Source

Source

Source

Source

There needs to be some sorta part 2 to player reader! Imagine her life is just getting kidnapped by another suitor every other day or somethin. Or gettin forcibly married to one with a legion of other monsters interrupting the weddin. Girl is livin my dream of bein desired by monsters! 😩😢

See, that’s the trouble, I feel like everything else from now on should be up to imagination. Will Reader be serially kidnapped? Serially married? Will the mayor of Monstertown have to intervene and turn Reader into some sort of publicly owned existence that can be borrowed within a strict interval like a library book, in order to avoid the monsters killing each other?

“I’m here to return Reader”, the Eldritch creature says, pushing the little card onto the counter with its tentacle appendage.

“Uh huh. That’s one week past deadline, so I’m afraid you’ll have to pay a fine.” The worker responds, checking the files.

“Of course.”

“Is Reader alright?” The employee questions upon noticing the feverish state of the human. “It looks a little worn out.”

“Yeah, sorry about that. Might’ve gotten too enthusiastic.”

“Happens, happens. I’ll let you know when it’s available again.”

Also, as a little side note, this was the initial idea I had for a header picture but I can’t be bothered to do anything beyond this doodle. Found it funny so I thought I’d share. :)

I just realized that the hermit permits have centralized the hermitcraft economy and as such, established socialism

I imagine the underlying principle of being upset by the proposed TikTok ban is that hatred of government regulation trumps all other hatreds, which makes sense, but it's weird to see how many people apparently love TikTok now, after I thought we all agreed it was in fact the worst thing in the world and that it poisoned the internet and our species incurably

Really extra tired of black and white thinking around COVID like can you guys activate your brain and understand that lockdown was NECESSARY to prevent massive economic and social breakdown that would have been induced by our entire population getting infected at once before we figured out how to treat it

Not to mention the whole "young people didn't need to worry about dying they shouldn't have been locked down what about their social lives!!11!!!"

Hi. Hello. I am a youth that was disabled by COVID how are you doing today. Oh, you're not disabled by COVID? Cool shut the fuck up forever.

Mmmmm okay but honest question tho

The KOSA regulations would need to be implemented even if the companies offer their services only outside of the country? 🤔 And if they are established on another country and offer its services to usa, they need to implement the regulations right?

Because like, I was thinking of how mihoyo moved from china to avoid the censorship regulations globally, for example

And like, couldnt then social media companies preassure the goverment about doing that too, then

Like, even if they had to censor stuff for usa, they would be losing a lot of potential interactions because of the content theyre hiding, so if they had to censor everything in case of being established in usa (even if it is content being shown outside of the country), wouldnt it be better for them to just move the company to another country then. To continue having those extra interactions from "censored posts" shown to other countries.

Or even, if the cost of filtering the posts was too high, its possible some companies would choose to not offer their services to usa anymore. Idk how taxes to big companies work in those cases, but that would be a loss for them in the long term too right.

Like, isnt the whole bill a bad idea even commercially?

And couldnt it happen that companies publish a statement about getting out of the country in case the regulations were stablished?

"How much safer has construction really gotten? Let’s take a look.

Construction used to be incredibly dangerous

By the end of the 19th century, what’s sometimes called the second industrial revolution had made US industry incredibly productive. But it had also made working conditions more dangerous...

One source estimates 25,000 total US workplace fatalities in 1908 (Aldrich 1997). Another 1913 estimate gave 23,000 deaths against 38 million workers. Per capita, this is about 61 deaths per 100,000 workers, roughly 17 times the rate of workplace fatalities we have today...

In a world of dangerous work, construction was one of the most dangerous industries of all. By the 1930s and early 1940s the occupational death rate for all US workers had fallen to around 36-37 per 100,000 workers. At the same time [in the 1930s and early 1940s], the death rate in construction was around 150-200 deaths per 100,000 workers, roughly five times as high... By comparison, the death rate of US troops in Afghanistan in 2010 was about 500 per 100,000 troops. By the mid-20th century, the only industry sector more dangerous than construction was mining, which had a death rate roughly 50% higher than construction.

We see something similar if we look at injuries. In 1958 the rate of disabling injuries in construction was 3 times as high as the manufacturing rate, and almost 5 times as high as the overall worker rate.

Increasing safety

Over the course of the 20th century, construction steadily got safer. 

Between 1940 and 2023, the occupational death rate in construction declined from 150-200 per 100,000 workers to 13-15 per 100,000 workers, or more than 90%. Source: US Statistical Abstract, FRED

For ironworkers, the death rate went from around 250-300 per 100,000 workers in the late 1940s to 27 per 100,000 today.

Tracking trends in construction injuries is harder, due to data consistency issues. A death is a death, but what sort of injury counts as “severe,” or “disabling,” or is even worth reporting is likely to change over time. [3] But we seem to see a similar trend there. Looking at BLS Occupational Injuries and Illnesses data, between the 1970s and 2020s the injury rate per 100 workers declined from 15 to 2.5.

Source of safety improvements

Improvements in US construction safety were due to a multitude of factors, and part of a much broader trend of improving workplace safety that took place over the 20th century.

The most significant early step was the passage of workers compensation laws, which compensated workers in the event of an injury, increasing the costs to employers if workers were injured (Aldrich 1997). Prior to workers comp laws, a worker or his family would have to sue his employer for damages and prove negligence in the event of an injury or death. Wisconsin passed the first state workers comp law in 1911, and by 1921 most states had workers compensation programs.

The subsequent rising costs of worker injuries and deaths caused employers to focus more on workplace safety. According to Mark Aldrich, historian and former OSHA economist, “Companies began to guard machines and power sources while machinery makers developed safer designs. Managers began to look for hidden dangers at work, and to require that workers wear hard hats and safety glasses.” Associations and trade journals for safety engineering, such as the American Society of Safety Professionals, began to appear...

In 1934, the Department of Labor established a Division of Labor Standards, which would later become the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), to “promote worker safety and health.” The 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which legalized collective bargaining, allowed trade unions to advocate for worker safety.

Following WWII, the scale of government intervention in addressing social problems, including worker safety, dramatically increased.

In addition to OSHA and environmental protection laws, this era also saw the creation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

OSHA in particular dramatically changed the landscape of workplace safety, and is sometimes viewed as “the culmination of 60 or more years of effort towards a safe and hazard-free workplace.”"

-via Construction Physics (Substack newsletter by Brian Potter), 3/9/23

I refuse to hop in a Zoox car in my entire life if I can avoid it. I refuse to hop into any self-driving robo taxi (or robotaxi) that uses AI to keep it’s passengers “safe.” If this is actually a service they are legally allowed to provide publicly, there’s about to be a whole bunch of new laws made in hopefully very little time! Now you know me, obviously fuck the law, many laws are unjust, but sometimes we need some regulations to keep up with the shit that rich Silicon Valley tech bros “put out” while claiming it’s allegedly their own work. These rich bastards are dangerous! Now I’ll pass along the questions that my partner & I jokingly pondered. If something happens that the AI & detection systems doesn’t know how to handle, will us as the passengers be held legally responsible say if a child gets punted into the air by the self driving car & we can’t do anything to stop it? What if we’re asleep assuming the car is safe & it runs over a legally endangered animal? What if we’re on our phones & these self-driving robot cars cleave someone in half? What if it crashes into someone’s private property? Are we held responsible in any of these cases or is the big rich guy’s company? If it’s anything like Tesla, you should get your kids or pets out of the road when you see a Zoox car coming, it could allegedly cause some mortalities. Two more things. What’s stopping someone from hijacking, hacking, or planting a virus on these self-driving taxi services? What if one of them gets hijacked to take someone to a human trafficker meetup spot? Will the company be held responsible at all? The gifs below pretty much summarizes my feelings.

“people are inherently selfish, government is necessary bc everyone would hurt each other without enforcement of rules” my local library has no late fee. sure, maybe some asshole who has been so deeply brainwashed by capitalism that they are convinced that ultimate success is material/monetary gain that comes at minimal cost to themself may steal a book every once in a while. this hypothetical asshole is not a representative of human nature, but a product of the society they live in. This asshole would not exist in an anarchist society. And then there’s the majority of the people who visit the library and know that stealing from a public library is an awful thing to do because libraries are sacred spaces and provide crucial resources. the majority of us who are not so far gone as to never even consider the community and to prioritize self gain above all else are who should be used as a more accurate representation of humanity. And sure maybe there’s another person who knows that stealing from libraries is bad and wouldn’t so in most circumstances, but maybe for whatever they really really desperately need a book permanently and can’t obtain it through other means, and so they steal. Because this is not to say that people aren’t inherently selfish, this person is a perfectly valid representation of human nature as well. It’s just that humans are also inherently communal and compassionate. We just live in a society where selfishness and individualistic drive is encouraged, praised, and necessary, while collectivity and striving for the common good is frowned upon and a burden, and efforts rarely have lasting tangible results. So with the question of the necessity of government or the potential for any economic system beyond capitalism, it is easy to say that nothing else would work due to the inherent selfishness of humans when that is what we have been taught and what we observe. And in situations of suddenly entering periods of anarchy, of course there was violence and theft. Of course after generations of viewing the accumulation of wealth and material goods as the ultimate goal, and being met with the shock of it all being within reach with no more regulation of what you can or can’t have, the people failed at self regulation and acted brashly. These instances can’t serve as examples of life under anarchy because they happened suddenly, under already strenuous and desperate circumstances. Such a system, or lack thereof, would have to be implemented gently, changing peoples mindsets alongside it.

What financial decisions do this country need to make to fix most of our issues? Do you think a republican president is necessary for these changes to be made?

We need to build a giant statue of the Monopoly Man and ritually sacrifice poor people to it until the economy gets better. But no political party has the balls to do what's necessary these days.

one more thing before i either get up and be productive or take a nap--

how many times have you not read terms and conditions? how many medication commercials do you think run every day on any given channel where the side effects include death? what doesn't contain chemicals known to cause cancer in the state of california? you ever sign a waiver for a haunted house? zip line? sky dive?

thinking it won't happen to you isnt divisible by class. we have to think about our mortality all day every day and then nothing happens and we go to bed. nothing is safe so everything is.

From my blog archive—How close are we to the breaking point?

“If government were less omnipotent and closer to the original intentions of our nation’s founders, we might be more prone to trust it—and less suspicious of its true motives.”

Idk maybe it's naive but when it comes to voting it's just, like, if the left wing divide and the right wing don't then we're getting a right wing leader. Sure, you can talk of deposing the whole system but you're not actually doing that. Instead, you're just assuring that you've got an actually evil person running your country. Labour's a joke. But if the Tories keep running the UK we're fucking dying. They're actively tearing down climate change policies and human rights and if Labour retain any the Tories don't then that's a win!

Rn we have very little power but we have some to prevent the worse case scenario.

Sure, don't vote for Biden beacuse you're conflicted. Trump supporters aren't so conflicted. Then condemn everyone in the US and everyone the US has influence over to another Trump presidency where he's trying to ruin things for everything but himself. People are going to keep dying but at an even faster rate!

I'm not naive to how harmful 'left-wing' politicians are, but I'm not naive to how harmful right-wing politicians are either, and isn't it selfish to be parading a viewpoint that damage control is inferior to utterly theoretical moral superiority? Do you think, politically, that you'll get your perfect leader, especially when the plan is to stay out of the system altogether? Get into local government and campaigns then!