Much like the sibling comment I started walking around the local park before spending more time hiking. I live semi rurally though and wouldn't want to walk in an urban environment.
I normally feel much better after walking and cycling. Also I think doing something repetitive like walking allows you to think, tune out of other things.
Everyone is different, so I say this not to tell you how to feel but just to offer a different perspective:
Walking in urban environments can be its own sort of joy. Cities (well, good ones anyway) are full of life and energy and humanity, have unexpected nooks and crannies, and a rich sense of dynamism and excitement. Even late at night (as long as you're safe), a quiet city can be a source of serenity and melancholic beauty. Writers like Baudelaire and Benjamin described at great lengths the pleasures of flânerie.
Nature is wonderful too, of course! I love a good hike through the forests and mountains...but I also love a good stroll downtown.
No. Urban environments suck to walk around. What you wrote is utter drivel.
If one needs to justify it by quoting authors, that suggests it isn't self evident and they are just trying to justify something that they know isn't good.
What an unnecessarily hostile comment. "Utter drivel"? I was talking about how I personally feel. Am I just imagining enjoying the things that I enjoy?
Writers have, obviously, written about how walking in nature is nice. Does me saying that now mean that walking in nature is awful?
Maybe you're doing other people a favour by staying away from them, sheesh.
> What an unnecessarily hostile comment. "Utter drivel"? I was talking about how I personally feel. Am I just imagining enjoying the things that I enjoy?
No it isn't. Anytime you make an fairly straight forward statement on any website you get some unnecessary contrarian response.
There are a bunch of downsides to doing any sort of outdoor activity in an urban environment. That is just a fact. It is noisier, often there it nothing to look at, repetitive (in a bad way) etc. etc.
Therefore I would not recommend walking as a form of exercise in that environment as the vast majority of people wouldn't enjoy it.
Whimsical writings by 19th century French poets aren't relevant to those facts.
> Maybe you're doing other people a favour by staying away from them, sheesh.
What an unnecessary comment to make. I never said anything about what you are like.
Walking in an urban environment is generally not very pleasant. It is often repetitive (in the bad way), noisy and there is little to look at. It the reason they often carve out space for parks and commons.
Management Studio is a monster. I was using for years and every so often someone would show me a feature I was totally unaware of that blew my mind.
Visual Studio also had "Database Project" which was amazing. Not seen anything like it. I think everyone moved over to using EF or Fluent Migrations but I loved the Database Projects.
> If the actions and beliefs of a group are fundamentally morally repugnant to me, I think that it is reasonable to not expect me to be able to find "something positive" in it.
No it isn't reasonable. In fact it is one of the stupidest things you can do. If you read any history, you will see that failures in military, politics, science etc. (really pick anything) are often due to key people simply refusing to learn from their opponents and/or refusing to adjust to the new reality. Often this is done because they find their opponents morally repugnant, or lacking in some virtue they happen to hold as important.
It is fine if you don't like the current US Administration. However if they do something that happens to be good, it is fine to acknowledge it as such, while still pointing out what else they are doing wrong. Otherwise you just come off as a sore loser and people will stop taking any notice of you.
I think this is true, and the broad sense of that website is an improvement on what went before, so we should acknowledge that. But it's also right that people point out the moralising tone and connect other administration actions and policies with an assessment of whether these principles will be backed by policies that actually make any difference in real life. My suspicion is that this will be part of an effort to further stigmatise people damaged by the industrial food industry without doing anything to make healthy food cheaper or more accessible, but I'd love to be wrong!
No that is not the definition of a military invasion.
> An invasion is a military action consisting of a large armed force of one geopolitical entity entering the territory of another with the goal of militarily occupying part or all of the invaded polity's territory, usually to conquer territory or alter the established government.
What happened on Saturday was not an invasion. It was an extraction/capture operation. It was a large scale one, but they left after they captured Maduro and his Wife.
> I think you can argue that the Bin Laden raid was and invasion into Pakistan. Anytime a military forces enters uninvited, that's an invasion.
No it wasn't. When they killed Bin Laden they didn't "invade" Pakistan. They infiltrated, then assassinated him and left.
Still doesn't make it an invasion. If they drone striked and thus killed Majuro it would not be an invasion. It would be an assassination.
Invasion in this context has a specific meaning. The bet on the market would have been done with this specific meaning in mind.
No invasion, means no payout.
It would be like making a bet where someone scores in Football/Soccer from a penalty, but in the game they score from a free kick outside the penalty box. You wouldn't pay out on the bet, because a penalty is not a free kick even though they are similar and had the same result.
When you are referring to a military action, invasion has a particular meaning.
The definition on Wikipedia seems reasonable:
> An invasion is a military action consisting of a large armed force of one geopolitical entity entering the territory of another with the goal of militarily occupying part or all of the invaded polity's territory, usually to conquer territory or alter the established government
What the US did wasn't a military invasion by that definition as they left after they grabbed Maduro.
I agree that most people would use the term invasion to describe it. But this story is related to how a betting market decided to pay out.
The US forces left immediately after the target (Maduro and his wife) were extracted. So according to the definition I gave (which is more precise) then it isn't an invasion.
Whenever I envision an military invasion, I think of troops storming Normandy Beaches to invade Europe, When the Falklands invaded Argentina or When Hitler invaded France. All of these actions were with the intent to hold seize and hold territory.
An operation where people fly in, knocking out critical defences, capture someone and then leave clearly isn't the same thing.
A hit in the stock price doesn't prove or disprove their claims. What would disprove their claims is the number of properties Blackrock is buying and if it is affecting pricing at the margin.
Let's say Blackrock, with all their wealth behind them, buys a home in your neighborhood. What do you think they will charge for rent? Market average? Ha! No way. They jack up the rental prices because they can. That makes rental prices rise everywhere in the area.
If they charged far more than the market average in a given area then people wouldn't rent from them. Even if they bought up the entire area, people would presumably move to cheaper areas where they weren't jacking up the prices.
I normally feel much better after walking and cycling. Also I think doing something repetitive like walking allows you to think, tune out of other things.
reply