Anything controversial will have this issue. But COVID, BLM, and things relating to the current administration often have those biases. To see how rules get weaponized, see the talk pages. You find that a lot of reasonable editors are basically blocked using one technicality or the other, and it is used to keep balanced views out of Wikipedia. The rules sound benign until you see how they favor one side.
Low earning degrees aren’t economically valuable to society. Why aren’t they cancelled outright? What makes them different from learning something on your own for fun?
I wish they would also do something about state-level bans. It’s ridiculous that people can be banned from buying a gas range for cooking or from using a wood based heating system or whatever else. But that’s where things are going in some places.
Yep, this has long been an issue. Wikipedia articles on even slightly political topics are very one-sided. The rules that govern Wikipedia reinforce a certain set of views, and those who hold power in that community also share certain sets of views. Larry Sanger has talked about this trend for many years, but I am not sure there’s a way to stop the increasing bias in Wikipedia. The activists running it have too much time.
Given all the bad press around things like the millennium tower, I think once you have an issue like this, the building is done. No one will want to live there. And given structural problems with load bearing beams, I would expect the building has to be demolished. But maybe they can demolish it top down partially and rebuild up from the compromised area if the city and engineers deem that safe.
Most of the time you’re giving that info to stripe or Shopify. But also credit cards are protected - you can dispute charges - so it’s not a huge risk IMO
Laws are laws, and they still exist. Being anti social means acting in ways that affect others in society negatively. That’s what setting off fireworks late at night is. Yes, they need to follow OUR rules because we live in a society. And they should share my priorities. If they were doing things that ONLY affect them, that’s different. But we’re talking about waking everyone else up. Spare me your virtue signaling.
There have also been incidents of people being hit by those bullets. It’s just so reckless and dangerous for people to do that. But there’s always someone doing it …
My city did not have these issues. Population changes and cultural changes have brought in a large enough number of anti social people that then make things bad for everyone else. It’s not about being in a city, but the fact that a small number of selfish people think they have a right to disrupt everyone else.
In a lot of states, Indian reservations can also sell them. And they’re basically completely unregulated. It’s illegal to bring them or set them off into other towns but people do it. Hundreds of people. And tens of thousands have to be repeatedly woken up because of their selfishness.
I see way too many trashy people setting off commercial grade illegal fireworks in the middle of crowded cities and neighborhoods. It is incredibly disruptive and damaging. Vets are traumatized. Dogs are traumatized. And sleep deprived parents have to repeatedly put babies back to sleep. It is insane that police do not enforce laws against these criminals.
I’ve also noticed fertility is high among certain immigrant demographic groups. Near me, it’s refugee groups (asylum applicants) where families very typically have 4 or more kids. In a couple decades I can see the demographics being very different in America, but especially Europe. It’ll probably look more brown, more Islamic relative to today.
What’s interesting to me is that these groups are very effective at making use of programs we have to help families and subsidize costs. But I feel like Americans generally are less aware of these programs or decide they can’t afford children without considering this help.
Why not emphasize the issue of civil rights and make it disqualifying as a single issue for any politician? At least online it feels like people care about chat control a lot but when it comes to voting, the type of dystopian control EU bureaucrats are building isn’t in anyone’s mind. So politicians can get away with supporting those policies since there isn’t a consequence for them.
Seattle Times is left leaning. Just because your pet measure of transit was opposed doesn’t make it otherwise. Calling it conservative is simply unmoored from reality. It’s also a display of what Seattle politics are like and why it has declined so much on so many facets in a short 20 years. The rampant progressive extremism is the root cause of the issues affecting Seattle. There is no balance or practical governance.
Governments don’t work for people. Yet they use terms like democracy all the time. The repeated attempts at chat control are so blatantly anti civil rights but also disrespectful of democratic principles. Why do EU citizens tolerate this? Are they okay being made a fool of or is this just not an issue for them after all?
It’s a public space. No one should be able to just take it over for free. We aren’t being compensated for the pollution of our skies. And also, higher orbits require much longer for debris to fall back and burn up.
Given the state of corruption in politics, I think Anthropic and OpenAI will likely bribe … oh wait I mean “lobby” … for bans on open source. Otherwise their imaginary trillion dollar valuations make no sense.