• 2 Posts
  • 29 Comments
Joined 8 days ago
cake
Cake day: April 12th, 2026

help-circle







  • The carbrains are mad indeed. They are super annoyed that “we built a bridge for one billion euros and then blocked cars from it for no reason!”

    Of course the bridge cost a bit over 300 millions. But, there was a larger project where they included everything they needed to build in the vicinity of the bridge project, so that they wouldn’t need to dig the ground open, fill it, dig it open again, etc. And everything included, the project did indeed cost a bit over one billion. That number includes the four-lane Hakaniemi bridge, built mainly for cars and without any public transportation routes. And it includes the groundwork for many new houses. And some 10 km of new tram line. And a tram depot. And a block of flats that will be built right overneath the tram depot. Of course, when the flats will be sold, much of the costs of that house will be paid back to the city. And then there are two further tram bridges.

    There is no space for more cars in the street network on the cape where the city centre of Helsinki is located, so they would have needed to spend at least 500 million extra to accommodate for the cars that would come from that bridge. Plus, the bridge itself would have had to be built three times as wide as it was built now, which would have cost some hundreds of millions as well. For anybody not going for the centre, there is anyway a better route through another bridge on the northern end of the Laajasalo island. So, not spending some 700 million extra, bringing the total cost of the project from a bit over one billion to a bit under 2 billion, meant that money was wasted.

    I’ve been wondering, why do they not complain that no cars are allowed in the metro tunnels? Why dig tunnels and then prohibit driving cars in the perfectly good tunnels??









  • Lehmuusa@nord.pubto196@lemmy.blahaj.zonePlan B rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    It isn’t rocket science, but it sometimes the condom having broken gets noticed only when the woman feels something liquid-ish inside her that should not be there. I wouldn’t stigmatize inexperienced people as having had unprotected sex if they have done all they can with the knowledge they have to protect themselves.


  • Lehmuusa@nord.pubto196@lemmy.blahaj.zonePlan B rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    And also, if you have protected wex, you have protected sex, yes.

    One interesting question: how do you know you have learned everything you need to know about condomology? If I understand right, you consider protected sex unprotected, if the people having it are not aware of some safety aspect regarding how to use a condom.

    You seem to find it important to stigmatise people for having unprotected sex even in situations where they, by their own understanding, are having protected sex. I’d like you to elaborate a bit more on your philosophy, please! :)



  • Lehmuusa@nord.pubto196@lemmy.blahaj.zonePlan B rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 days ago

    So, if a woman cannot use birth control pills nor have a temporary sterilization, and therefore the only usable contraceptive is a condom, her sex life is always unprotected?

    Condoms can break if there is a long hair in a spot where it manages to cut the condom’s head off. You can learn to check for that, but many people learn that through, well, trial and error.