cnelsenmilt

Absolutely. And union negotiations, and then a strike, are some ways that the workers can make it break.

It can still be assault and kidnapping when the police do it, if they don't have a good reason and follow the rules. Same applies to surveillance. The question is not cops vs. non-cops: it's what the valid reasons and rules for the cops are.

People objected to the TSA, but the political climate in 2002 was too much in favor of it.

Personally I've always preferred to muddy the waters by treating it as a fourth-declension noun, so that its plural would be octopūs.

Sure, this is the desirable solution. But...your example, people did believe it. So is it not as easy as we'd like? Or as a society, what do we do when this easy bar is not being met by our friends, neighbors, relatives?

Weird, why is this year-old article reposted twice in 12 hours? Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33399753

There's no reasonable equivalence between the two events you're referring to. If you wanted a recent rightist event comparable to CHAZ, you could go with the Malheur standoff, perhaps.

Also, "no armed confrontation with police" and your last paragraph are disingenuous at best.

I truly can't think of a more fundamental element of a democratic system than who is enfranchised, and there have been two or three enormous changes in the answer to that since the founding.

If you go to the bookstore and there are two shelves, one of Danielle Steel novels and another of Dan Brown, are you making a free choice to read trashy pulp fiction?

This doesn't appear to be a response to any of the content of the comment it is posted in reply to. Or indeed the entire thread.

I'm not sure how "defamation" is germane to the discussion, or the original point that you responded to.

Is it your position then that since the developers had neutral intent, therefore the algorithms do not need to be adjusted?

In the same way when you sit down to play a boardgame with someone and they draw extra cards, fudge die rolls, and flip over the table when a turn goes against them: they're no longer playing the agreed-on game at that point, and you and the other players don't have to accept their behavior as part of the play.

There is a baseline set of rules (in the USA we have the Constitution) for how the game works. Like a person's freedom to swing their arm, a voter's freedom on what to vote for must stop at the limit of the other voters' rights. The "Tyranny of the Majority" is a related concept as well.

Future investors are not analogous to customers.

Well, I've lived here for the last 15 years and other than getting buzzed by a car once or twice on my bike I have not ever "feared for my life".

You're begging the question with your assumption that the previous price of labor reflected its true value and the new price is excessive. What if it was previously undervalued and the new price is correct?

This and also arguably 70 year old moms are probably just fine at "don't lose this crucial piece of paper" given stuff like social security cards, birth certificates, savings bonds, and all the other bits that have been important pieces of paper for most of their lives.

25 years ago there was a pay phone in every gas station, and in denser areas in every corner market, bus terminal, grocery store, hotel, ..., not mentioning those installed directly along the street.

Sure, and this is why the wealthy always use some of their wealth protecting themselves. In a society where physical violence is an immanent possibility they hire some kind of bodyguards; in a society like ours where the main threats are not physical in nature, they employ lawyers.

It's funny, because this should be a point of crossover for the (populist) left and the right. Basic nationalism on the one hand, "Buy Local" on the other. They all want the same thing, or close to it. The potential for alliance on economic topics like this is so blindingly obvious, and it's so frustrating that it gets derailed by "cultural" sideshows so that no one can talk to each other or realize they have the same interests ultimately.

Sorry, I'm confused now, are we talking about a place where people exchange

> civilly-expressed criticism of themselves and their worldview [0]

or where they should expect to be ridiculed and insulted? And why would anyone sane want to regularly participate in the latter?

[0]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31167326

> If an outgroup wants a private, safe space to express themselves

That's not particularly close to what I said. I am talking about the outgroup being able to participate in the "public square of free expression", in a way that is actually free for them to speak to the ingroup.

Well, the big issue is that completely unmoderated free speech in an environment like Twitter only stays free for the loudest, biggest two (or so) groups. The others are just shouted down and may as well go home.

> the sort of place that people feel unafraid to discuss controversial subjects?

> If the choice is between some outgroups feeling uncomfortable with civilly-expressed criticism of themselves

So this is the key tension. Outgroups get criticism of themselves every-bloody-where. As you noted, "We're discriminatory, hierarchical, social animals". One more place doesn't make the difference. What good moderation does is provide an opening for an outgroup to issue its own civilly-expressed criticism, with a chance of being listened to instead of reflexively ridiculed and dismissed.

But do they think the police should be more involved in exactly the same way they are now? I don't know, but I do assume that if asked they would suggest some changes in behavior: "police should be more involved but also they should stop with the X and do more of Y". Either way, that angle is certainly missing from the single question cited above.

> you can't send human remains by postal service or courier), and much easier too. I wonder whether anyone offers it as a commercial service

Wouldn't that just be a courier then?

> Theoretically, then the bike should be stopping.

As I and others have pointed out elsewhere, the law hasn't changed at all what a bike may or should do when there is a car present. It only covers the situation when there is no other traffic.

This new law hasn't changed a bicycle's abilities, privileges, or responsibilities when other traffic is present. So if there is a situation where "the people driving the cars expect you to stop" the person on the bicycle still needs to stop. (Assuming the expectation is correct.)

Not really; in that case the stop sign should just be a yield sign. That's the point of this law: the margin where an action is safe enough is vastly different between bikes and cars. A car and a bike travelling at the same speed will cause vastly different amounts of harm on impacting the same object. The absolute time to emergency stop is different, thus the required reaction time. And so on.

> wait in line behind a car, but often drivers dislike this more

Yes, it can also cause you to miss the light or be in the intersection when red, if it is a quick one and the driver up front is not paying attention, since the bike can't accelerate as quickly from the stop. But I will do this, if it seems safer for the intersection. It's all contextual…

> Today I was delayed by a lone cyclist,… I just accepted that he has the same right…

Cheers for your charitable, patient, and friendly attitude.