therealjohnconnor.bsky.social
Denver, CO
Urbanist, progressive, gay, pedestrian, biker, car hater, D&D DM, Tabletop Gamer, and up-and-coming Mayor of Lavender Hill (in my own head anyway).
1,913 posts
1,508 followers
1,423 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Great new song! But, “Finally,” what exactly?
comment in response to
post
The smallest amount of research is warranted.
comment in response to
post
No one is shitposting about Threads.
comment in response to
post
That is fair.
comment in response to
post
Now stop making trucks and SUVs
comment in response to
post
I am certainly a pedestrian advocate as well, as I walk far more often than I cycle. So I agree with you that pedestrians should not be forgotten.
In my opinion, improving cycling laws and infrastructure makes the road safer for all users. And I believe the data backs me up on this.
comment in response to
post
I think it’s a little silly to say that bike riders disobey driver lives more often than cars when you consider the rest of the country calls a rolling nonstop at a stop sign a “California stop,” and cars have speed limits that are routinely ignored when bicycles typically don’t even have them.
comment in response to
post
I do hope that this encourages more cycling as transportation, rather than just as recreation or exercise. Those people go much slower on bikes. It makes yielding much easier.
comment in response to
post
Bicycles aren’t a terror to pedestrians. Look at the Netherlands.
Besides, suburbs are designed for speed on roads. That’s just poor design in your suburb, not the fault of cyclists.
comment in response to
post
Regardless of your personal experience, they are still required to do so. Changing the law will improve safety for cyclists.
A bicycle isn’t going to kill you either. At least not 40,000 people per year.
comment in response to
post
That’s why it’s a yield sign. They’d still have to yield to pedestrians. And bicycles can very easily navigate through crowds of people, unlike a car.
comment in response to
post
Deploy them yourself in California, then the federal government cannot do so.
comment in response to
post
That’s capitalism. The system makes us do unethical things all the time.
We should do what we can to lessen it in our lives where we can.
comment in response to
post
Generative Ai can never match human creativity.
comment in response to
post
The argument isn’t “do it by yourself and on your own“, it’s “art should be made with human creativity, not automated processes.”
comment in response to
post
Ai is not a person.
comment in response to
post
Artists deserve to be paid for their work.
comment in response to
post
All current versions of AI image generators were created by and are run by bad corporations that are destroying our planet.
comment in response to
post
Warhol wouldn’t use AI.
comment in response to
post
They were still humans making things. New things.
comment in response to
post
Ai image generators are not creation. Sorry.
comment in response to
post
Why do that? Just stop using them.
comment in response to
post
Whatever you have to say to make yourself feel better. Theft is theft. The environment is burning. These companies are profiting from that.
Pay human artists, or make your own stuff. That’s my stand.
Ai slop is a soulless mockery of human creativity.
comment in response to
post
Ai image generators are just plagiarism machines.
comment in response to
post
I’m convincing you not to use a plagiarism machine. Or make it yourself.
You don’t have to. That’s your choice. But it’s not a choice without ethical considerations.
comment in response to
post
I think it comes down to the publications that are elevating these centrists and ignoring the progressives.
The economy is what it is because of capitalism, and the corporate media can’t let that secret out.