The opportunity for trolling is endless, people looking to smell "strawberries" would instead end up smelling other things... B.O. , farts you name it. I wish the iSmell actually had succeeded, too bad.
SQL vocabulary is better than functional vocabulary as for many people lot of understanding (and actual use) of set manipulation and transformation starts with SQL. Why have one set of terms for code and a different set on the DB? Thats like saying why is there English, Spanish is functionally equivalent etc. Except that I already learned English (SQL) so why don't you just let me speak English (SQL) in my code?
Homeless people using transit as a shelter is a huge problem, it makes transit undesirable. Also politicians are so milquetoast they won't address the problem for fear of looking like a 'bad guy' when in reality transit was never designed to be a homeless shelter, so homeless need to be forcibly removed from the vehicle and excluded from the transit system where possible. Eventually homeless ruin everything they touch and society needs to find a way to deal with them.
Okay I guess I have to heavily adjust my view of public transit here. Given, I've only seen European transit systems, but none of them had a problem of that scale. Sure, the occasional junkie and drunk, but nothing even remotely bad enough to have an influence on my everyday transit behaviour.
That being said: I prefer biking, and with two saddle bags I can easily do the shopping for two.
And I've seen friends get e-bikes and ditch a lifelong car lifestyle on the countryside.
EDIT
And "by the way": why do the richest societies of the world afford themselves the " luxury " of having homeless people at all? It's so weird...
You can't solve the issue of poverty. Poverty is as unsolvable as stupidity, or having people you don't personally get along with in the world. Those aren't solvable problems. Poverty is relative, so there will always be "poor" people. Even our poor people rich compared to Indias. And I assume you are fine with spending other peoples money to solve homelessness, or spend from the "commons" as is the typical solution to this issue. You want to spend while requiring nothing in return for that spend. So easy to make trite little comments that show you "care".
I think my original comment may have been a bit too snarky. But countries like the US could absolutely be doing more for their poor and downtrodden than they currently do. And yes, I guess I am fine with spending "other people's money" (AKA money belonging to people who don't need it) if it means that the quality of life for those with the least advantages was improved.
>But countries like the US could absolutely be doing more
They could do more for sure. But it's a bottomless pit. The more you invest the more "poor" people are "pulled" into orbit of the programs requiring more spend, which brings more poor which requires more spend ad inifinitum.
> I am fine with spending "other people's money" (AKA money belonging to people who don't need it)
Oh ok then, I just decided that you don't need your money and I will spend it on the poor. Since I am "good" and I have everyones best interests at heart because I said so, then there's no problem. I will also decide who does and doesn't "need" their money. What an awesome power to wield.
What weasel word language you're using "life for those with the least advantages" just because you are poor doesn't mean you didn't earn it or don't deserve it. What simplistic logic you are using, what gigantic and awesome powers you propose to wield with such little thought.
Because they are a money pit, more and more and more money is required. The more resources and infrastructure you build to "help" them simply pulls more of them to you, which then requires more money to maintain and on and on.
The most basic standards of care and concern are absent from them, they litter and loiter and harass and stink and steal without any regard. So attract them to your city at your peril.
>That being said: I prefer biking, and with two saddle bags I can easily do the shopping for two
^This right here. You don't come into contact with them ever, so you don't see the problem. You probably never will but you cluck cluck whenever somebody who does have to deal with them complains.
> Eventually homeless ruin everything they touch and society needs to find a way to deal with them
Although your rhetoric is terrible, you're not entirely wrong there.
But using jackbooted thugs to kick homeless people off public transport is not the solution though, and doesn't achieve anything. It simply pushes the problem somewhere else. You need to actually solve the causes of the problem, rather than trying to cover up the symptoms. That's not even starting on how you determine if someone is homeless or not. I saw a hipster the other day who I genuinely thought was homeless, until I saw that he had a bottle of craft beer under his arm, rather than a $2 bottle of wine.
If anything, banning homeless from public transport is just going to make the problem worse, because you've just pushed them somewhere else. Now they have no means to move anywhere (or they'll just steal bikes), and they're just going to shelter anywhere else that they can, including breaking into buildings.
Society does need to find a way to "deal" with homeless people, but you can't just make being homeless illegal. Just like you can't "deal" with heroin addicts by banning needles.
>Now they have no means to move anywhere (or they'll just steal bikes), and they're just going to shelter anywhere else that they can, including breaking into buildings.
They already do all of these things.. and also they befoul public transport and harass people on the subway and buses.
You merely assume I want to do unethical things to them meanwhile you don't really condemn their unethical behavior denying their agency while amplifying mine. I think we should just round them up and take them to a place outside of town that feeds them clothes them and gives them whatever drink and drugs or amusements they want so long as they stay there. ALL benefits are contingent on life reform so they can continue to receive benefits if they leave, or they must stay there (kind of like a gilded cage).
I can guarantee that's because the article is light on insight and heavy on emotionality and will almost certainly seek to tug on the heartstrings as it has no real commentary or insight into the situation. It just wants to show you crying babies, women and sad people.
>free college for all students who maintain adequate gpas, no more federal loans. impose cost controls on universities that take federal money.
You could probably do all this, but then you would have to clamp down on all the freeloaders, "irregular immigrants" and other people draining the public coffers.
Cutting into defense spending WILL NEVER HAPPEN so don't even suggest it. Yes it is a perfectly viable place to get all the money you could ever want, but regime change isn't free, and the US pays Israel 38 Bln a year in outright cash or arms. The money the US gifts Israel alone would likely make all your student loan debt disappear (for Citizen students with good GPA's).
A good comment I read here on HN was to the effect of: the minimum viable unit of humanity is not a single couple (two people), it is actually a village / tribe (more like 150 people).
>With regards to my sexuality, I owe "society" absolutely nothing.
This is incorrect. You actually owe society everything. You don't generate your own electricity. If you are robbed / assaulted you won't prosecute the offenders on your own. You don't feed yourself and on and on. You don't even ensure your own safety, mostly "the herd" accomplishes that for you.
The only reason you can exist at all is because of the thousands and millions of competent caring people around you who you can communicate with because you speak the same language. There are so many details and dependencies that you have and are taking for granted they can't even be enumerated accurately.
Even your health didn't just fall out of the sky, you owe your health to the fact that your parents passed on functioning genes to you, and that the environmental laws ensured you weren't poisoned, on and on and on. You literally DO owe society everything. Yet I would be good money that you only value your society to the extent it enables you to pursue your own desires and vices.
Except I justly compensate people for my electricity, food, and clothing. I do not steal it from them. For almost everything I am provided, I agree to pay a set amount to receive a desired service.
It's not "society" I owe anything to, it's the individuals I enter into voluntary contracts with. And "society" has no more right to disrupt the voluntary relationships I enter into any more than another private citizen. To declare my sexuality or relationships are not serving "society" well enough is a criminal infringement of my freedom of association, and no amount of populist religious zealotry will make it permissible or right.
>Except I justly compensate people for my electricity, food, and clothing. I do not steal it from them.
I didn't imply that you do steal.
Also the money is another manifestation of the society (that you apparently don't owe anything to) since the society enforces the utility and value of the money and that it can be exchanged for anything at all.
The fact that you can negotiate with them in a common currency using a common medium of exchange in a safe place is fully a manifestation of the society you live in.
>It's not "society" I owe anything to, it's the individuals I enter into voluntary contracts with
What if your plumber doesn't honor the contract? What if the electricity doesn't get connected even though you paid your money? I guess you won't complain to anybody about it right?
>To declare my sexuality or relationships are not serving "society" well enough is a criminal infringement of my freedom of association
You received your genes and your health and your welfare from "society" (and society includes your parents) you are free to do as you wish within the rules of your society. That doesn't mean you can't be considered selfish or a bad person.
You can do whatever you want to do largely within our society, but I am just calling you out on your false assertion that you don't owe society anything. Nobody can make you have kids for example, but choosing not to have them (assuming they would come out healthy) is a selfish act because you deprive the future people of the company/help/participation of those individuals you chose not to bring into the world. You benefitted from all the kids other people chose to have (all the people you enter into voluntary contracts with) but choose not to pay back by having your own who will inevitably be of benefit to others in many ways. That's my point. I and society are not compelling you to do anything, but I and also society at large can certainly comment on it.
>and no amount of populist religious zealotry will make it permissible or right.
> I and society are not compelling you to do anything, but I and also society at large can certainly comment on it.
I think this is the root issue here. We have freedom of association, but there should be no expectation that there will be no social commentary when you exercise that freedom.
For my part, I have a theory that polyamory has historically been marginalized except for in fairly small, homogenous cultures, might be due to the fact that when a polyamorus relationship fails there are many more people intimitaly tied to the fall out. In a monogamous relationships there's generally only two people so emotionally invested as to be damaging. Thus, in a community there are more emotionally detatched people available to help move on. All just a theory though.
>I think this is the root issue here. We have freedom of association, but there should be no expectation that there will be no social commentary when you exercise that freedom.
The slippery slope that people don't anticipate, is when government makes rules that allow them to silence people for "good" reasons. As soon as you allow that then you end freedom of expression.
Example: Administration A makes anti-hate speech laws
10 years later Administration B comes along, nobody likes them, they complain about it. Gets slapped with "hate speech" has to prove a negative that their speech isn't hate, from jail.....
Power corrupts that's why we try to limit the power of government, or any orginization, because government and corporations are made of people and people are fallible and greedy etc
The only thing you can do is simply allow pure freedom of expression, good or bad. Any given individual simply listens to what they want to listen to and ignores what they don't. That is the only practical way forward.
If you want to punish people purely for the speech, without regard to the consequences, then no, you do not support freedom of speech. If someone shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater and is ignored, it's not an issue. If someone causes people to be harmed by starting a stampede in a crowded theater, whether through yelling or pulling the fire alarm, it is the harm that they are responsible for.
Compare this with the censorship imposed by many governments. Blasphemy, a pure speech act, is a victimless crime. Anyone who supports laws against it does not support free speech.
That precedent was overturned by SCOTUS over forty years ago. It is no longer legally relevant, but I suppose it's useful as a speech control dogwhistle.
Please. It is pretty clear that this is not freedom of expression, but merely malicious trolling. And just because there are edge cases doesn't mean that reasonable laws can't be defined.
Obviously (but apparently not so obvious): Explicit threats of physical violence are not freedom of speech.
And that's the line.
A: Not "Free speech": I am going to kill you.
B: "Free Speech": I hope that you die.
A is an explicit threat.
B is merely offensive and an expression of ill will.
These are so bloody irrelevant. People need to take this more seriously.
Is this speech:
Investigative reporter finds major issue with all major news outlets in a country
Reports it on social media
All news channels ignore it, they instead cover other material and bury it
-------
People create incendiary whatsapp messages
they are refined and designed to be absorbed immediately by people
People form mobs and kill women and men over 50 times in separate incidents because they believe the targets are "child abductors".
-----
There are riots.
People start spreading false information
Enemy Nation states intervene and spike the narrative.
The riots turn into a coup.
-----
The internet is evolving the way people deal with speech itself.
The old lines in the sand are for people who remember them. But the vast majority of people just dont know, dont care.
The truly malicious are using speech to cause harm at scale we have not seen before.
They have a way to now target human systems that could not be harmed, and which have no native protections that can deal with this problem at the rate/scales of today.
Case in point- Fake news and propaganda. And by fake news, the original meaning - IE random people in Romania creating websites which look like news sites to farm clicks and make money.
Those fake news sites are a perfectly legitimate exercise of free speech.
Did they lie? Is it an issue if someone lies?
-----
My point is simply this - the old rules are going to end, pretty damn fucking quick.
Governments are not going to sit around letting a Cambridge Analytica scenario unfold, or a Brexit unfold ever again.
This means that they will ALL look to becoming China lite variants very soon.
Speech = thought = ideas - which are now being put to the test with industrialized propaganda.
You dont need to drop leaflets over enemy lines when you can advertize through facebook. Or send whatsapp messages via sleeper cells.
You dont need to indoctrinate only those people who come to your centers, you can polarize swathes of people - and the Internet and content generators will HELP you, because outrage = engagement.
To be honest I don't know what point you are trying make other than governments don't like people to think for themselves.
The gist of your point is that when people hear ideas (that you imply they shouldn't hear) then they can make decisions that you or the government doesn't want.
My point: Let me hear things and I'll make my own decisions using my brain.
Your point?: People are dumb and what they hear should be curated so they can decide "good" things and not "bad" things. I guess you or the govt gets to decide what's good and bad, and which ideas are "weaponized" or not.
Exactly. Freedom of speech is not just the freedom TO speak, its also the freedom to think.
As an early millennial, I'm astounded to see this distinction is being lost on the current generation. One regimes hate speech becomes the next administrations purge list.
This is an old argument - its been the vanguard for speech and anti regulation since the first webforums were made and the first hackers got together and discussed the "old world".
But today regulation IS coming. And many of those old beards will be on the side of regulation - because there are huge issues with the way the internet is currently working out.
> Sociopaths, in their own best interests, knowingly promote over-performing losers into middle-management, groom under-performing losers into sociopaths, and leave the average bare-minimum-effort losers to fend for themselves.
