overhero

5 ms·

1.
by overhero 5y ago
no, it's not about "least consequential" but about "most unjustified". as long as you have even more unjustified measures in place, you will have a hard time fighting the less unjustified
2.
by overhero 5y ago
right, that's my point!
3.
by overhero 5y ago
the point here is that It seems entiterly arbitrary to enforce seat-belts but not enforce vaccine-shots. in a constitutional state mandates should not be arbitrarys, that's a defining characteristic actually. so either you have seatbel
4.
by overhero 5y ago
I argue that the fight needs to start with the most unjustified measures. seat-belts, helmets etc. As long as you have those in place it's only consequential that more protective measures are in place as well - i.e ones that actually d
5.
by overhero 5y ago
it's up to my passengers then - their personal decision - take the risk without me wearing the seatbelt, not riding with me or convince me to put on one.
6.
by overhero 5y ago
Why can I be forced to use seatbelts and vaccine skeptics are not forced to get the shot? My decision is purely personal, while theirs does increase the risk for everyone around. Ever rode a motorcycle without a helmet? That's the real
7.
by overhero 5y ago
opel rekord is the real deal, man.
8.
by overhero 5y ago
an even more succinct way might be: blocks _ _ True = True blocks Tile{isWater} floats _ = not isWater || floats blocks Creature{} _ _ = True blocks Fire{} _ _ = False block
9.
by overhero 5y ago
he was not wrong though, just too early
10.
by overhero 5y ago
thank you for your work, man. redis is awesome
11.
by overhero 6y ago
yeah, web components gaining tractions since 2011...
12.
by overhero 6y ago
take Galileo Galilei as an example. And all the people after him that were robbed of his potential further inventions.