Hey, I know a pretty similar bus stop in Hamburg, Germany: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SMa5unXew4uAfVtPA

Can confirm, it sucks to wait there. Hard to reach (always tempting to risk your life for catching the bus), noisy, stinky, plus ours has bicyclists zooming through the isle.

To optimize the intersection for car traffic. Or maybe rather to minimize signal wait times.

If pedestrians could take the shortest path, it would roughly double the size of the intersection in both width and height. Which then requires clearing times on each signal pass to be longer. Which ultimately makes everybody wait longer at the intersection, including pedestrians.

So, that is one possible explanation. I guess you didn’t really ask for one, and maybe I should also add that it’s just that; an explanation, not a justification.

Hehe, right! (technically). Context matters! When talking about fruit, people usually don’t include stellar objects when weighing their options. Still true when taking in consideration that “apples to oranges” is usually metaphorical and not really about fruit.

I like that, especially this insight:

when two things have very few attributes in common or the attributes they can be compared on are very broad, general or abstract, it is harder to compare them.

A melon and a pogo stick are harder to compare, for their defining attributes hardly overlap except on a very abstract way.

Good on you to say “harder to compare” :D

it’s all semantic subjectivity. Poetry compares dissimilar things and equates unequal concepts all the time.

Another thing worthwhile to point out; subjectivity. I guess that part bothered me too. “cannot be compared” attempts to establish some kind of objective truth, whereas it only can be a subjective opinion.

The reference to poetry was nice, too.

My point works just as well with an arbitrary amount of options. Someone could say “These quintillion things cannot be compared”.

The number of options is irrelevant to what I tried to address. Though my examples were only pairs, so sorry for causing confusion.

Thanks for taking the time to write this detailed reply. I guess you’re right about the equivocation and I can see the irony :D

Though I have not fully understood yet. Following your example, the two different concepts are …

• in case A, we compare the value of a property (different top speed)
• in case B, we compare the purpose or context-dependend usefulness of an attribute (different types of liquid container holders)

What blocks me from fully agreeing is that still, both are comparisons. And they don’t feel so different to me that I would call them different concepts. When I look up examples for equivocations, those do feel very different to me.

I still guess you’re right. If you (or someone else) could help me see the fallacy, I’d appreciate.

Agreed, yeah. Guess I was taking the word too literally.

Because religion evolved to thrive in us.

It’s like a parasite, and our mind is the host. It competes with other mind-parasites like other religions, or even scientific ideas. They compete for explanatory niches, for feeling relevant and important, and maybe most of all for attention.

Religions evolved traits which support their survival. Because all the other variants which didn’t have these beneficial traits went extinct.

Like religions who have the idea of being super-important, and that it’s necessary to spread your belief to others, are ‘somehow’ more spread out than religions who don’t convey that need.

This thread is a nice collection of traits and techniques which religions have collected to support their survival.

This perspective is based on what Dawkins called memetics. It’s funny that this idea is reciprocally just another mind-parasite, which attempted to replicate in this comment.

Adding a comment so people can experiment more in this thread.

How reductionist. You ignored that you have a brain, too. This comment section discusses the topic if you’re unaware of reasons.

I feel like I’m pretending to know what I’m doing.

I guess that explains the observation. As kids, we’re fooled by the pretenders. So we grow up with this expectation.

I feel the most consequent stance is to demand all the things. Not to reject all the things except for the one pure solution.

As long as ICE vehicles are still sold, even make up the most of the sales, supporting EVs is moving in the right direction. At the same time, even better solutions can be demanded and supported.

They eliminate a part of the emissions, since one big engine (like a power plant) can be run more efficiently than many small engines (in individual vehicles).

Similarly, transporting electricity through wires creates less emissions than transporting fuel with trucks. Both serve the purpose of refueling other vehicles.

Even coal powered EVs are better than gasoline cars.

If you are not in charge, replace the “You” with whoever is in charge. When you said “I won’t give it up” it seemed you had some control.

If that wording makes a difference, these people should not be in charge of what energy enters their home, or not be in charge period.

Also TIL, the attempt to rename it is not new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas#Name

You can install your own panels and turbines and storage, or do it together with some neighbors or the city.

Independence is possible with renewables, but not so with fossil fuels.

Yes, I feel you.

And yes, that’s how it is. It’s an insanely complex industry if you really want to understand how things work.

Which you don’t need to get things done.

Which you still can if you really want, if you’re willing to invest the time and energy to study it thoroughly for many years if not decades.

But even then, chances are you’ll be touching libraries, concepts or technologies which you did not study in-depth yet. I think you need to be both aware and tolerant of limited knowledge, and willing to learn continuously.

For those who don’t know what Firefish is: https://joinfediverse.wiki/What_is_Firefish%3F

Thanks, nice to know. Also subbed to !ecosia@mander.xyz, didn’t know that exists.

There is no fundamental difference between between:

• People cant be together because of their sign and
• People cant be together because of their skin color

The difference is, people cannot choose their skin color, but they can choose which ideas to follow.