From what I've been able to gather, on average you exercise about a third as hard. If it makes you bike three times more often, it's worth it. It also means you will be bothered significantly less by wind or other variability in travel time (maybe you are tired that day, for example).
Even a third might be being generous. I have never once really broken a sweat riding an eBike even in hot summer weather. I've actually had to put jackets/jumpers on to stop the wind chill on hot days - this never happens on normal bikes due to the effort exerted.
This however is precisely why I have some ebikes in addition to human steam powered ones - its so nice for commute or journeys when you want to arrive feeling refreshed but not need a shower or change of clothes.
Great! I'm glad to see blockchain is actually being recognized by a part of the U.S department of commerce. I think in the next few years we could see a superior blockchain based currency dominant global markets.
> what does your file structure in your home look like?
If you mean physical files, such as letters, books, and paper documentation, I have a filing cabinet and things are simply stored by giving them a reference number, and then filed in that order. Then in a reference index in the wiki I put a single line with the reference number followed by all the tags I might want to use to find that document. I use everything I can think of here, because it costs effectively nothing to have as many tags as I choose.
If you mean files on a computer then I don't know what you might mean by "in your home." I store snippets, etc., in pages in a wiki, and each item is either obviously already searchable, or has some tags associated with it as a comment of some description. Large files such as PDFs, raw radar data files, downloads of book drafts, etc., are given a sensible name and assigned a reference number. Where they are stored in the computer's filing system depends on a whim, but usually they go in a structure xx/zz/yy/filename where the xx:yy:zz are the initial six characters of the reference number. Then again, it's indexed, one line containing the reference number, filename, and tags. It doesn't matter if it moves because I can always find it by filename with a "locate" search (if I'm running locate) or just by a find command.
> Are you now basically dumping everything into this wiki and you reference files by a number system?
Pretty much, yes. I find that having a routine stops me from having to think about how and where I put things. I just follow the routine blindly, and it's flexible eough that I can find things when I want them. More, the fact that things can be moved about, taking their reference with them, means things end up clustering without very much extra effort.
People doesn't realize that all this will effect them. Ya, scapegoat the guy who everyone thinks deserves it. But, then it's on to the people who might deserve it. Then, they come knocking on your door and you question how. It's happening right now in front of your eyes. I would be very scared at what is to come from letting these massive corporations exercise this kind of mass banning power.
PayPal has been arbitrarily banning people for the entire time they’ve existed, like pretty much every website with members.
But they already did come knocking for an industry I was in. Despite the fact there are stores in all 50 states selling the product, and it’s gray-area legal in all of those states and explicitly legal for cannabis in about half the country, it’s difficult to openly sell blown glass art pipes on PayPal for long. They will shut down your account, keep your money for as long as possible and ban you for life ostensibly for violating federal paraphernalia law. Thankfully, it’s not as if PayPal has a monopoly on handling payment.
So you demand that these private corporations need to do business with someone they find contemptible? Nobody is putting him in jail. He’s free to speak his noxious views. And other people are not obligated to publish or advertise on them.
I think there's a substantial moral difference between (1) a business discriminating against members of a sexual minority, and (2) a business discriminating against a dogwhistling conspiracy theorist.
I don't feel like you're arguing in good faith here.
The issue wasn't what they were purchasing but rather the reason they were refused service - their sexuality. If Alex Jones had been deplatformed because he was gay then you can bet you're ass we'd be mad. If the couple was denied service because they were known to say controversial things in public and the bakery didn't want to be associated with that I'd have no issue with that either.
By 'free speech' I assume you mean the universal idea that we should be able to express ourselves rather than protection from the government. I'm going to presume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you also believe businesses 'are people too' and should have analogous rights. What about the business' "freedom of speech"?
Whilst I probably would find no common ground with the person you're responding to (I'm pro-lgbtq in general and always have been) I do think there's a nuance here worth engaging with.
Didn't say that at all. Only addressing this statement: "So you demand that these private corporations need to do business with someone they find contemptible?"
You can try to make the argument that Alex Jones should belong to a protected class that needs special rules that infringe on other people's freedoms, but I don't think you'll win that argument.
Conspiracy theorists who torment the suffering are not a protected class. Since when are payment processors not free to choose the types of businesses they support?
But this isn't what the Supreme Court rules at all. It ruled that in handling the case, the Colorado commission had been biased against the defendant; the ruling specifically stated that Colorado "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services... the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion"
The ruling was also very specific in that the case was not to set precedent and the ruling absolutely does not permit businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ.
No, they didn't. Their ruling rested largely on how hostile the Colorado administrative agency acted in that particular case. They made no ruling on the larger questions, which is how they got Kagan and Breyer on board with the majority opinion.
That's not true. They ruled that the baker got a mulligan because government officials didn't show enough respect to his religious beliefs. It is still illegal and there's another case against him right now over this behavior.
No, it absolutely did not overturn protected status of LGBTQ. To quote Justice Kennedy, Colorado "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services... the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion".
He's not being censored. This is even less related to censorship than being banned from Twitter, as it won't affect his ability to reach his audience in any way.
The environmentalist are destroying the potential profit of the company that can extract a fossil fuel to make a quick buck. Company profits > Environment, because it is the law. I mean look at this [https://assets.atlasobscura.com/article_images/59315/image.j...] beauty. Who's going to stop them?
