but I think the parents counterpoint was that the important parts of the internet (paying bills, buying things, registering for classes) don't require or presuppose anonymity.
Sure, but looking at this from a purely business perspective - I wonder how many customers would panic or jump ship rather than be grateful when notified of an attack. But I think it could work as an optional feature for paid accounts if it was marketed properly
I don't think any system can do much if things have degraded to the point where armed gangs are running around with impunity. I think systems (paper or otherwise) presuppose a certain level of functional civil society
I think the benefit here is that bias is easier to identify in an AI and if it's easier to identify it's easier to control and implement bias reduction mechanisms. Humans are much less upfront about their biases
I believe your statement can be 100% true without affecting the truth of the parents statement. It's possible for a government to charge high taxes and have high social spending while also funneling larger and larger amounts from the poor to the rich through regulations and government agencies that favor and act for the interests of the rich.
I've tried typsit and Ive really been enjoying it. It's very easy to learn and easy to use. It's a new project so it can't as of yet replace the functionality of LaTeX's many packages. However it is good for quick and easy texts, it's replaced markdown and office for me for writing simple documents on a computer.
You missed that I was replying to a poster who said we don't have safe supply in Canada and it was just a political scapegoat. Other papers have written about the more nefarious effects of safe supply but I avoided them because I suspected I was dealing with a group that would dismiss all criticism of it as propoganda from opponents who want to punish addicts with prison. So I posted a supportive article from a government sponsored source to prove safe supply actually exists in Canada and is not just a political scapegoat
I mean there aren't enough quality studies to make conclusions either way. But the promise to us was that safe supply would help drug users, and this uptick in homeless drug addicts and more people suffering visibility from drug issues at least seems to run counter to that that should at least give us pause and make us re evaluate
This was done because Portugal did it and people in places like hacker news started pushing it as evidence based because of self proclaimed success in Portugal. Well overdose and drug use is up in Portugal, it's up in Portland and it's up here. How long are proponents going to suggest other factors - this safe supply idea is starting to look less evidence based and more like a religious belief.
And this is a part of my problem with all this. I live in Toronto's downtown core and the explosion in drug issues since these policies came into effect is something I see and live with. And it's the same in our other major cities.
And too often the response from the proponents of these policies is outright misinformation, accusations of moralism. As someone living in an area where I am watching a drug problem spiral out of control, this is frankly infuriating.
This is my city and I see these people with addiction as neighbors I want to help. But these policies don't appear to be helping them. It looks to me like it's making things worse
If it's so good, if it's so helpful, why are there tent encampments full of people with drug issues popping up. We have shelters so it's not an issue of lack of shelters. Why are there so many more people high or doing drugs on our streets, why are overdose deaths the same or higher
Without the moralism, harm reduction is a vague term. Here in Canada the government has been pushing safe supply as a part of harm reduction. We still get the same number of overdoses but our cities are now filled with tent encampments and people with addiction issues. It doesn't seem to have helped with anything it's just made things worse
I don't deny that there are some forms of harm reduction which are proven to be effective. But I also think it's a vague weasel word for just give them drugs or just make it all legal. Which is not a good policy as we have seen here.
Ironically just using vague terms like harm reduction without putting forward a specific strategy is a sort of moralizing of its own
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArriveCAN