This is an incredibly dumb take. Tech isn’t one dimensional and there isn’t a “right” path to tech literacy. I grew up on Windows and I learned a lot of what I know by exploring my laptops and learning new things out of necessity. I ended majoring in CS in working in tech. My sister, who’s 5 years younger than me, had Chromebooks growing up both at home and at school, yet she’s also a very proficient CS major. Using Chromebooks doesn’t show that someone is bad at tech, that’s just a baseless assumption.

Chromebooks are just another branch of tech, and there’s really nothing wrong with them. They’re basically Android tablets in laptop form. Google giving them to schools at a deeply discounted price is not a bad thing. Without them, many schools wouldn’t have any sort of tech for their kids to work with. Chromebooks are incredibly useful tools that can enable teachers to incorporate material from the internet into their lessons and help streamline their work.

Hating on things for the sake of hating on them is just lazy and counterproductive. There’s a lot to criticize Google for, Chromebooks are not one of them.

I have revanced on my phone and adblock on my laptop so I don’t see ads on youtube on them, but I can’t get rid of the youtube ads on my smart TV so I’m forced to deal with the ads for now… and the contrast shows just how insufferable youtube has become. They’re so fucking aggressive with the ads now. I’m starting to get a full minute of unskippable ads for a 2 minute meme video. It’s completely ridiculous. Not only that but the number of skippable ads, short ads, or videos with just one ad are quickly decreasing. Youtube is destroying itself.

Get Revanced or Newpipe or something like that. You get the same benefits you’re paying for, plus many that you aren’t, and it’s all for free. Not only that, but you’re not giving you’re money to Google.

Of course they are, but bad urban development doesn’t justify people intentionally creating dangerous situations.

But that’s not true. Drivers aren’t a cohesive group. Just about every adult in this country drives. The people who are against more pedestrian development are either NIMBYs or the car lobby.

I mean companies can force him out by themselves if they’re pressured enough. Also all companies make unsuccessful business bets. What matters is that from a neutral third person point of view, these companies aren’t doing anything that they’re not supposed to be doing. They’re putting sectors of the American economy in danger of collapse, they’re not committing crimes left and right, and their services are satisfactory for most people.

Disruptive and dangerous are two different things. Rosa parks sitting at the back of the bus is a disruptive protest, cycling as an unorganized mob into oncoming traffic is dangerous.

But again, how brain dead do you have to be to see a giant parade of people and think “I know, I’m going to try to drive right through that!”

I’m not defending the person in video, she’s clearly a clown herself. I’m just pointing out that these events aren’t exactly helpful to the cause they’re trying to advance.

How do I know? Because there’s thousands of people here. It has to be published somewhere if all these people are finding the route.

That’s like playing go fish. Again there’s no central organization to these events by design, so it’s very difficult to actually track down where the information is. It could be on Facebook or Discord or Instagram or anywhere really. Good luck finding the right groups with the right info.

You’re not trapped in your car. You can back up, do a u-turn, and go somewhere else.

This easier said than done. If you’re a normal driver, then you’ll be stuck as they arrive. If there’s a car behind you and the cyclists are already swarming around your car then you can’t move else you’ll risk hitting them.

If you are so stupid that you can’t realize you shouldn’t drive into such a crowd, you need to have your license suspended, as you are simply too stupid to drive.

Sure, but that doesn’t justify these cyclists creating the dangerous situation in the first place.

Please do. I would very much not see a clown on my feed who accuses others of things they don’t even understand.

Are you sure you’re not on drugs? Because this is quite the unhinged rant

That’s the thing, I actually agree with you and these cyclists. Cars DO take up way too much space and we’re way too dependent on them. I 100% support better urban development that’s more sustainable and pedestrian friendly. That being said, I don’t see things like this as a meaningful way to achieve results. If it was an organized protest that actually gave people a heads up that this would be happening then that’s fine, but just randomly forming up cyclist mobs to takeover streets is still dangerous and unnecessary.

This is an issue of urban planning. Blaming drivers for it is childish.

They organize with the city (a date and path are set and publicized) to force their bike traffic through town with the ultimate goal of trying to improve safety for cyclists.

A big part of the problem is that they DON’T do this. If they did then people can plan ahead of time to avoid running into them, and way less people would be annoyed with them. But that’s not how they operate, these events aren’t protests because they’re so disorganized. There’s no leadership, no organization, nothing. They also don’t give any notification to locals, law enforcement, the media, or their local governments. This why they’re considered dangerous, it’s because this disorganization puts the cyclists and drivers in harm’s way.

Most people who run into them, like the woman in the video, do so without prior warning. They’re just going about their day when they’re met with a mob of cyclists who are ignoring the established safety laws and blocking traffic. You have no idea where they came from or where they’re going. Their unpredictable. Yes, this woman filming and driving is being reckless, but she’s not the only one in the video who is.

You have a very poor understanding of how these critical masses work, they do NOT function like normal protests, at least in the US.

Most critical masses of cyclists are intentionally made to be spontaneous, barely organized, and they do not give prior warning to locals (through the local media or such), the government, or even the police. The whole point of the intentional disorganization to escape the authorities when they eventually come in to restore order. The reason why they’re called “critical masses” to begin with is because large turnouts is the only requirements of these events. There is no organization or leaders or hierarchy or anything to hold accountable.

So what happens is unsuspecting locals going on about their day get met with a mob of cyclists who are blocking traffic, ignoring any and all established safety laws, and disrupting the flow of the city. The people who do come across them don’t know where they came from, where they’re headed, or what they’re going to do next.

That’s why you can’t “go around them” like you’re suggesting. You’re basically trapped in your car until they go away. These events put the cyclists in danger and they put the drivers in danger. That’s why they’re considered dangerous. If they functioned like how you imagined they functioned, then way less people would have an issue with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass_(cycling)

I don’t like Elon, fuck him. My point is that what you’re asking for is setting a precedent we never had. We’ve always had complimentary system between the private and public sectors, most countries are like this as well. Nationalizing companies without a genuine justification is going to cause shock waves throughout the economy. Why would investors spend capital in the country if the government can snatch up their business the moment they’re deemed important? If that’s the only thing needed to nationalize companies, what’s stopping idiots in government like Trump from just weaponizing it by nationalizing any company that competes with his own businesses, political opponents, or his crony friends? Not to mention, where is confidence that our incompetent government is going to manage these companies better than they can manage themselves? These are all really big questions.

There’s a reason why nationalization is left as a temporary last resort measure to rescue economic sectors from collapse. You could make an argument that this would apply for a publicly traded company like Boeing that’s quickly heading towards collapse. Considering how they’re only commercial plane manufacturer, that means they’re our entire industry. The company’s stability is a matter of national security. But SpaceX? None of this applies.

SpaceX is a private business that’s stable, reliable, and competitive. They’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to. It’s easy to say that we should just nationalize companies without thinking about the consequences. I’m in favor of things like universal healthcare, public transit systems, and more power to our research agencies. But these things have to come to fruition through stronger regulations and government alternatives, not nationalization. If there are cases where a company has to be nationalized and there are no alternatives, then they should be bought out.

I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial.

A strawman is when somebody mischaracterize an argument, calling someone a tankie is not that.

This is a very valid point. Nationalization essentially means transferring control of these companies to either Trump or congress as well giving them power to use nationalization as a tool. Not only are they horrendously incompetent but they’re also sure to weaponize it. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump went on a spree nationalizing “liberal Democrat” companies or nationalizing companies that compete with his businesses.

I’m not smarter than everyone, but you are dumb enough to think Marxism and Fascism are economic opposites otherwise you wouldn’t have said what you did earlier.

Yes, that’s why no one in this entire thread suggested anything even remotely close to this. it’s stupid, and a stupid strawman.

The guy that I replied said that we should nationalize any company that receives tax dollars if we depend on it… Buts that case for virtually the entire economy. Everything is touch by our tax dollars and everything in our economy is intertwined. It is a ridiculous suggestion.

Nationalizing spaceX temporarily in order to restore confidence in it’s largest, most important customer, after that customer’s trust has been repeatedly violated by the executive and the board that keeps him in power, is NOT NATIONALIZING THE ENTIRE ECONOMY nor would it be untoward if Boeing or Lockheed’s CEO was dumb enough to engage in this bullshit.

The government doesn’t nationalize on the behalf of companies, it only temporarily nationalizes when to protect the American economy at large. For example, in 2008 the government took hold of a bunch of auto companies to prevent a collapse of this sector. This is not happening here for SpaceX so it doesn’t make sense to do it.

The thing is you would actually have a really good case to temporarily nationalize Boeing because it is basically our entire commercial plane manufacturing sector, and it’s quickly heading towards collapse. This is a case where it makes sense. Starlink and SpaceX don’t fall under this umbrella.

Nationalizing companies is not going to fix the accountability issue we have in the country. The same problems are going to happen, just under new management.