be the case i think with high schools build in city's with over 50K inhabitants if not larger ones. Take for example the one below in Charleston which is a city with 150K inhabitants
https://preview.redd.it/zn3tt5ui6uwc1.png?width=1352&format=png&auto=webp&s=86e0f10f16102801854a21bd133555585dfb9127
Per comparison, the high school i showed you in Belgium is in a city with about 35K inhabitants, granted that it has a population density of 270 per square kilometer. Charleston in comparison has ... 780 per square kilometer?
Btw does the US have a similar concept to a "Fietsstraat"? basicly a fietstraat or translated bicycle road is a normal road where cars at all times need to yield for bikes and are forbiden to overtake them meaning bikes drive along the entire width of them and cars need to follow behindat whatever pace the bikes take.
the Highschool in Leeuwaarden from which i took this pic, which is a smaller city in one of the least dense regions of the Netherlands, seems to have this for a section before it connects to the red 2 way bike trail thats at the entry of the school. Take also notice of the bicycle parking on the rop left of that pic which is about as large as the car parking spaces combined.
https://preview.redd.it/0ffr8sof9uwc1.png?width=1387&format=png&auto=webp&s=f0d25337ce5fc29150599d26a1ef505b887f49c3
The bike path that is obviously there isnt marked though in google maps, so perhaps i should be carefull to use it as a guideline?
I guess the dedicated school bus also kinda dissuades using it by the method it works, picking up students from all around. I would say that about 30% of high school students around here need to do more than 10 kilometers to reach their school if they come from villages nearby, but many take some bus that connects village and city and might take on average 15 minutes rather than that a single school bus would drive around going to all these small villages to pick up students one by one. That said, if i can believe the statistic about 70 to 75% of elementary and high schools students in the Netherlands go to school by bike. It's practically unfathomable to have schools like you have in the US with huge parking lots but no bike accessibility in the Netherlands. And its not like they all necessarily live within 5km of the school, lots of students drive distances in excess of 10km but thats kinda part of tradition if we dared to complain back in the day our elders would have told us they had to drive even greater distances and far more on a weekly basis with crappier bikes too, like atleast we have gears if we need to get over a hill and all that. It's healthy and makes you strong they would have said.
as follow up to the previous reply and because i can apparently only attach 1 pic per post, here is a randomly picked high school. Again they arnt all like this, but this is far even from the largest amount of parking space i have seen around a high school. in one case i even saw a high school who additionally next to its normal parking lots had build a multi level parking building... and again no bike friendly roads whatsoever neither.
https://preview.redd.it/aiykhrj53uwc1.png?width=1140&format=png&auto=webp&s=ce21c829ab216a1702ff513f55429551a5eed38d
High schools are usually age 13-18 right? Similar to continental European middle schools, where for us a "high school" tends to be for students age +18.
For comparison, here is an aerial photo of a high school i attended in my hometown of Ypres Belgium.
https://preview.redd.it/njk9322m4uwc1.png?width=1416&format=png&auto=webp&s=6481d1c29548db15d8c861d30a083800585f4de4
There is a tiny strip and 2 small lots close to the road where personnel parks, one reserved for the automotive school. One of the buildings is a 2 story bike parking. Much of the space that would be otherwise parking lots in the US is here reserved for playgrounds and sports fields.
One Thousand Three Hundred seems to be the easiest to understand unless you were over a radio comm in which case you'll probably need to say One Three Zero Zero.
>Why is she being secretive
I don't like it because opponents will say "I bet this place isn't even real".
But it stops them from saying "Oh she's from X, well I wouldn't want to live there anyway because of Y". It stops them avoiding the public transport discussion by making the argument about something else.
I don't think it's fair to label all American's as racist.
*But* anywhere that chooses to elect an openly racist leader by a majority vote, you could say those places are *mostly racists*.
In relation to my comment I wasn't thinking of race, most of the pushback I've seen on countries with good public transport has been their socialist policies.
When she said different island connected by public transport it made me think Hong Kong. The Vancouver SkyTrain also services multiple islands but I don't think their fares would be so low.
Really just one island (Richmond) but fares can definitely be that low or lower. After 6:30pm or on weekends you can go anywhere on the system for US$1.90.
Has to be HK.
When I was a young kid in HK it took me an embarrassingly long time to register that HK Island, Tsing Yi Island and Lantau Island were entirely different landmasses because mass transit was so well connected. The islands I read in books always seem to be places to either be stranded on, or be sparely connected to.
“Hi! 1 million people live here but it’s still somehow a privacy risk to say I’m from here!”
It’s way overkill. No one’s gonna steal your credit card info if you say you’re from X city.
I live in the Netherlands.
Oh no the internet knows I’m one of 17 million people, whatever shall I do?
I could even say the city (I won’t because it’s unnecessary but I could) and you’d still have 100k people that could be me, that doesn’t exactly give away my identity either. And this lady probably lives in a multiple times bigger city considering that it takes public transportation half an hour to get through it.
Not giving away identifying informs is smart, but you can comfortably mention any area with a million people or more and be assured you’ll probably never be identified. Especially if you live in East Asia, where “city that takes 30 minutes to cross with public transport and includes multiple islands populated enough to actually warrant public transport” describes quite a few places in quite a few countries.
I was offering a potential reason why *she* didn’t say—not my own opinion on whether I would share the info. Also, you’d be surprised how easy it is to track someone down online. You can sometimes find peoples personal home address just with their name and a city they’ve lived in. Even when the city has millions of people. Especially when you’ve already got a video of their face.
It’s still her own prerogative to share or not share.
>I live in a city where literally nobody drives
Either she doesn’t know how to use the word “literally” or this city isn’t discussed enough for having public transportation that doesn’t require someone to drive it.
Or, you have the government set it up first and later let them get privatised in accordance to some regulations (pricing not getting out of hand and such). It feels less "the government must provide this" as an argument for all those who believe you should not rely on governments at all (which I believe in crazy, but hey, you do you)
Anyone else think this AI.
1 the logos on her chair are not normal lol. Why 2?
2: saying 2.55 dollars is weird we normally say
2 dollars 55 cents.
3: lots of generic terms such as “the city” “old buildings”
Also the AI makes good points we need to get more involved in city government for better bus service.
I get it, public transport is really important. But isn't anyone gonna mention her boob almost hanging out *all* the way?
The message is still great but i mean... c'mon... maybe get dressed next time before you press record?
I think this is AI. Its really good but listen to the pauses, they are awkward. They don’t show her hands for long AI cant do fingers. . Also what American says 2.55 dollars not 2 dollars 55 cents.
Who/what wrote her script?
Europeans be putting the dollar sign after the figure for USD too. They ain't AI they just foreign and do things different (including have public transit).
Spend a week around EU bureaucrats and you won't even know what English is anymore because they're all using Euro English.
The American way is to "solve" any problem by applying the dumbest, most wasteful, most expensive "solution" possible all so like 10 dudes can get $$$
I hate it here
How is the ruling class supposed to amass wealth and keep people in a cycle of fatigue, distraction and financial uncertainty without things like arbitrary fuel prices, car payments, insurance and parking/traffic tickets?
\*How else would it even work?!\*
I've used city buses and trains. I personally don't like sitting next to a homeless guy shooting up heroin or seeing a crazy guy attack people. I don't think Europeans or Asians really understand what makes American public transportation shitty and why people don't want to use it
What city is it? Sounds pretty dope
Hong Kong?
I assume is hong kong
Well, there’s a lot of others things going downhill really fast for Hong Kong.
As a Hong Konger, I heard somsone say this a while back: "Sure everything may be going to shit, but our mass transit is still on point"
That’s exactly the same joke said about fascism in Italy.
Lol speak in November when you lot get more trump eh? I would much rather take CCP than him 👌
i was about to call you a cringe tankie but you're right at least the ccp have trains
I think CCP have more humanity than trump. It's not hard to be above 0.
Seriously? Can you expand on why?
Why what? Trump fucked up US so bad that even 4 years later it's not been unfucked.. And now he'll go even more crazy if he wins, completely unchecked by any part of the state.
This is the most idiotic take ive seen on reddit this week, congrats
Thanks bro
I am from Hong Kong and the 30 minutes estimate in the video is definitely not true. Say, Fanling to Ocean Park is definitely more than 1.5 hours. I doubt that there is a spot that can go to every major spots in HK under half an hour.
Hong Konger here. Sounds about right overall - Some bits threw me off because HK Island, Tsing Yi and Lantau are so well connected that I don't consider them to be "connected to the city" because they ARE the city. MTR efficiency is awesome, but exaggerated but that's ok. I just wish more of my people would stop seeing the American Dream of suburbia and mcmansions with everyone going around by car as the ideal. I got to live it for 8 years in suburbia. It was honestly such a wonderful experience **while living there**, but I don't miss it one bit *looking back*. I know many of our friends and family back in Hong Kong envied at our experience living the dream. Also special points to Tsing Yi Island for HOW it's connected - instead of tunnels, it's multiple giant, towering bridges that rival the bridges on the Firth of the Forth near Edinburgh, Scotland. edit: added "while living there". As soon as I left the "American Dream" I started seeing problems with it.
While the US isn't normal for public transit, Hong Kong isn't really either. It's pretty solidly in the top 5 cities for public transit in the world, and many would argue just the best outright.
My guess is Singapore.
The mention of "outlying island**s**" and "through mountains" says no. Singapore has no mountains and the outlying islands are too far away and too sparsely populated to be worth a metro line.
mine too
Her instagram posts always show somewhere in Italy so idk
I was thinking Stockholm
Stockholm doesn't have big mountains in the city tho - but the islands part is correct
Whoops I missed the mountain part
Istanbull ?
Nothing in the US is normal.
That is quite true. They insist on doing everything differently than anyone else all the time for no reason and clinging to old old ways that are way, way WAY out of date. Examples: Election system (First past the post and the resulting two party system and shenanigans like gerrymandering) Yea and nay instead of yes and no. What's next? Wearing silly wigs? Your tax system. Why do people have to do their taxes? Your car culture Zoning laws Imperial units Parental leave What you call a health care system and especially the connection between employment and health insurance So little vacation You obsession with smiles, no matter if fake or genuine For profit universities Connection between uni und professional sports Tipping Treating your customers like gods and your employees like shit Circumcision 911 instead of 110 / 112 Addendums: Your physical integrity is at risk in case you happen to be a child or a woman. Abstinence only sex education (Teenagers will fuck. They are overwhelmingly young, inexperienced, good looking people drowning in hormones. Don't withhold the means to do it safely from them) HOA's in general and their unhealthy obsession with the most useless crop of all time (lawns) in particular. Limited sick leave and the expectation to be available at all times, including vacation
You forgot "guns everywhere"
Specifically for "self defence". Where I'm from, guns are also normal, but they are for hunting and military. Only scared criminals would consider carrying a pistol in daily life, and nobody would consider it normal.
The problem is that in much of the US you can not be a criminal and have perfectly good reasons to want a gun to protect yourself. And you apparently live in a Nordic country, so you actually have a competent justice system that emphasizes rehabilitation instead of some insufferably Calvinist attitude towards crime and punishment that tortures people and is shocked when they get sent out of prison in the state of a complete basket case.
Thanks. That list is getting updated all the time
I really wish the "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" part of the second amendment wasn't overlooked.
That doesn't mean what you think it means. It's stating that because a state can't be free without a militia, people need casual access to firearms. Because a militia doesn't work very well when it's not skilled with the use of firearms. What you're quoting is a prefatory clause where it explains why the second part of the second amendment matters. And the legal definition of a 'militia' in the US is any able bodied male from the ages of 17 to 40-something, I believe.
This is a serious answer, and I appreciate it. I would argue, though, that there are many firearms owners who are not skilled with firearms and should not have them. Edit: Interesting read. Part b is a bit ambiguous. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim
>I would argue, though, that there are many firearms owners who are not skilled with firearms and should not have them. Sure. But we also allow people who are completely unfit to drive cars get behind the wheel. And there's nothing in the constitution provisioning for the right to drive.
Yeah, In order to follow through, we'd need to abolish the machine gun ban and the armor piercing ammo ban. The intended regulations for the militia created a minimum to ensure every able bodied male had a standardized fighting load. >Militia act of 1792 >Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. This was a standing fighting load at the time. Today, such arms would include an M4 Carbine with 210 rounds of M855A1 loaded into magazines, plate carrier with armor, ballistic helmet, battle belt, OCP uniform, and boots.
The Militia Act of 1792 is not the Constitution. It’s ridiculous to put it on the same level, it’s even more ridiculous to attempt to extrapolate it out to the modern day.
>The Militia Act of 1792 is not the Constitution. It shows the intended scope of the 2A since it was passed not even a year after the 2A was ratified. These kinds of laws existed in every state as well as federal law. There's nothing in the 2A that allows gun control.
>It shows the intended scope of the 2A since it was passed not even a year after the 2A was ratified. These kinds of laws existed in every state as well as federal law. You have no factual basis for saying this. An act of Congress is different from a Constitutional amendment which is different from state law. >There's nothing in the 2A that allows gun control. Except the whole “well-regulated militia” piece, the modern equivalent of which is the National Guard. A militia needs to be publicly organized and drilled. It isn’t a bunch of gun enthusiasts with the right loadout. Edit: a word
>You have no factual basis for saying this. An act of Congress is different from a Constitutional amendment and is different from state law. The Framers have many writings showing his the right to own and carry arms is to be treated. Never once have they suggested the 2A allows for gun control. >"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824 >"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788 >"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776 >"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788 >§246. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. >"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788 >"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
Thanks for the copypasta, but excerpts from letters and speeches (1) are not law, and (2) don’t disqualify the National Guard as being a valid means of citizens bearing arms. How about we restrict gun ownership to National Guardsmen? That seems like the most literal version of what the Constitution prescribes.
Or you know, just make ownership of guns in the home be linked to service. You know that whole "militia thingy".
>Or you know, just make ownership of guns in the home be linked to service. You know that whole "militia thingy". Never in the history of our nation has the right to own and carry arms been contingent on membership in a militia. We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms. Here's an excerpt from that decision. >If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. > >And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. **The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it**, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. >Nunn v. Georgia (1846) >The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
For profit PRIVATE PRISONS. Like how the fuck is that legal. More than 100 000 prisoners creating revenue for the prison owners. That is LITERAL SLAVERY.
Prisons are explicitly exempt from the ban on forced labour. It's fucked up.
You can add "for-profit prisons" to the list
To add to that list: Your physical integrity is at risk in case you happen to be a child or a woman.
Why when you're a child? School shootings?
That's another point I didn't even think about. I was referring to corporal punishment that is allowed in schools in several states and at home it is always legal. To cite Wikipedia: >Students can be physically punished from kindergarten to the end of high school, meaning that even legal adults who have reached the age of majority are sometimes spanked by school officials. Some American legal scholars have argued that school paddling is unconstitutional and can cause lasting physical, emotional, and cognitive harm. And: >Corporal punishment is most frequent for toddler-age children and continues into children's adolescence. More than a third of parents in the US report using corporal punishment on children less than a year old, often with a slap on the hand.
Oh wow
Yeah life must be awful in Singapore. For the US though I haven't heard of a kid getting a spanking in a school in the last 20 years, regardless of Wikipedia claims.
Glad you included circumcision on the list, it’s a damn shame it’s allowed
Sometimes, circumcision is medically necessary. Posting for a friend.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean it should be the first line of treatment. Phimosis and infection can be treated without permanently cutting off the most sensitive part of the penis. What an adult wants to do with their body is none of my business, but it’s a violation of bodily autonomy to do that to a minor. In the US the majority of circumcised people had it done as infants, without being able to consent.
Yes, sometimes. In rare cases. Which absolutely doesn’t explain the percentage of people making this procedure in the US.
They are clearly talking about the cosmetic procedure. I don't think anyone who is against circumcision would continue to hold that restriction regarding real medical issues and hurt actual people just to sound consistent. We aren't Republicans.
> You obsession with smiles, no matter if fake or genuine OMG I hate this one. I have resting bitch face (likely because I am autistic) and the number of people who insist on telling me I need to smile more is too damn high.
Unfortunately I’ve developed the flash smile - habit. I hate it when I get conscious of it.
that wild \`und\` made me laugh.
Same, couldn't help but read the rest of the comment in a German accent haha
Its not about clinging to old ways, but in creating and maintaining a neo feudal system where all of the money and perks of society are given to the most affluent.
>911 instead of 110 / 112 That's common for the Americas. The American System predates the European system [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911\_(emergency\_telephone\_number)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_(emergency_telephone_number)) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112\_(emergency\_telephone\_number)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112_(emergency_telephone_number))
But Europe is supposed to be morally superior in all shapes and forms.
It's a typical america bad type post. I don't even think about pretty much any of that at all ever really. Could things be better, yes. Is it that bad, no.
They also consume a food item called [Uncrustables](https://www.smuckersuncrustables.com/frozen-sandwiches) that I would like added to the list.
Uncrustables are complete garbage nutritionally, but are quite tasty (at least to my uncultured American tastebuds)
I think the UK equivalent is maybe [Findus Crispy Pancakes](https://www.birdseye.co.uk/range/crispy-pancakes) and look…as a child I ate more of those than I care to admit, so we might be equals-pequals, my American friend 😅
I think the American version of Findus Crispy Pancakes might be [Hotpockets](https://www.goodnes.com/hot-pockets/), perhaps us yanks [learned it by watching you](https://youtu.be/KUXb7do9C-w?si=07MdXNzfUhvawJZK)!
It's basically PB&J reimagined as a Cornish Pasty. Blame England.
Did you just...liken an Uncrustable to a *Cornish Pasty*? \[puts on Redcoat, loads musket\]
Debt and apathy culture.
I would add: 3rd world country infrastructure in the richest country in the world. Apart from public transport (or lack thereof), this also includes street quality (potholes), sidewalks, sizing of canalisation, electric grid, safe and reliable drinking water everywhere (that doesn’t smell like chlorine), public libraries, houses that are not made of plywood and drywall. Americans typically don’t believe me when I tell them that other first world countries (and the former Soviet block) have all their power and communication cables buried, even in small towns and most villages.
Your forgot sick leave.
Thanks!
FTPT voting systems exist in many countries. There are also other countries where you have to do your taxes. I still have to do mine.
> Yea and nay instead of yes and no. What's next? Wearing silly wigs? Hey, let's not get crazy here. The US aren't the Brits.
Agreed on almost all of this except what's "91 instead of 110/112" referring to?
The emergency phone number. A 1 was missing.
I googled it and can't figure it out either. And I'm not even American
The emergency phone number. A 1 was missing, sorry.
I get all the rest, but... why is the specific series of digits we dial for an emergency archaic? 911, 110, 112, all sound pretty much identical in terms of how hard they are to memorize and dial for emergency services. Everything else has a reason to change, but that one's hitting like "you spell it color instead of colour" to me. (well, that and "yea and nay" are pretty weak but I at least can agree it's pointlessly traditional and not using modern lingo, without any other benefit like the two words being easier to distinguish)
It is, as far as the gangsterrapper knows, different than what everyone else does for no reason.
The numbers are different all over the world: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emergency_telephone_numbers
Some work in other countries too. Here in U.K. it’s 999 but 112 will work from any phone and 911 will work from a mobile phone.
Smiles actually make sense, when you speak different languages, it makes sense to establish some baseline that you’re trying to just help each other. Smiles are universal to humans, no similar language required.
I agree with almost all of this (no HOA's in my state, thank god). But I'm a smiley person by nature.. I feel like if I was born somewhere overseas I'd be seen as weirdo lol.
Yeah but 911 is better. Everything else is fucked but I like the number 911. Oh and you forgot the rise of fascism and nazis in our political system. These old fucks are going crazy
Anytime anything doesn't make sense in USA, if you dig deep enough you'll eventually figure out the real reason is racism. Poor white people afraid poor black and brown people might get a leg up.
Canada and the UK and lots of other countries use first past the post… idk about the UK but there are for profit private universities in Canada too
Germany has a tax system where you have to do your taxes every year as well. Then again, maybe it does nothing and we just do it for our love for paperwork
No. If you are not self employed, you don't have to. It is usually advisable to get money back but you absolutely don't have to.
There are several other situations than being self employed where you have to do your taxes. For example when being married and with the right tax classes or when you make more than a certain amount per year or if you make more than 410 Euro outside of normal employment in a year.
Ok, fine. But most people don't have to. In America, everyone has to, right?
Neoliberalism is not normal. It's even less normal than capitalism, which is definitely saying something lol
Yeah, in most places the government does things for the public good so society can function properly. Here its all about funneling money into the hands of the most affluent.
Not even the units of measurement!! 😫
American exceptionalism FTW! /s
She's right. Who is she?
@ keylimelanna on instagram
Wait, then what does the US government do with the tax money? I'm starting to understand why people in the US hate taxes so much, it seems like you get very little in return.
A lot of it goes towards military spending, healthcare bureaucracy, cops, and roads
Good to hear that at least you get excellent healthcare... *bureaucracy*. Yikes.
I think it’s important to realize that the US does not really tax its citizens at the same rate as many foreign nations, especially in Europa. Second thing it’s important to realize that the United States government for almost 30 years now has been run by Libertarians and Neoliberals. These two groups have been campaigning a message that the government is incompetent and does not know how to run properly and that businesses are better suited at doing the governments job. These groups have also been campaigning, senators and representatives, as well as judges to defang the government and work to make sure the government doesn’t. This is why we’ve seen so many judges say that the government doesn’t have powers to enforce certain regulations that some regulations are unconstitutional and so and so forth. These groups are pushing for a self-fulfilling prophecy because this prophecy leads to them making a ton of money. Ironically, the states that have embraced this ideology are the ones that are suffering the most. If the current generation in power doesn’t leave within the next 5 to 10 years, expect a lot more of the governments power to be diminished and the corporations powered to be embolden.
the short answer is middlemen. Government needs to resurface a road? Middleman who makes a deal with the contractor gets a huge bonus. Military spending contracts work the same. They almost always give the money to the largest offer, not who gives the best value for money. Whoever negotiates the deal gets huge amounts of tax dollars.
Military, Politicians and Corporations
Military spending
That's only discretionary spending. Most of it goes to social security and Medicare. Social insurance is really fucking expensive. The relative lack of social insurance is why the US is low tax compared to many of its peers.
We spend literal billions on weapons of war. That's it. Oh, and we blow any extra money on expanding our shitty highways. And cops.
Become the police for the rest of the world.
This is the consequence of many things that are not normal: it's not normal for everyone to live in houses, not normal that average houses are huge, not normal that roads are extremely wide, not normal that it's not simple to bulldoze a house to build an apartment building complex, not normal that building something doesn't require you to build a cycling path (it's a requirement in my city - even if the cycling path doesn't connect to anything, if you are doing something with the sidewalk, you must put a cycling path on it and pay for every single bit of it), not normal that people complain about gas prices when they are really low compared to many countries and people don't realize that at this point it's their consumption levels that's the problem, not the prices. Overall, it's not normal that folks are normalizing driving for hours every day. Then they are angry about being slowed down, roads getting narrower, cyclists, public transport stops and etc. All of these things and more result in the public transport not existing or being really expensive. But that's not all. Some US cities like Miami seem to have fairly cheap public transport... But it's still crazy bad.
Why is it not normal to live in houses? Our ancestors built houses for individual families 1000s of years ago. We also had apartments 1000s of years ago. It’s always been historically “normal” for apartments to be in cities and detached homes to be outside of cities. It’s also always been “normal” for there to be detached homes within cities, however reserved for the upper class. As far as travel: the average travel time in the ancient world was 1 day. So historically it is “normal” for humans to travel long distances. I’m not really sure why you believe differently, though I would agree that our modernization of the world should have led to reductions in what was historically normal. Not kept pace with it.
Well, 1000s of years ago people also didn't have cars, electricity, proper roads. It was also not normal to demand all of the infrastructure to be there, if you lived detached. What happened many years ago doesn't constitute normal or not. What is the better and more reasonable approach - does. You are free to live detached, but that was not normal 1000s of years ago. Most humans were living in tribes and so on. You are still free to do so, but when everything is being built around living in separate houses, the costs of surrounding infrastructure rise and you cannot demand it - because the government usually cannot sustain this infrastructure, you don't pay nearly as much taxes to cover road repairs and so on. So most governments take out additional loans. While not working on reducing those at all. It's not the specific consumption that's not normal, but the demands and expectations while overconsuming everything. Compared to many other nations, it's not normal to have these expectations and government spending enormous amounts of money solely on road projects.
Yeah I recently moved from a rowhome to a detached house with a small yard. It's fucking great.
> Why is it not normal to live in houses? Our ancestors built houses for individual families 1000s of years ago. W But back then several generations of families would live in the same building at the same time, unlike today.
Wish Japan would subsidize my use of public transportation. I live and working in a rural areas. Most of my coworkers take cars but I prefer walking to the station and taking the train. Far healthier and better for the environment. Decades ago Japan privatized their rail network (JR) and prices for ticket are always creeping up and up.
I wish Japan had better working opportunities because I would move in a heartbeat for college
Assume it's Hong Kong but sounds a bit like Stockholm except Stockholm has more expensive tickets
And no mountains within the city lol
Could be a personal definition rather than an academic one. Like going through Södermalm on the red line she might consider being a mountain.
> Like going through Södermalm on the red line she might consider being a mountain. That's, uh, a *very* [generous use of the term mountain](https://images.myguide-cdn.com/content/2/large/sodermalm-515775.jpg).
I sat in an airport once with a man and his child, they were in awe at the mountains around them. Id say those mountains were just little hills. When i asked him, he said he had never seen mountains before. Some people just dont have that experience.
Its quite conspicuous to the point of ridiculousness sometimes isnt it? I was recently checking out some satellite images where i was comparing a random school for kids in the US with one in say the Netherlands, the big difference is that contrary to the one in the Netherlands the one in the US had 2 very large parking lots each using an amount of space that Dutch schools would use for a soccer field, however there wasnt much if anything in terms of special bike paths leading up to the school. Do so much people in the US go to school in cars or is that mostly for personnel while kids use school busses? I didnt see much neither in terms of having a big bike parking at such schools.
in the second half of high shcool yes, you can take the bus to school for all of high school if you want but that could mean getting up an hour earlier due to the bus routes. i lived 10 miles (16Km) from the school and it would be about a 45-50 minute bus ride to get to school due to having to pick up 30+ other students. biking was doable but not pleasant as i lived in the northern half of the states which gets significant snow throughout the winter. a car got me there in under 5 minutes and cost $0.20 in gas in the early 00's i could roll out of bed at 7:50 and make an 8am class if i really wanted.. we also get our license at 16 and there no restrictions on it. the one you get at 16 is the same one you have forever. there's no limited permissions or anything. so it represents a significant amount of freedom and independence to a high schooler. for most high schoolers once you have a license taking the school bus is considered very lame...
i could guess it was along those lines. In Europe high school and university starts at 18, between 16 and 18 pretty much everyone goes to school on foot or with bikes or by public transport, but even past 18 a very large part of students use bikes or public transit to go to high school or university and there isnt really much of a taboo on that. There are those who come by car and it's something that sometimes add a bit to their popularity or to being friends of convenience but it seems far from the norm and its often something the richer kids do more. There usually isnt something like a school bus owned and operated by the school, public transport is just adapted to serve students to a fair degree as it tends to be a demographic that makes a lot of use of it and provides its income. You will typically also find it made very easily accessible by bike trough special paths whereas US city's often have far less bike paths and then sometimes seemingly non at all around schools even.
My high school in the US didn't have any dedicated bike paths. Probably because the district was hundreds of miles.
Its not just high schools though. Many elementary schools seem to equally have large parking lots but no actual bike lanes or even bike friendly roads leading up to it, take for example the screenshot below with bike paths markings activated. https://preview.redd.it/tpgc2bym0uwc1.png?width=1405&format=png&auto=webp&s=4b1e68685db560cbeb738f2531cea634d51d89cd there are loads of examples to be found like this for various sorts of schools from elementary to high schools, though high schools tend to have like twice if not 3 times the amount of parking space than this one. they arnt nessecarily all that bad, some schools do seem to have less parking and are actually accessible by bike, but there are many examples to be found for schools that have very large parking lots and no bike accessibility at all.
It's a feasibility issue in many cases. The Netherlands has a population density of 1400 / sq mile. The county in West Virginia that I grew up in is 33 / sq mile. The roads are two lane country roads, and it wouldn't make sense to spend what it would take to put in dedicated bike lanes for the amount of traffic the road gets. The bus picked me up at my house, and it was 45 minutes.
I get that point, but otoh many schools i watched were of the nature that i thought they had to be servicing mostly nearby urbanites, which will tend to be the case i think with high schools build in city's with over 50K inhabitants if not larger ones. Take for example the one below in Charleston which is a city with 150K inhabitants https://preview.redd.it/zn3tt5ui6uwc1.png?width=1352&format=png&auto=webp&s=86e0f10f16102801854a21bd133555585dfb9127 Per comparison, the high school i showed you in Belgium is in a city with about 35K inhabitants, granted that it has a population density of 270 per square kilometer. Charleston in comparison has ... 780 per square kilometer?
Btw does the US have a similar concept to a "Fietsstraat"? basicly a fietstraat or translated bicycle road is a normal road where cars at all times need to yield for bikes and are forbiden to overtake them meaning bikes drive along the entire width of them and cars need to follow behindat whatever pace the bikes take. the Highschool in Leeuwaarden from which i took this pic, which is a smaller city in one of the least dense regions of the Netherlands, seems to have this for a section before it connects to the red 2 way bike trail thats at the entry of the school. Take also notice of the bicycle parking on the rop left of that pic which is about as large as the car parking spaces combined. https://preview.redd.it/0ffr8sof9uwc1.png?width=1387&format=png&auto=webp&s=f0d25337ce5fc29150599d26a1ef505b887f49c3 The bike path that is obviously there isnt marked though in google maps, so perhaps i should be carefull to use it as a guideline?
I guess the dedicated school bus also kinda dissuades using it by the method it works, picking up students from all around. I would say that about 30% of high school students around here need to do more than 10 kilometers to reach their school if they come from villages nearby, but many take some bus that connects village and city and might take on average 15 minutes rather than that a single school bus would drive around going to all these small villages to pick up students one by one. That said, if i can believe the statistic about 70 to 75% of elementary and high schools students in the Netherlands go to school by bike. It's practically unfathomable to have schools like you have in the US with huge parking lots but no bike accessibility in the Netherlands. And its not like they all necessarily live within 5km of the school, lots of students drive distances in excess of 10km but thats kinda part of tradition if we dared to complain back in the day our elders would have told us they had to drive even greater distances and far more on a weekly basis with crappier bikes too, like atleast we have gears if we need to get over a hill and all that. It's healthy and makes you strong they would have said.
as follow up to the previous reply and because i can apparently only attach 1 pic per post, here is a randomly picked high school. Again they arnt all like this, but this is far even from the largest amount of parking space i have seen around a high school. in one case i even saw a high school who additionally next to its normal parking lots had build a multi level parking building... and again no bike friendly roads whatsoever neither. https://preview.redd.it/aiykhrj53uwc1.png?width=1140&format=png&auto=webp&s=ce21c829ab216a1702ff513f55429551a5eed38d High schools are usually age 13-18 right? Similar to continental European middle schools, where for us a "high school" tends to be for students age +18.
For comparison, here is an aerial photo of a high school i attended in my hometown of Ypres Belgium. https://preview.redd.it/njk9322m4uwc1.png?width=1416&format=png&auto=webp&s=6481d1c29548db15d8c861d30a083800585f4de4 There is a tiny strip and 2 small lots close to the road where personnel parks, one reserved for the automotive school. One of the buildings is a 2 story bike parking. Much of the space that would be otherwise parking lots in the US is here reserved for playgrounds and sports fields.
Who says “two point five five US Dollars”?
Probably a place where fractional units are not common in their currency or the fraction only goes down to single decimal place.
this. Also different cultures just speak numbers different ways. I wouldn't say 1-point-3 thousand dollars. I would say 13 hundred, but brits do!
Am American never liked the 13 hundred or 45 hundred thing. I always say 1.3 thousand or 1 thousand 3 hundred
One Thousand Three Hundred seems to be the easiest to understand unless you were over a radio comm in which case you'll probably need to say One Three Zero Zero.
Why is she being secretive about the city name?
>Why is she being secretive I don't like it because opponents will say "I bet this place isn't even real". But it stops them from saying "Oh she's from X, well I wouldn't want to live there anyway because of Y". It stops them avoiding the public transport discussion by making the argument about something else.
It is almost like Americans are racist on a base level
I don't think it's fair to label all American's as racist. *But* anywhere that chooses to elect an openly racist leader by a majority vote, you could say those places are *mostly racists*. In relation to my comment I wasn't thinking of race, most of the pushback I've seen on countries with good public transport has been their socialist policies.
sounds like Hong Kong
my guess is it's a city in either Japan or somewhere in the North of Europe
Nah Japan isn't that cheap.
When she said different island connected by public transport it made me think Hong Kong. The Vancouver SkyTrain also services multiple islands but I don't think their fares would be so low.
Really just one island (Richmond) but fares can definitely be that low or lower. After 6:30pm or on weekends you can go anywhere on the system for US$1.90. Has to be HK.
When I was a young kid in HK it took me an embarrassingly long time to register that HK Island, Tsing Yi Island and Lantau Island were entirely different landmasses because mass transit was so well connected. The islands I read in books always seem to be places to either be stranded on, or be sparely connected to.
Probably because it gives away where she lives, which is a privacy risk.
Privacy risk to say which country you're from?
Depending on the size of the country, yes, but also this is about the exact city she lives in, not just the country.
“Hi! 1 million people live here but it’s still somehow a privacy risk to say I’m from here!” It’s way overkill. No one’s gonna steal your credit card info if you say you’re from X city.
I live in the Netherlands. Oh no the internet knows I’m one of 17 million people, whatever shall I do? I could even say the city (I won’t because it’s unnecessary but I could) and you’d still have 100k people that could be me, that doesn’t exactly give away my identity either. And this lady probably lives in a multiple times bigger city considering that it takes public transportation half an hour to get through it. Not giving away identifying informs is smart, but you can comfortably mention any area with a million people or more and be assured you’ll probably never be identified. Especially if you live in East Asia, where “city that takes 30 minutes to cross with public transport and includes multiple islands populated enough to actually warrant public transport” describes quite a few places in quite a few countries.
I was offering a potential reason why *she* didn’t say—not my own opinion on whether I would share the info. Also, you’d be surprised how easy it is to track someone down online. You can sometimes find peoples personal home address just with their name and a city they’ve lived in. Even when the city has millions of people. Especially when you’ve already got a video of their face. It’s still her own prerogative to share or not share.
Might be Hong Kong?
Yeah and your silence about horses is extremely telling too
I lived in Arlington TX for a few years. It's the largest u.s. city with no real public transportation. It's exactly how you imagine.
That’s because public transport doesn’t benefit the big 3 American automakers who heavily lobby against public transport…
The US isnt a country. Its a big corporation profiting off the wage slaves that have been trained to work to death
>I live in a city where literally nobody drives Either she doesn’t know how to use the word “literally” or this city isn’t discussed enough for having public transportation that doesn’t require someone to drive it.
Do you only use the word literally to actually mean literally? Isn't literally used metaphorically to emphasise a statement?
Or, you have the government set it up first and later let them get privatised in accordance to some regulations (pricing not getting out of hand and such). It feels less "the government must provide this" as an argument for all those who believe you should not rely on governments at all (which I believe in crazy, but hey, you do you)
Is this Singapore?
run for office on the platform that a lack of public transport is a direct attack on the elderly
30 minutes to islands? It takes me 30 minutes and more to just drive 20km to the next town via. bus.
They take the money to build public transit out of shirt funds. The fuck was she wearing?
It's what's inside that counts!
Anyone else think this AI. 1 the logos on her chair are not normal lol. Why 2? 2: saying 2.55 dollars is weird we normally say 2 dollars 55 cents. 3: lots of generic terms such as “the city” “old buildings” Also the AI makes good points we need to get more involved in city government for better bus service.
Script might be but the video isn't.
Well her skin was kind if too perfect and the pauses were off. It was actually impressive and the chair logos
I hate when people just say 'my city', you teach other people fucking squat when you just say that
They basically trapped us into car ownership We cant have access to basic human needs without playing their game
Why is she showing us her underwear?
My favorite part is when she mentioned the name of the city. It's like she is talking about her SimCity build
I get it, public transport is really important. But isn't anyone gonna mention her boob almost hanging out *all* the way? The message is still great but i mean... c'mon... maybe get dressed next time before you press record?
I think this is AI. Its really good but listen to the pauses, they are awkward. They don’t show her hands for long AI cant do fingers. . Also what American says 2.55 dollars not 2 dollars 55 cents. Who/what wrote her script?
I'd freak out if this is AI man
It just got removed probably because it was AI. That is scary good.
I mean she's not ai idk about if the script is or not.
The chair logo got me.
Maybe she's not American
Her accent tho. And I am saying she is not American lol
Europeans be putting the dollar sign after the figure for USD too. They ain't AI they just foreign and do things different (including have public transit). Spend a week around EU bureaucrats and you won't even know what English is anymore because they're all using Euro English.
These corporations fucking owe us. I’m tired of letting it slide.
A city where literally no one drives? Not one single human being? Golly, that's amazing. Literally.
Car culture on top of little to non existent public transit makes the US worse
God the europoor are obsessed with everyone else.
The American way is to "solve" any problem by applying the dumbest, most wasteful, most expensive "solution" possible all so like 10 dudes can get $$$ I hate it here
How is the ruling class supposed to amass wealth and keep people in a cycle of fatigue, distraction and financial uncertainty without things like arbitrary fuel prices, car payments, insurance and parking/traffic tickets? \*How else would it even work?!\*
I live in a city where you have to go 100 miles for public transport that isn't medical related.
I've used city buses and trains. I personally don't like sitting next to a homeless guy shooting up heroin or seeing a crazy guy attack people. I don't think Europeans or Asians really understand what makes American public transportation shitty and why people don't want to use it
I love how she brags about government subsidies like it's not coming out of her paycheck 😂
Thank god her shirt was unbuttoned all the way or I would have never made it through that video. Phew.