1,499 karma · joined March 28, 2022
No, the problem is that people see rent-seeking behaviour everywhere where it doesn't exist. If you think you can do it better...do it.
there is some kind of amnesia that exists with things that used to cost massive amounts but are now close to free. it is just not possible to explain to someone that in the recent past, most people were just unable to own stocks because of costs.
The other issue is that the narrative about safety within these companies is largely a function of the extreme financial incentive.
As an example, Anthropic was an "ai safety" company that has now produced an AI that fails to listen to basic instructions. If you were concerned about safety, would you produce an AI that was unable to follow instructions? You ask a question, it begins executing commands and doing things.
Safety is product to sell to politicians, not consumers.
Not serious.
Acknowledging the problem doesn't make it go away: you must be a big war on drugs guy? right?
Proof if proof needed of the complete pointlessness of casino gambling. Some people will still do it even when they know they can't win anything.
For comparison, there are offline casinos who use targeted adverts saying that they do not comply with regulators, and their adverts are designed in such a way as to appeal to people with gambling addiction (usually showing some kind of live play, which is banned in every regulated market afaik).
You can be sceptical of the motives of individuals but there are very strong corporate incentives from state regulators (in the US, particularly those with physical casinos).
Yes, it happens to every gambler who spends a lot of money. That is how VIP tiers are defined, based on how much you spend. There is no way for them (or anyone) to understand the customer's state of mind. Should it be illegal for retailers to offer customers discounts? Compulsive shopping is significantly more common than gambling addiction, do retailers target those customers?
If you never want to gamble, you tell the state regulator you never want to gamble and you will be unable to use any site.
Some slot machines/casino games are designed to appeal to problem gamblers. DK and co, however, do not design these games, and state regulators do already control aspects of their design. For online operators, this doesn't represent most of their revenue and, I suspect, most would be quite happy not to provide these products.
There are multiple companies that will take your money and data and say they have found a way of identifying gamblers, afaik none of these products actually or can work.
What that article showed is: someone uses a product, they do not activate any features to use the product safely, and then they it is unsafe. DK have safety features integrated with governments already in the product.
Politicians continue with the lie that they will build council houses. Voters continue with the lie that voting will change the outcome.
The inability to cope with failure is a culture that is common in Europe. Failure is so personally devastating, so destructive to social and cultural standing that not only must you not take risks but other people must be actively prevented from taking risk.
Maybe the US investment doesn't work, but the US will have tried at least. Taiwan is, ironically, the perfect example of where the initial impetus came from the government because there was no culture of risk-taking. Parts of Europe have a savings culture that is very similar to Taiwan and led to very poor growth and very high inequality.
If the US keeps trying, they will succeed. On here, the view was that China could never build out this capacity, they did. The only way to guarantee failure is to never try.
Scotland is a good example: every government since the mid-2010s has been elected on the explicit promise to build more houses, they cannot do so because of the electoral consequences so they attempt to build council houses, it is impossible for the government to build enough council houses to make up for multiple decades of underbuilding (this problem has accelerated significantly whilst they have been promising to build housing, had explicit targets, etc.), but at the next election they make the same promises (and people vote for them because there is no alternative).
The really strange thing is that people also see the massive growth in student housing in Scotland. Again, very good for politicians: more conservative foreign students can't vote, domestic students will vote left-wing.
The politics of this topic are very strange. The public is still at the stage where they think in vague terms that the problem is a lack of housing.
I believe the problem is worse in Scotland because the growth in council housing in the 60/70s was organised in order to create this permanent bloc vote. The same has happened in London where you have whole constituencies where 70% of the effective vote is void.
look at the last few governments, now imagine that we had a system that meant it was impossible to form a government if the government wasn't popular. there is no natural majority for any position that a political party in the UK can realistically take.
you don't end up with greater democracy, you end up handing unlimited power to unelected people working in government who end up being the only source of administrative stability
one of the main problems is that people in the UK who are in politics often disagree with voters at a fundamental level. changing the electoral system will not fix this. you will have elections, they will say they will fix problems they don't want to fix to win the election, and then their popularity will plummet shortly after as the insiders take over and do weird stuff that no-one voted for or wants. when you have governments that are repeatedly unable to perform very basic state functions, the problem is not the electoral system (or voters, one of the unusual aspects of politics in the UK is the blame and contempt that politicians have for voters, it is easy to see on this thread...perhaps you realise why they want proportional representation now).
The fact that you are unable to answer this question about China where it is often unclear why certain people are being targeted should demonstrate how big the gap is. For example, when Xi's first corruption crackdown happened, it turned out that it was being orchestrated in part by someone in their 90s who had left front-line politics twenty years ago (and much of why that happened is unclear, we are only just learning about things that happened in Chinese politics multiple decades ago so it will be a while before we know...we do know that Xi was then able to make unilateral sweeping changes to his own role shortly after that broke every convention of the last 5 decades)...it is difficult to compare this to anything that happens in any other political system. In China, you find out someone has been executed for reasons that are obviously not explicit months after it has happened.
It is genuinely quite difficult to compare to anything else. 6 people meet in a room, they have almost all the power, and maybe you will read about what they might have said 4 decades later in a book...that will never be published in China.
What is modern China has only existed for 100 years or so. When the country collapsed there were ethnic divisions that were erased after the country was unified.
The hallmark of successful ethnic cleansing is people claiming that there were never any wars, that things were always this way. The same is true of Kaliningrad, the most German city, centuries of history as a leading nation within Germany and the HRE, now a completely Russian city. It is only in the West that you see any narrative around division, in places like China or Russia history is erased (and how could it be any other way, the cornerstone of Chinese politics is one nation, one people...there is no political value in this narrative in Western countries).
I am always completely baffled by these comments that not only get basic facts wrong but appear unable to conceive of a situation where the everything is subordinate to the state.
There is no negotiation, there is no due process, you give access to everything before you start or you can't operate.
The police issued a statement on Twitter, this was covered extensively...I am thinking that you are the type of person who is resistent to evidence that counters your opinion that you have just stopped being able to process information, you just loop through your feelings. In addition, it has also leaked that the statement they issued was dialled down significantly and the original line was to blame Nowak for being stabbed...again, this is because their policing policy was to accept any accusations of racism in full.
If you just read stuff properly, you would know all this and wouldn't find yourself backed into a corner arguing against all forms of reality.
Do you understand how odd this looks to someone who doesn't have these barriers in their mind? It is like someone saying they dislike ice cream and then using that as the basis for concluding they dislike pizza. If politics didn't exist, this would make no sense at all.
https://www.hampshire.police.uk/police-forces/hampshire-cons... - this is a policy document from the police force, this is in the process of being reviewed because the police force involved reviewed the incident in question when it happened and said that the handling met their standards of policing in full (I don't think you understand that you are arguing with phantoms here, the police force has now acknowledged that their policy was wrong and led them to initially say that the incident was handled correctly...afaik, no-one apart from politicians is making the argument you are making, and the policing minister has also said that policy is likely wrong...not that the minister has control over this).
https://www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/our... - this is a policy document from NPCC which is one of the many quangos that influences local force policy. There are actually quangos that just provide policy guidance on ethnic minority policy, you should look into these as they also provide extensive training to police forces on the specific situation that occurred and how to handle it (again, this is why the police force initially said that the incident was handled correctly, the key point was the accusation of racism and this is what the police said initially when they reviewed the incidence).
I would also repeat: the reason why I did not include these links is because you do not understand basic aspects of how policing works in the UK. I have answered your question about why a medical check was not performed...yes, that was fully explained (perhaps you see my issue with the way you come across, you come across as someone who has put effort into being misinformed). I have no idea what Elon Musk has to do with policing policy in the UK...that you would bring up this "Emmanuel Goldstein"-esque character unprompted comes across as very bizarre to someone who is unaware of whatever political game is occurring. It is very simple: the police should do their job correctly and treat everyone equally. That is it.
After the event, this police force confirmed they had reviewed behaviour and everything was in line with policy. I am not sure what more evidence you need other than the police force saying that what happened was in line with policy.
Bear in mind, the above plan has been edited since the events took place but every police force in the UK has similar policies and has done since the Lawrence case. In addition to policies that govern disciplinary actions, police officers in the UK undergo continuous training which often involves substantial work on dealing with ethnic minorities.
One of the other posters appears not to understand how policing in the UK works but police policies are taken very seriously and are used by management to effectuate behaviour of officers (i.e. are the basis for promotions/disciplinaries). There is no real direct control from central government either, there are quangos but they are largely unaccountable to elected officials.
The Lawrence case in the UK led to a massive structural and cultural shift in policing across the UK, not just the Met. This involved both changes to guidance and changes in how police officers are trained. You can look into this in your own time because there are multiple bodies that are involved in this but the result is that people who the police interacts with have to be treated differently based upon their race.
Also, I can only assume that you are unaware of how police actually do their job. Police officers in the UK (again, I can only assume that you are not from the UK or are someone who lives here but has almost no connection with the society for some reason) go through extensive training to effectuate policy. People who run police forces don't just go: have it lads, go wild. There is extensive training that governs how the police are allowed to behave and that is enforced, ultimately, through sanctions that can result in the police officer losing their job. These aren't abstruse documents that central government creates either, these are created by individual police forces (often with reference to guidance from central government, though this is mostly indirect rather than legal) that are part of continuous training to carry out the job. And, again, one of those things is that police officers are required to treat people they interact with differently based upon their race.
In this case, your description of what happened is also not correct. The police did not deny anyone medical treatment because they did not know that the person had been stabbed. The reason they did not know was because someone who was not white told them that the person was a racist, and policy for every police force in the UK is to believe this. When Nowak said they had been stabbed, the response of the officer was "don't think you have mate" which was conditional on being told by someone who was not white that Nowak was a racist. This behaviour is in line with expectations as Hampshire and Isle of Wight police force confirmed after the fact publicly and on multiple occasions. The reason why is that is policy to take accusations of racial discrimination extremely seriously and arrest immediately, which is what the police did. You may also like to listen to the 999 call where the handler coaches a murderer to invent a specific racial slur, this is also inline with policy which suggests accepting all of this at face value...can you see the contrast with how Nowak's claims were handled?
I would also suggest that you possibly jumped to conclusions about what other people think based upon your personal opinions rather than actual fact. To be clear: you are saying things that indicate no knowledge of how police in the UK actually operate...but you are 100% sure that some evil people are manipulating this event for their own ends. Be clear: this isn't about fact for you (you don't seem to know any) but your own feelings. Other people care about the police doing their job correctly, that is all that matters.