This is a nice idea, but it's empty. There were widely reported ICE operations in Minnesota over the past few days, yet it's blank on the map. Seems like a fun vibe-code project, but not useful w/o data.
Legal-tech: Using AI to help attorneys bill flat-rate instead of hourly. It's data intensive, but possible if you go through their old time entries and tell them the flat-rate price of all of their hourly work. 93% of attorneys bill hourly, primarily b/c they don't have any sense of the cost of the upcoming work. DM me if you want to work on these problems.
> The moment we acknowledge that some lawyers (doctors, teachers, chefs, etc.) are better and some are worse, we must by necessity accept that there is no such thing as equality. Because some will by necessity get a better deal, and some will get a poorer one.
Some analogies work better here than others. Sure, a rich person may get a better chef and better food than a poor person.
But should a rich person get better justice than a poor person? The entire idea of justice is that it's blind, everyone who comes before it is equal. If we accept the fact that rich folks get more justice than poor folks, we are by definition admitting that there is no justice at all.
> So who should be the arbitrator of truth? ... Free Speech is the most powerful tool
Generally, an independent judiciary is the arbitrator of truth.
Free speech has never been absolute. Free speech does not protect intentionally false speech. For example, tricking people to give you money is fraud. Libel is too. You can support free speech while also protecting truth. When the issue pops up, a judge determines who's right and wrong.