ahmeneeroe-v2

Often that reason is "committed a horrific violent crime"

You may be done with that idea but the idea is not done. We can choose to limit the franchise or we can have it imposed on us when a strongman takes advantage of the chaos.

Great response, you said it better than me.

I am more skeptical of homicide rate stats than you are, given the garbage data I see for crime in general, but even I am willing to admit they're much more robust than the rest.

Short answer: idk.

Longer answer: this is a fundamental problem across many domains. I don't think anyone has solved it.

I think of a story of Bezos being told by his Amazon execs that customer support wait times were meeting X service levels. In the meeting room with his execs, Bezos dials up customer service, gets some wait time of >>>X and makes the point that service levels are not up to his expectations.

I don't think that story is a great analogy for running society but is interesting nonetheless.

Stats are also "not necessarily representative of the state of things". At the very best they are a single factoid about a very complex human existence.

Stats only get worse from there: at neutral they contain no information, at worst they are dis-info.

Very funny, thanks for the response.

I am concerned about the lack of follow through after police intervention. Lack of prosecution and convictions, light sentences, repeat offenders being released, etc.

If judges would simply keep someone with 3+ felonies in jail, crime would drop 80%.

I work with stats. I think even very honest people with high incentive to tell an accurate story and good data have trouble with stats. Now add politicians and police and bad data into that mix with winner-takes-all politics at stake and the stats get gamed.

Also I believe my eyes and when I see crimes happening in my neighborhood I don't rush to "the stats" to ask them what I saw.

Thanks for the response and I generally agree. Though I HATE HATE HATE the march towards the surveillance state, we need to stop crime.

I was specifically asking about the GP's focus on vehicles (larger plates, unregistered vehicle enforcement) and how they thought that would reduce crime so much.

It's weird that people think popular ideas flow from popular politicians instead of realizing that politicians picking up popular ideas is what makes the politician popular.

In other words: idea -> pol.

Everything else you said should get you flagged, but it is popular here so I'm not holding my breath.

>questionable if we should allow the childless and the aged to even vote

We do need to restrict the franchise drastically. I don't know if this is where I'd draw the line, but it is actually one of the better ideas.

Other ideas: net tax payers, veterans, citizens

Just curious to understand how you think vehicles are such a critical point for decreasing crime in the US?

I do agree that we have heavy crime (though HN will say it's all anecdotal and the stats show we're in a period of remarkable peace).

I just don't know that greater enforcement around vehicle use will have the outsized effect that you're claiming.

Wow a masking-maximalist in 2025! I admire your tenacity!

Hey CJ! No I don't have a genuine concern at all. But it was a real question and thank you very much for answering it with a real answer.

FWIW, I like that there is a carveout for economically disadvantaged folks. Either way doesn't affect me since I'm not a NYer.

How does NYC congestion pricing deal with disparate impacts? Real question, I don't live near NYC

It's weird that immigration and housing is an off-limits topic for you that you're not able to discuss it objectively.

You think that a minimum of 35% of demand being artificial isn't a factor that can be seen to increase overall demand?

edit: I say "minimum 35%" because that is just the percentage of immigrant-demand that managed to secure housing. Hard to say exactly how many more immigrants are bidding on SF & LA-County housing but 35% is the absolute floor.

Great response. Totally agree.

What is the standard for being too mentally ill to pilot a plane?

In the culture I grew up in, this was considered cheating.

It filters out the people who are too mentally ill to mask.

Tricky problem. I sympathize with pilots here, but the zero-risk approach has worked very well for fliers in aggregate.

People are allowed to pull their kids out for religious reasons.

The fact that humans are bad at tracking stats does not necessarily mean that statistics are a more accurate "map" of reality than human intuition.

(edited for clarity)

Don't improve anything until you can fix everything! No incremental improvements allowed!

The other factor is not removing the bottom _% of hugely disruptive and violent children from schools.

This is exactly right. I had a kid in Seattle schools during this time and this is exactly how I saw it happen and and Seattle schools were a major reason I left Seattle.

>cross section of actual American kids

So many factors have led this to be a major liability for young people now. School is not what it was 20 years ago.

The community got together, worked on a solution, that solution lead to arrests. A politically savvy prosecutor would not easily dismiss an organized community with proven ability to drive results.

So yes, the camera didn't do it, but it helped.

what

Bad reading comprehension. This isn't a "both sides are bad" thing. Both sides are different than they were from 1980 - 2008.