A decent entry-level hardtail.

If there’s a 70 cm tall child standing in front of the vehicle, then in either case the child either would or wouldn’t be visible - there’s effectively no difference. It doesn’t really matter whether you can see 2 or 3 meters more of the road surface from one vehicle or the other. In both cases, the hood height is the same, and that’s what determines the safety in the event of a pedestrian collision.

Also, with a van, the rear visibility is greatly reduced compared to a pickup. You could say that can be compensated for with cameras - but that same argument applies to the front visibility as well.

Let’s also keep in mind where this discussion started from: a commenter was taking issue with clean, scuff-free pickups as if a work truck couldn’t look like that.

Which points exactly?

What’s your point? That thing is bigger than my pickup.

I’m not American either - I’m from Finland. I’ve been to the Netherlands, and I can’t quite imagine owning a truck there either.

However, your criticism was about clean, scuff-free trucks broadly. If you had said that you judge people for owning a truck when they have no practical need for one, I wouldn’t have any issue with that. But that’s not what you said.

I don’t own one of those gigantic American trucks, but a mid-size one - think Toyota Hilux, Ford Ranger, Mitsubishi L200, Nissan Navara, or Isuzu D-Max. The external dimensions and hood height on those are comparable to similarly sized work vans. So when someone needs a vehicle capable of hauling cargo, it’s basically a choice between a truck and a van - and there’s not much difference between the two in terms of pedestrian safety.

I’d even argue a truck might be safer, because you generally have better all-around visibility. Vans tend to have very limited rear visibility due to the enclosed cargo area. You could argue that a van is more convenient for hauling certain types of cargo, but that’s a separate discussion about practicality - not safety.

Most likely not. Depends how serious they are about it and how big of an factor it plays in their daily lives. Belief in god, to me, is an indication that a person is not capable of thinking rationally. At least not to the extent that I’m expecting from a parther. I don’t want to be with someone who can’t be reasoned with.

This applies to vans just as well though. This Ford Transit is little over a meter longer than a Toyota Hilux so these pictures are roughly to scale.

True, my bad. Many of the most commonly used vans here can tow 2500kg as long as the trailer has brakes. Anything more than that is rare though. Even many of the other mid-size pickups can’t tow 3000kg.

I don’t see why it would be a bad thing. There’s probably more to gain there than to lose if you want to think it that way.

I go discgolfing with one of my customer regularly.

Hood height, engine size, and the physical exterior dimensions of many vans are similar to those of pickup trucks. When used for work, it often just comes down to personal preference. One key difference is towing capacity - most vans are limited to around 750 kg, whereas trucks typically offer much more. Mine can tow up to 3000 kg.

Edit: Also, rear visibility in a van is much worse due to the enclosed cargo area. With a truck, you pretty much have 360-degree visibility.

Do you judge people driving clean, scuff free vans as well or only truck drivers?

I use my truck for work but other than having a roof rack you probably wouldn’t be able to tell it’s a work truck from the outside. When it gets dirty, I wash it, and when it gets dents or scratches I fix them. I don’t want it to look like a beater.

DayZ seems like a game that people either love or hate/have never heard of.

I’d almost claim it’s up there with GTA series as the best games ever made.

Stand by me

Perhaps it’s a bad analogy then, but my point still stands: what most people experience - or rather don’t experience - under general anesthesia is the absence of consciousness. If they’re dreaming, then by definition that’s not what I’m talking about.

The point is that what people mean by “consciousness” when discussing philosophical concepts like the hard problem of consciousness is different from what a layperson typically means by the term. That is what I argue cannot be an illusion.

What do you disagree with here exactly?

“Unconsciousness” as a clinical term is different from the absence of consciousness in the philosophical or phenomenological sense.

A sleeping person may appear unconscious to an outside observer, but from the subjective point of view, they’re not - because dreaming feels like something. A better example of what I mean by unconsciousness is general anesthesia. That doesn’t feel like anything. One moment you’re lying in the operating room counting backwards, and the next you’re in the recovery room. There’s no sense of time passing, no dreams, nothing in between - it’s just a gap.

Thomas Nagel explains this idea in What Is It Like to Be a Bat? by saying that if bats are conscious, then trading places with one wouldn’t be like the lights going out - it would feel like something to be a bat. But if you switched places with a rock, it likely wouldn’t feel like anything at all. It would be indistinguishable from dying - because there’s no subjectivity, no point of view, no experience happening.

Because consciousness is where illusions appear. The unconscious mind can’t experience illusions.

I’m using Thomas Nagel’s definition of consciousness: the fact of experience - that it feels like something to be from a subjective point of view.

Even if we’re living in a simulation and literally everything is fake, what remains undeniable is that it feels like something to be simulated. I’d argue that this is the only thing in the entire universe that cannot be an illusion.

I’m not that great at keeping backups to be honest.

When it comes to the device itself, I’d either buy a new one or use one of the old ones untill I can get the replacement parts to fix it.

There are very few pieces of knowledge that I’d consider a fact. Rather, I tend to see those as the best current knowledge that might turn out to be false in the future. The fact of consciousness is among the only things in the entire universe that I see as absolutely being true. Pretty much anything else can just be an illusion.

Well, Ozempic will make you lean, but it won’t make you fit or muscular - so there’s still that. In that sense, it might be more accurate to say that the people opposing it are likely those who’ve gotten lean through dieting and occasional exercise, rather than bodybuilders.