You must log in or register to comment.
Everyone should have to retake the driving test (both written and practical) every five years. And if you don’t pass on the first try or are in a crash where you are found at fault, it should be bumped up to every year for the following five years.
People drive dangerously because they’ve forgotten rules, or rules have changed, or they’ve had a physical or cognitive decline. And yet we’re like “yep, you took a test once decades ago, good to go.”
Dangerous driving kills so many people.
I’m guessing they would do this if they could justify the cost to voters. I recall having to wait months for my driving test. Sadly, I have a feeling it’s easier to kick that problem (i.e. accidents) down to someone else’s department. But I’m totally with you. Yesterday I almost got ran over by someone that treated a stop sign like a yield sign.
DUI laws are too strict. It shouldn’t be all or nothing at .08 BAC but more severe punishments for more severe inebriation. .08 is pretty low and people who drink regularly can function fine at that level.
People hate this one but… hey, it’s my most unpopular opinion.
That’s one I used to hold until I went looking for studies on how smaller doses of alcohol impact a person’s driving ability. What I found was a linear, dose-dependent response with no real hard cutoffs. Driving is dangerous enough; there’s little benefit to making that worse by drinking beforehand.
I might be OK with a reduced penalty at .08, but I’d like to add a slap on the wrist at an even lower level.
Here in Sweden the limit is at 0,2 ‰ which I believe is equivalent to 0,02 BAC. So 0,08 BAC is really high IMO.
The limit for a serious violation is 1 ‰
The punishment for a normal violation is a fine or up to 6 months in prison. The punishment for a serious violation is up to 2 years in prison. Apparently if you go above 1,5 ‰ you are quite unlikely to get any other punishment than prison, so community service or similar is out.
If you are found guilty they generally take your driving licence a As well and you are not allowed to get a new one for a minimum of 1 month or a maximum of 3 years (minimum 1 year for serious violation)
They used to be more lax, the current rules are more strict because it IS a problem and there are studies showing it to be. Hence the lower BAC limits.
Cognitive ability is a far better test. I used to be a raging alco, like real alco, not just daily drinker. The levels I functioned at would kill most people.
Of course I still have alcoholism, but I haven’t drank in 12+ years. While I don’t condone drinking and driving at all - in fact it makes no sense at all in this age of ride sharing - but if I were on a jury I could be swayed by a heavy drinker excuse. 🤷♂️
Mine are unpopular, but in the other direction.
I think your first DUI offense should be the last time you drive. Period. I feel like the fact it’s so lax is due to people knowing they won’t be severely punished.
Punishments are pretty severe… Night in jail, thousands in fines, possibility of losing your license… Justified when the person is actually inebriated but I don’t believe that is the case at .08… that’s a little buzz.
Not trying to change minds here though. I know it’s an unpopular opinion.
Votes should be inversely weighted by age. The vote of someone who’s going to clock out before the next election even rolls around shouldn’t be worth the same as the vote of someone who’s going to have to live with the consequences for half a century or more.
Or have the voting age be 18 years old to the average national life expectancy, although i really haven’t thought this through too much. I assume if such a situation were to exist, it would be much easier to cut Social Security and Medicare without losing the elderly vote, so that probably would backfire.
Ooooh dark. I like.
Vote 1! @Sordid
Nickelback is an alright band. Far from my favorite, I just don’t get what all the hate was about.
In fact, I’d go as far as saying that their first album is pretty good, and I like it. Except from that song which is severely overplayed and mediocre.
The hate came from them being absolute dicks to their own fans.
I was in Middle School when they hit it big, and am Canadian to boot. They got overplayed to the point of frustration on the radio and TV.
Couple that with them being one of the last successful “butt-rock” bands, and my friend group had everything we needed to hate on them.
Onedrive is not that bad of a service*.
*
Using linux of course.
I kind of agree… I hated it at first but it grew on me.
Why would I post it here? I’d get mass downvoted, only mild unpopular opinions are popular.
We don’t have karma
Still, it would be buried at the bottom of the thread.
Oh no!
On toilets with two flush buttons for different flow rates, if there is a larger button and a smaller button (with no other singe), the larger button should correspond to the lower flow rate. Odds are more people are flushing for pee, and don’t need the extra flow, and the more common action should be represented by a larger button. For people who are unsure, lazy, or not looking, they’re probably pressing the larger button just for pee, and wasting water if that were to correspond to more water usage, which is wasteful.
Isn’t this how they actually are? I’ve only seen 2 of these in my life, but both had the big button for a piss rinse, and the smaller one for the shit shoot.
piss rinse … shit shoot
I actually LOL’d. Thank you.
Linux will never come close to replacing Windows.
I’m sure people didn’t think Internet Explorer would be replaced either.
But if your product is dog shit log enough, people will move
The Beatles are highly overrated. I respect the impact they had, and I acknowledge that the music I like (metal) would not exist without them, but I’ll go out of my way to avoid listening to them.
It was easier to be a big fish in the pre-internet music pond. I would never said the Beatles are bad, they aren’t. But aside from understanding the historical significance, I would never ever put the Beatles on regularly.
Just as I don’t watch B&W films every night. Charlie Chaplin was great, for the time, just simpler than what I actually actually enjoy.
I’m also on this camp. I get the significance, but I think I just didn’t resonate with what they wrote, and the “old” production.
Here and there I found a great version someone else performed and was surprised to find it’s a Beatles song, then I heard the OG and went “yup, still not for me”.
ADHD is massively over diagnosed in the US. No shit stimulants make you concentrate better, that doesn’t mean you had ADHD. Concentration is like a muscle, you have to actively invest effort into making it better. It’s hard to concentrate and scrolling through posts and flicking through shorts is atrophying this ability. It’s like someone who doesn’t work out or eat well thinking they have a muscle development disorder, taking anabolic steroids, and since they gained muscle it confirms their suspicions that they had a disorder. Concentrating is difficult, it takes active effort, and you will hit walls when your brain is tired. It can be trained, however. This should be the focus and stimulants should be the absolute last option and only for people who truly meet the definition of disorder, i.e. it greatly impairs their relationships, work, or daily life.
I’m not saying it doesn’t exist at all, but I do think it’s way over diagnosed. Doctors want those high patient satisfaction scores, which is another issue in medicine in general.
Your opinion is unpopular because it’s clear you don’t know what ADHD is. It’s not just “trouble concentrating”. It’s not even primarily that. It’s a slew of issues, physical, mental, and emotional.
I know the DSM isn’t perfect but inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity are the main criteria, and those are all issues that I believe stem from poor concentration or focus.
My opinion still remains the same; I think many have these traits but few have it to a level which is appropriately classified as a disorder. Stimulants are performance enhancing drugs for your brain and they have side effects. People hear from a friend or post online that it helped someone and go get evaluated - by a for profit industry that stands to make money by getting more patients. Pretty easy to cut someone a script and bill that CPT code.
I’m not saying this disorder doesn’t exist, or that some people have no option but medication. I do think it’s over diagnosed by an industry relying on patient satisfaction scores.
This is my unpopular opinion. I don’t believe taking a medication for life as the first line treatment is appropriate, especially when they’re directly affecting reward pathways. ADHD is just one of many areas in medicine I see this happening.
You’re right, but I think it’s also massively underdiagnosed in certain groups like women, immigrants from countries with shit views on mental health.
A lot of my opinion also hinges on that last D, disorder. For example, many people have autistic characteristics, but few have autistic spectrum disorder that severely impairs their normal functioning in life. Likewise with ADHD; just because you can’t concentrate well doesn’t mean you have a disorder. Pills shouldn’t be the first line response.
In general I see this as an issue with healthcare in general; few want to put in the hard work, everyone wants pills or injections. This is also seen in fat loss (GLP-1 drugs rather than a healthy diet and being active) or how the VA treats disabled servicemembers (pills first, skimp on the mental health treatment or physical therapy). I’m not sure where to place the crazy rise of testosterone replacement therapy but I also believe it fits in this general “drugs first” approach. We love our drugs.
The fact doctors rely heavily on patient satisfaction scores exacerbates the issue. Sometimes the best medicine is not at all what the patient wants to hear.
I would not lay it on the patients. My wife is on GLP-1 but she begs my doctor to raise her thyroid supplement instead. Her tests come back as the bottom of normal and she has thinning hair, dry skin, constipation, and feels cold all the time. She does have other medical issues but I mean common lets use a little common sense and factor in symptoms along with the blood test. I firmly believe there is some sort of kickback scheme going like with the opiods because thyroid is super cheap.
Absolutely 100%
The St. Anger snare is fine.
No idea. I can’t sort by up down votes.
Just for lemmy:
Most people on here care more about being right than affecting any sort of progress.
But if they are indeed right, and that fire they have about it is used to defend their point-of-view until it’s been so scrutinised and counter-argued that either it has been shown to be incorrect, or no counter could undo the initial argument, is that not progress?
Lemmy is not academy. This is a web forum, most of us are not here to do formal science.
Lemmy is not academy. This is a web forum, most of us are not here to do formal science.
Great point!!! OMG! Daily I get variations of statements from people demanding I defend some random news article I’ve posted. I’m like, “dude, I don’t give a fuck, just don’t read it if you don’t want to!”
Not everything is some logical political discourse with references. I don’t give a shit. Just ignore and move on if you don’t like it. lmao
True!
COD sucks. The only good ones were world at war and the original modern warfare series. That’s it. All others aren’t worth a shit.
Now before you respond, yes I know there are many people that agree with this, but with people I know in real life this is unpopular.
I’ve been buying the ones with zombies modes exclusively for 15 years because the industry refuses to make a fucking decent clone of that mode, and it annoys me
CoD has actually had some GREAT single-player campaigns when compared with their competition in the FPS space, honestly. MP? Yeah no, ew, especially lately
If you eat factory meat, you’re doing something morally wrong that can’t be justified.
And the vast majority of people who get defensive about that, deep down know what they are doing is morally dubious at best, but they can’t/won’t admit it, so they lash out at vegans/vegetarians instead.
this just isn’t true.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best.
Factory farming, extensive farming, they’re all bad for the soil, bad for native wildlife, bad for native plants. The societal impacts of factory farming are also not small. In the end, the moral lines people draw are mostly at different places, neither is undoubtedly better than the other.
As it currently stands, the morally correct option for food production would probably be for a large amount of the population to starve. That, of course, is also not entirely morally correct.
Disclaimer: I am personally omnivorous. I have a son and many other relatives and friends who are or were vegetarians or vegans. I love a lot of veggie food and used to frequent vegan restaurants, so I have absolutely zero qualms with it.
I have personally tried to give up meat twice, once for 6 months and once for a year. On both cases my health suffered massively for it, and I went back to eating meat. I had a cousin who was, for many years, a hardcore vegetarian. She was also of the opinion that eating meat was wrong. A few years ago she reintroduced fish in her diet to overcome health issues after fighting them for years. Most symptoms subsided in a handful of months. I believe she now also eats beef, although infrequently and in small quantities.
I’m sorry to be that guy but reality is more complex than whatever moral line any one of us would like to draw. You’re not wrong but it would behoove you to acquire some nuance on your thoughts.
As it currently stands, the morally correct option for food production would probably be for a large amount of the population to starve. That, of course, is also not entirely morally correct.
Considering almost 1.5 billion adults in the world are overweight it wouldn’t be so bad to let some people starve.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best. Factory farming, extensive farming, they’re all bad for the soil, bad for native wildlife, bad for native plants. The societal impacts of factory farming are also not small. In the end, the moral lines people draw are mostly at different places, neither is undoubtedly better than the other.
Animals needs to eat and drink too, the meat industry has the highest tool on the farming industry.
I have personally tried to give up meat twice, once for 6 months and once for a year. On both cases my health suffered massively for it, and I went back to eating meat. I had a cousin who was, for many years, a hardcore vegetarian. She was also of the opinion that eating meat was wrong. A few years ago she reintroduced fish in her diet to overcome health issues after fighting them for years. Most symptoms subsided in a handful of months. I believe she now also eats beef, although infrequently and in small quantities. I’m sorry to be that guy but reality is more complex than whatever moral line any one of us would like to draw. You’re not wrong but it would behoove you to acquire some nuance on your thoughts.
It sound like your diet was off, if you don’t eat animal products you need valid alternatives to complete and balance your diet. In cultures shaped around animal products it may not be automatic or easy to find alternatives. Our ancestors diet for example had less meat and more lentils, in countries were they consume less meat you are most likely to find popular dish with other proteins sources.
Considering almost 1.5 billion adults in the world are overweight it wouldn’t be so bad to let some people starve.
You are fucked in the head.
There are a lot of calories lost when eating meat, because the animals burn calories by staying alive. So eating meat is like eating 15x times more calories from veggies. So everything bad for the environment about vegetarian consumption is true for meat too but in worse.
And perfect is the enemy of good. Veggies aren’t perfect, but they’re far better than meat for the environment.
Some of those are useless calories, we can’t eat grass and on some lands where only grass grows so cows are a way of using that grass, but that’s not the majority.
most of what animals are fed are parts of plants people can’t or won’t eat, or grazed grass. in that way, we are conserving resources.
This is not true. The vast majority of farmed animals come from high intensity operations and the vast bulk of the food they eat is grown agriculturally. This is one of those happy little lies people repeat to themselves without verifying because it provides them with a shred of moral license. They don’t really care whether it’s true or not and finding out it is false won’t change their behaviour, it’s a totally facile argument.
the vast bulk of the food they eat is grown agriculturally.
sure, but I can’t eat cornstalks and I don’t want to eat soy cake, so feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources.
Where are you getting your information?
The majority of all the plants that humans grow are fed to livestock. That’s just the fact of the matter. It’s not conserving anything, rather it’s incredibly wasteful. Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.
And again, you don’t really give a shit. It wouldn’t change your behaviour to discover you are mistaken, it’s a disingenuous argument. It’s sophistry.
Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.
human food crops are grown. soy is a great example. about 80% of soy is pressed for oil, and the byproduct is fed to livestock.
The majority of all the plants that humans grow are fed to livestock.
this is a lie
That’s exactly what I wrote
no, you said those calories are wasted.
Read more than the first sentence please
“Some of those are useless calories, we can’t eat grass and on some lands where only grass grows so cows are a way of using that grass, but that’s not the majority.”
most people don’t want to eat soy cake, or crop seconds, or spoilage. feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources, not a waste.
Amazing how many plants rights advocates pop up every time someone mentions the cruelty and violence being endured by farm animals. And no other time.
It’s the only time where it’s relevant to the conversation, no? Why would you bring it up anywhere else?
