That’s a very simple view. Most of western Europe and Asia have higher fire safety than Canada and have plenty of single-staircase buildings. These kinds of decisions are not made based off a single YouTube video. It may be a source of public awareness about other approaches, but that’s only the springboard to get feasibilty studies and expert consultations underway. There are external fire escapes, mandated sprinkler systems and other ways to improve fire safety which alone will likely prove far more effective than double staircases.

There are many valid downsides to our outdated fire standards in Canada—many that introduce their own health impacts in other ways. And I wouldn’t quite consider a fire chief to be the ultimate expert here. Sure their input is important to have, but I also want to hear from architects, standards bodies and academics that study building design and safety.

dump a load in your bed

Ah, the good 'ol Heard Turd

Damn, Mr. Beast dropped off.

I recently realized that I have been boarding planes for years with multiple boxes of razor blades in my carry-on.

…Not a single checkpoint picked them up.

To be fair, this is a better comparison than I expected. There’s some good info here but it’s combined with the typical non-commital AI answer of “idrk both are good.”

It says GIMP is for basic to intermediate photo editing. I think this downplays the power of GIMP. If you’re proficient enough with GIMP, you can definitely do advanced editing (esp. with plugins). It also is written to imply that Photoshop is for the pros and people who need to do advanced things, which would probably mislead people new to editing and needing only “basic to intermediate photo editing” towards GIMP when Photoshop is suited well for them too and probably easier to learn. It doesn’t even mention options that would be better for newbies like Adobe Elements.

For another example of what I mean when I say AI is probably not a great source for info like this, I asked GPT-3.5-Turbo “Which is better, MS Word 2003 or MS Word 2021?” It gave some decent info on the features that 2021 has that 2003 doesn’t, but then concludes:

“Ultimately, the choice between the two versions depends on your specific requirements. If you need advanced features and collaboration tools, Word 2021 is the way to go.”

Another BS non-answer that a layman will read as “Word 2003 is best for me because I don’t need ‘advanced features and collaboration tools.’” Of course Word 2021 is better.

I’ve always heard good things about Darktable as an alternative to Lightroom, but I do not have experience using it so irdk.

Alternatively there is always the high-seas version of Adobe CC. I wouldn’t be too concerned with the ethics of it seeing as this is Adobe we’re talking about 🤮.

I’m no through-and-through AI hater (I use AI in certain situations where it is helpful), but I feel like this is not going to be an area where an AI is going to give much insight that’s reflective of reality.

It’ll likely moreso compare feature-sets for each, which will make GIMP look far better than it probably should to Photoshop. GIMP is robust and has plenty of features. It is in its user experience, UI, and the quality of each feature where it fares much worse.

Mind you, this is coming from someone who likes GIMP, grew up using it, and feels more at home with it than Photoshop. It’s just all-around not as good.

I’m sure for anyone who has real work to do, GIMP can’t come close to Photoshop.

But I grew up using GIMP and got some pretty impressive results with it. Now that I have Adobe CC access and have been using Photoshop through that, I am perpetually confused on how to do x, which I know how to do in a couple clicks in GIMP.

Again, I’m sure that’d go doubly so for someone who started with Photoshop since it does have an objectively cleaner UI.

Figma balls XD

It depends on what you do with it.

Ohio-ass state of Ohio.

A special kind of chuckle.

"hehe…^FUCK. "

ok.

Stupid Java-ass AbstractUniverseControllerFactoryBuilderSingleton reality we live in.

I appreciate the genuine response. It’s good for my cynical ass.

The way to beat this system is to build alternatives and wean people off of their dependence on it, and deprive it of victims.

And how do you propose we do this considering the only way the system can have alternatives is if the system allows for alternatives which (spoiler) >!it won’t!<.

I didn’t say I would jump. I said I’d think “why am I not jumping.” Maybe I’m right not to jump. Or, there might be a good reason everyone is jumping. Maybe I should too. Maybe.

I see where you’re coming from.

Sayings have to be short and memorable, meaning they usually lack nuance, are wrong depending on context, or are just straight up wrong. That’s why I don’t like the bridge jumping one; it’s the same reason I don’t like most sayings. I don’t think the bridge jumping saying is “straight up wrong.” Simplistic and lacking nuance? Yes.

I think you’re right in that few make their own decisions and defer to their “heroes.” I’d instead say few truly think critically, despite believing they do.

There are always people who do things nobody else does, don’t do things everyone else does, do things with an uncommon approach, or hold opinions that are considered outside the sphere of common thought. As a whole, this is okay. Not just okay, but good. Good for making societies interesting.

When everyone does x, that doesn’t mean you should be doing x. Divergence sometimes proves righteous. This is what I presume is intended by the bridge jumping saying.

However, I feel that many are far too arrogant in their divergencies. If something is different from everything else, that does not make it inately better. Often, it is not.

This is especially true in the West. Western (especially American) culture is so individualistic that arrogance is rampant. How often do people really stop think whether they are really right about an ingrained divergency, to think that maybe they are in the wrong…maybe they’re not a rare enlightened one. For example, maybe prevaling theory from experts might have just a modicum of validity. Maybe more than some nunce’s gut feeling.

Anyway, I’m rambling so to get to the point:

If everyone else is jumping off a bridge, don’t jump blindly, but question why you aren’t jumping. You might be right not to jump. However, as the only one not jumping, you should consider if jumping might be just fine. Maybe everyone else has a good reason to be jumping.

Who’s “he”?

If only one jumps, I’m gonna think “why are they jumping?”

If everyone is jumping and I know I’m surrounded by reasonable people, I wouldn’t jump blindly but I’m gonna think “why am I not jumping?”

I’ve never liked this saying.

I usually hear it as “if your friends […]” instead. If my friends—who I feel are quite level-headed—were jumping off of a bridge, I think they would probably have a pretty good reason. Is it because the bridge is short and they’re safely jumping into some water for fun? Is there a bear charging us from behind and they’ve noticed but I haven’t?

Surround yourself with good, level-headed people. If you’re friends are malicious or not all that bright, you can’t use this rule. If you’ve built up a well-meaning, sensible group of peers and they are all doing something, you should at least consider why you are not.

Then again I just wanted to dispute this saying, I’m not saying I agree with OP here.