Gayhitler

I don’t think the payment needs to be gendered or even tracked closely but if you’re worried about a lack of means testing you could go full clintonite demon mode, scale it against household size and distribute it as a tax credit.

E: you could also do the Industrial Revolution for housework and provide community laundry service, grocery delivery, hot meal distribution and handyman work instead of cash payments for dealing with all that crap yourself.

I promise you it’s not. Even in what I’m assuming is an idealized one income nuclear family that you’re alluding to, directly compensating the homemaker for the work required to reproduce that structure just gives the household more resources to distribute.

It also legitimizes the work of reproducing the socially necessary family structure without excluding homemakers from conversations of policy regarding workers rights.

Everyone wins.

I don’t think it’s very smart to exclude race from discussion of domestic labor in the western world especially America.

Eh, possibly? The biggest benefit of direct payments comes from people not working as much and instead doing the shit they need to do, weather that’s get the kids handled, do their own laundry and dishes or just go out and take a walk and those are the same benefits as a ubi.

The problem with conflating compensation for domestic labor with ubi is that compensating domestic labor accomplishes more structural goals which is a huge deal because the problems of domestic labor are structural.

One example is that on a fundamental level compensating people for domestic labor values that labor. It can’t just be shit you’re expected to do if someone cares enough about it to pay you for it. That aspect also addresses lots of racial and gendered problems with domestic labor.

Another benefit is that now the state (by dint of its distributing payments) has a stake in social reproduction and families that’s direct and not mediated through the lens of moral or religious values.

The problem with ubi is that it relies on markets to figure out how to fix shit by just giving the currency of markets to people. That works pretty well, because those markets are what’s ultimately causing people to suffer, so giving them resources to not be beaten by the market helps a lot, but it’s acting without direction or state power, effectively fighting with at best one hand tied behind your back. I think it’s more accurate to say it’s like private military contracts, money spent with the hope something happens but no real goal or idea how to actually accomplish what you want.

As I said though: it would be good if people had more money.

Okay, directly compensate people for their domestic labor.

If that’s a bridge too far or if concerns over efficiency come up, provide community services to make that labor easier and cheaper for everyone.

I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume you mean the housing, food and allowance provided by the breadwinner to the homemaker.

Theres a couple of problems with that. Number one, how tf do you both cut half the jobs and raise the wage by enough to double its present value? You’d have to be able to actually get rid of half the labor base and not have employers gobble up the money saved as profits.

Number two, how do you avoid the very real class distinctions involved in that arrangement in the past? To put a finer point on it, full time housewife was a descriptor reserved for the upper middle classes and above only.

Not least, but definitely third: how do you avoid, in a racist and misogynistic society, allowing labor and its benefits to become gendered and racialized?

What you said might seem like a fair trade for a specific breadwinner and homemaker pair (at a specific time, things change!), but it’s not a fix for a social problem.

An alternative is to compensate people for domestic labor performed in their own homes.

This is because domestic labor, which allows for social reproduction, is unvalued and not compensated.

Using email is the worst experience in the world. There’s no security, no standard for quotes, no delivery guarantee, a patchwork of attachment deliverability guidelines and you have to understand things like bcc in order to not commit bizarre faux-pas all the time.

Email sucks and I can’t believe a person who wants to have a conversation about ux would seriously hold it up as a positive example.

Email literally replaced messaging held in shared files between time users of mainframes. It replaced the most centralized system imaginable which had a ux that required no additional understanding or training of a mainframe user. Twenty years after its inception, major universities still had to have special training classes to make sure students and faculty could use email.

The problem of people not joining lemmy/activitypub isn’t the ux of choosing a server. The problem is no one wants to leave reddit enough to do so. Lemmy doesn’t offer anything except possibly the same experience as being on some idealized version of reddit so why would users flock to it?

A better approach would be try to be a better platform than reddit like reddit was to digg, like digg was to slashdot etc. that’s what hexbear and beehaw do.

It’s the same thing.

Email even has its own version of federation and de federation in dkim.

The only difference is that you’re oftentimes not given access to an email address from your internet provider by default anymore so you’re not automatically joined into the system.

People balking at choosing a server are not showing you a bad user experience, they’re showing that they don’t really want to be part of a reddit alternative.

And the broader lemmy/activitypub/whatever needs to figure out if it wants to be like beehaw and hexbear and abandon the shape of reddit or if it wants to duplicate it and try to compete with reddit.

Keeping sealed iodine patches and band aids inside my leather wristbands.

Staying on the edge of the pit to catch anyone who falls or takes a hit.

🧷 safetycore 🧷

God bikeshare ebikes suck so much.

Hello, I’d like your worst frame with the cheapest motor, smallest wheels, wrong kind of tires, a sprocket with a non whole number of teeth and uhhhhh lemmie get two years of no maintenance other than a hose off and some touch up paint.

Honestly I think you’re right. A person making the choice about what to own free from any other constraints would be thinking like you. I think Chinas right to push people towards using lead acid on e-bikes in the face of lithium scarcity and trade restrictions too.

It’s just two different situations that indicate different choices.

Apropos of nothing, are you seeing usbc e-bike battery charging coming down the pike? I was seeing some rumblings a few years ago last time I built one.

So I don’t think you don’t have the experience to say the stuff you do, I just have wildly different conclusions from my own experience.

I live in a place that’s 100% hills all the time. I am fat even after spending years cycling to get around. Sure everything below the waist is decent but the orthodontist gut ain’t going nowhere. Almost my entire adult life I’ve smoked cigarettes. I quit and it makes a difference but most of my saddle time is with a smoke hanging out of my mouth.

I carried over fifty pounds of groceries, garbage, equipment, camping gear and anything else you can imagine all the time.

Just about the only time I pushed the bike was when dimensional lumber was too wiggly to ride with.

The hill: checkmate, libtards!

Me, drooling, trying to fit a square block into a round hole: good luck, I’m behind 16 bar ends!

Now e-bike gearing is dogshit for pedaling and I think getting a drivetrain that can actually be operated by hand (or foot) is one of the factors people don’t consider near enough compared to top speed under throttle, but even then it just means you might have to get off and push sooner, not that the bike is unusable and most people around here realize what hills they need to hit at speed in order to make it after a few trips.

I also think your bringing up wheel weight is misleading though probably not on purpose. The wheels inertia has to be overcome before it can be translated into going some direction, so the wheel literally exerts a mechanical advantage against the rider and therefore isn’t comparable to increased weight tied to the frame like a battery.

I don’t think it’s an intentional error of comparison though because focusing on wheel weight is common to do. Its like the number two way to get better acceleration.

It’s doubly tough to defend because batteries aren’t stored in the wheels!

It’s triply tough to defend because at least one ebike wheel has a very high mass to begin with!

The point I was trying to make oh so long ago was that if you have a population that does a lot of cycling, have a bunch of public transportation and need to balance between allocating scarce resources for high density batteries to bikes with a low weight and inbuilt backup drive system or electric vehicles with a high weight and no backup drive it makes perfect sense to push a less energy dense solution on the bikes.

You say it’s better to have a light bike than to have fifty miles more range on an ev, but I think that’s incorrect. There are gonna be applications where the ev is the right choice and evs get more out of that energy density and bikes just don’t.