this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2023
28 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37717 readers
469 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
Los@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social
remington@beehaw.org
28
Electric scooter company Bird files for bankruptcy (techcrunch.com)
submitted 11 months ago by Xepher@lemm.ee to c/technology@beehaw.org
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 14 points 10 months ago (4 children)

You’re right, it’s very NIMBY sounding

[–] NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org 3 points 10 months ago

Dude honestly sounds proud of being a NIMBY

[–] FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org 3 points 10 months ago

As much as the scooters used to annoy me, the Atlanta ban demonstrated that their presence has a significant positive effect on both pollution and traffic, so now I'm fine with them.

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Hence why I clarified that I have no issue with them being removed. They're terrible when you're not the one using them.

It's my same outlook with cruises. I don't do them, but if my family wanted to take one I would probably join. I am also super cool with them being banned from the world. Feels pretty consistent to me lol

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's not what the term means. NIMBY refers to people trying to prevent other people from using their own property in ways they don't like, not people who don't want shitty companies actively throwing trash in the commons.

[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You’re wrong:

a person who does not want something unpleasant to be built or done near where they live

Another!

a colloquialism signifying one’s opposition to the locating of something considered undesirable in one’s neighborhood.

Maybe one more?

opposition to the locating of something considered undesirable (such as a prison or incinerator) in one's neighborhood

[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

None of those contradict my definition.

Not wanting a company dumping fucking trash in the streets is not and does not even vaguely resemble NIMBYism.

[–] sim_@beehaw.org 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You’re omitting the part where OP is fine with the “trash dumping” in the streets of other locales. That’s what makes it NIMBY (as OP admits).

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

edit: whelp egg on my face on this one. Wasn't even directed at me.

[–] sim_@beehaw.org 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yikes dude, you’re blaming me for the reddit-esque toxicity.

I was using the other guy’s wording (“trash dumping”) specifically in quotes because I didn’t agree with that sentiment re: scooters. I’m not making any point about you, I’m talking about the use of the term NIMBYism. Dang.

[–] acastcandream@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago

Seemed directed at me, my bad.

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

Those certain contradict your attempt to place a weird limit on for ‘NIMBY’ can be used.