Probably from listening to another speaker who defined it, adopting their definition. Possibly from making it up on the spot. After all, someone has to create the first definition! Words weren't handed down to us by some magical deity.
But that doesn't mean the audience came from the same place. It is very possible, and often happens, that they heard/created an entirely different definition for the same word. The speaker cannot possibly use their definition before even knowing of it.
many organisms are eating plastics, but that is not good for us at all in the short term.
A study ? bedford institute? from a while back reported that plastics that they were collecting from the ocean, were full of holes from bieng eaten by something, and if you think about plastic as a widly distrubuted, easily broken down substance with very high intrinsic energy content, that it's no surprise at all that things are eating it. But back to us, thats bad, because all.of those things eating plastic, are then eaten, and passed up the food chain to us, at the top.
So what we need to know, is how far advanced the process of filling the food chain with, undesirable for us substances, is, and what the future looks like if we just shrug, or how long will the system take to clear itself out.
ie: is the biosphere "saturated" or not.
If not, what is the max concentration that we can expect, and when
What if there are negative byproducts of this process though? It's a leap to conclude that we're fine. Consider that we'd be placing a lot of food for fungi into the environment, in places they shouldn't be, which would likely disrupt those environments... And also, the fungi likely can't live in every place the plastic is. Deep sea, deserts, alpine, etc.
Do you mean you actually work hard or just avoid getting caught being lazy? If you can work hard, I dont think you had an inability to do it in the first place
If you have ADHD, and you need to work for a living; in time, you come up with personal strategies. I found that I am able to focus on things better when I am under a lot of stress or pressure. So I actively try to put myself into these kind of situations. Or, I found that simply sitting down, removing all possible distractions, and consistently forcing myself to do a thing does work; although with severely reduced efficiency i.e. sit down 4 hours, get 1 hour of work done with ~20 internal interruptions. But it does get done.
These are rather exhausting things to be doing all the time. So you always work hard at working. But you don't get consistent results. If you work harder at working, you get less inconsistent results. My point was that its often worth it.
"ADHD traits like time blindness, limited working memory, craving stimulation, and sensitivity to rejection often clash with these expectations. Employers frequently misinterpret these traits as laziness, carelessness, unreliability, or defensiveness."
No, tailgating would be a significant cause of the crash.
A driver -- legally, logically, practically -- should always maintain a safe following distance from the vehicle in front of them so that they can stop safely. It doesn't matter if the vehicle in front of them suddenly slams on the brakes because a child or plastic bag jumped in front of them, because they suddenly realized they need to make a left turn, or mixed up the pedals.
Oh, I fully agree—like I said, legally they're not at fault, because you'd more or less have to be tailgating and/or inattentive to crash into them just for braking unexpectedly.
But if there's an existing system and culture of driving that has certain expectations built up over a century+ of collective behavior, and then you drop into that culture a new element that systematically brakes more suddenly and unexpectedly, regardless of whether the human drivers were doing the right thing beforehand, it is both reasonable and accurate to say that the introduction of the self-driving cars contributed significantly to the increase in crashes.
If they become ubiquitous, and retain this pattern, then over time, drivers will learn it. But it will take years—probably decades—and cause increased crashes due to this pattern during that time (assuming, again, that the pattern itself remains).
Tailgating causes a great number of accidents today, no autonomous cars needed.
While tailgating is tiny slice of fatal collisions -- something like 2% -- it accounts for like 1/3 of non-fatal collisions.
We're already basically at Peak Tailgating Collisions, without self-driving cars, and I'd happily put a tenner on rear-end collisions going down with self-driving cars because, even if they stop suddenly more often, at least they don't tailgate.
And it's entirely self-inflicted! You can just not tailgate; it's not even like tailgating let's you go faster, it just lets you go the exact same speed 200 feet down the road.
Assuming a driving culture where other people won’t instantly insert themselves into the empty space in between, yes, it’s the exact same speed. I’d very much like that.
> You can just not tailgate; it's not even like tailgating let's you go faster, it just lets you go the exact same speed 200 feet down the road.
Preach.
I was coming home a few evenings ago in the dark, and both I and my passenger were getting continually aggravated by the car that was following too close behind us, with their headlights reflecting in the wing mirrors alternately into each of our faces.
As a pure hypothetical what you propose is possible, but there’s actual crash data to look at so there’s no need to guess.
Waymo’s crashes that I’ve looked at have just been fairly typical someone else is blatantly at fault no unusual behavior on Waymo’s part. So while it’s possible such a thing exists it’s not common enough to matter here.
Only if you assume that everyone claiming this is _correct_, or more specifically that they're incorrect when they're young and correct when they're old (this is usually something primarily claimed by old people).
Cato the Elder used to moan about this a lot. Society is clearly better now by any conceivable measure in any developed country than it was in his day.
Just because it seems to fall, doesn't mean it's actually falling.
The Shepard tone is an auditory illusion where the tone seems to be continually rising or falling in pitch.
I've seen old films. They had terrible morals, like rich people straight-out slapping servants they felt were doing wrong, and of course the near omnipresent racism and sexism.
I totally expect the generation at the end of this century to despise our immoral pollution of the planet.
"Such poets, being “ignorant of what is right and legitimate in the realm of the Muses,” rebelled against the traditional conventions of music and poetry."
this is the much fabled Plato? The genius? The big brain who thought there was a "right and legitimate" taste in music? Glad to see this fluff has been preserved for millenia
reply