wolverine876

I've seen some of their work. Like the others, I wonder what they'd do if set free on Tolkien's work? Can they evoke terror?

That looks very interesting. An essential feature for me is data, including my notes and annotations, that will remain usable in the long run - many decades into the future.

Otherwise, my work of today is lost. What happens if you stop making Cahier someday or if I need to move to another system?

If I had a few billion dollars to spare, I'd buy the rights to Tolkien's work.

I'd then spend a bit more collecting all copies of 21st century video versions - and incinerate them in a volcano. I'd end all current licensing deals, pay a team of lawyers, IT staff, and some hackers to destroy every moment of footage on video platforms, in torrents, on obscure FTP sites. I'd pay Peter Jackson to sign an agreement never to discuss Tolkien again.

And then what? I'd find someone with the highest artistic merit, who understood Tolkien's vision of fairy tales and fantasy and mythology. Live action, computer-assisted or not, brings the supernatural Tolkienian settings -- his greatest power as a writer, as vivid today as when I read them: Moria, Lothlorien, Minas Tirith and Minas Morgul, Mordor, Orthanc, Fangorn, the Paths of the Dead, etc. -- to the mundane level of what we can see. The new film(s) would have to be hand-drawn animation, which can imply and leave room for so much more in our imaginations.

But who? Old Pixar, the ones who made Ratatouille and Wall-E, might have been an excellent choice. Miyazaki is much admired; I don't see that style fitting the material, but on the other hand they might have their own vision that, let loose, would set the world on fire. Similarly, the creators of Spiderman: Across the Spider-Verse did something uniquely visionary, and possibly could make their own vision of Tolkien.

So to my point: Who? Maybe there's a video game artist? Maybe a different artist for each setting? But whatever we do, it must be art first and formost, without compromise.

You need a source that says fewer crimes are reported than before. Maybe more are reported now.

> There is an ongoing campaign to show Western cities as collapsing/decaying. There is also another ongoing campaign to show that China is collapsing any minute now. Welcome to the new cold war.

The campaign about Western cities is not from China, but from Western conservatives. Look at Trump and the GOP (and now the Democrat governor of NY!) repeatedly calling for the national guard or military to be sent into cities.

Yes, people don't understand the real danger in cities like NYC - gentrification! :)

As I said elsewhere, people in cities know that having more people around is safer. Deserted alleys are more dangerous than busy streets.

> a bigger scale freaks people out even if the coefficients are the same.

It freaks out people who live elsewhere and all they know of cities is what they see on cable news, especially a certain channel.

> There’s a psychological reason (rational or not) people equate cities with violence

Maybe it's simply that it's repeated at them endlessly - a simple, effective tactic used by conservatives for decades.

> If you measure crime by the person, in a dense place you're more likely to be near a crime when it happens than a place with more crime per person, but much less people per space.

Yes, agreed (of course). I'm not sure what that says about the original statement.

> The reality might be you're less likely to be murdered, but you might be way more likely to witness a crime. That matters.

First, it seems like we are really shifting the goalposts. Being victimized by crime is a lot different than witnessing it, though the latter isn't pleasant, of course.

How much does it matter? In a place that dense, you see a lot more of everything. For people there, it's a feature and not a bug. That's why people pay so much to live there.

Is witnessing a crime so bad? I suppose something traumatizing would be, but I think NYers are used to seeing 'everything, all the time', and they would not be traumatized by most crime. Murder? I think that would leave a mark, depending on what you saw, but that's very rare. Shoplifting? Public intoxication? A carjacking would be alarming, I suppose, speaking for myself.

> This is a problem that everyone who has lived in the developed world knows very well. As the police is able to solve less and less crimes, and less criminals are convicted, people stop thinking it is worth their time to report every crime.

'Everyone knows' is a group of people repeating something to each other enough that they believe it must be true. Those are the things that most need skepticism, an objective factual basis. Look at your comment - there is no factual basis for any of the claims. Some is conspiracy - if they disagree, they are gaslighting, incompetent, etc.

Objective facts are our only salvation from our own delusions - which we're all subject to. There is factual basis to say that NYC is very safe, but it's not conclusive. That doesn't support baseless claims. If you have an alternative claim, there's not reason to believe it without factual support.

Almost everyone you're talking to here lives in the developed world, and it doesn't seem like they 'know' the same thing.

> You can't feel safe in the subway

You can, and many do. I do.

Why is it important to assert that or believe it? Lots of people - I'd say almost everyone - from NY will tell you otherwise.

A policing tactic back in the 1990s was 'Broken Windows', which did what you said - fix the little stuff and the big issues will improve. It was controversial, as you say, because at least in some places the strategy became 'oppress black and brown males' so the white people can feel safe.

I've read one news story on an analysis of Broken Windows (so not a lot of data) said that outcomes were not correlated with that strategy. Crime went down everywhere, whether or not they used Broken Windows.

Mayors and police chiefs, etc. are called geniuses or fools in strong correlation with national trends, especially the economy. Lots of 1990s mayors, etc. were geniuses as the economy boomed and crime came down nationwide.

> NY feel 50% more unsafe than in 2017

You have actual data - why kill your argument by exaggerating it?

The stats you posted are about perception, not actual events. If people read other people constantly badgering them about safety, of course they will worry about it.

Thanks for the data. I think the first number is especially meaningful.

You don't need all caps or exaggeration - you have data!

> NYC was famously crime ridden for at least a century.

Where does that come from? All of the US had high crime rates from ~1970s to 2000 (as a rough guess). NYC doesn't stand out, afaik; some other cities had higher crime rates.

> Today, just as in London, crime past a certain value or a non injury car accident, is not investigated.

What makes you say that has changed from the past?

> It’s clear to me: NYC doesn’t feel safe.

What is that based on? Is there a survey? When I've been in NYC, people seem to feel very safe and relaxed, 24/7 (of course, in the city that never sleeps).

Instead of the same old talking point, what solution do you propose?

Should the executive branch agency make decisions by fiat, without due process? The use of due process doesn't make them a judiciary; it's just a more fair way to make decisions within their purview.

Should we move every such judgment out of the executive branch's hands? First, they have to be able to make some decisions.

But the heart of this issue is, as is well known: There aren't nearly enough capacity in the judicial branch to handle all that work. It's a trick to prevent lawful and needed regulation from happening by severely cutting their capacity.

You still don't have any data supporting your claims that crime is high. All you say is that it's not always reported - which is well known and has been for generations, if not forever.

What shows that it's high? It's circular to say that the unknown numbers are higher, not lower, because you think crime is high.

> a large Democrat-dominated city

What does the political party have to do with it, unless this really is about your politics? Republican areas of the country have higher crime rates, last I checked. If you think there's a correlation between party and crime rate, feel free to show us.

> (Pew data)

It's great to have some data, thanks. I don't know that anything has changed, however, though I imagine numbers were different during the pandemic and immediately after.

Numbers could be better now, for all we know.

I don't mean this in the usual snarky way, but read the OP. It goes into detail with a developer about these issues.

But that's been true for generations. It wouldn't explain some perceived surge now.

What does explain it is what explains many other things that don't match facts, about the economy, vaccines, climate change, election legitimacy, Obama's birthplace, etc. Whatever the conservative message machine focuses on, generally a large portion of the population believes.

You don't need to gather your own. Researchers and journalists do it, and you can find them pretty easily ...

What do you conclude from that? Maybe the other crime is even lower.

Protestors (whatever those charges are). Disobeying a police officer. Lots of things.

The DA's resources are limited (unless all the Republican critics want to pay more taxes!). Arrest is enough of a deterrent for minor crimes.

So how do you know the truth? Maybe crime is even lower.

I'm not sure how the no-snitch culture lowers the crime rate; it would seem to lower the conviction rate.

As any person who lives in a city knows, more people means more safety. It's the empty, dark street - especially non-residential - that you want to avoid. Also, the NYPD is always nearby if that suits you (I've never needed them personally).

> you might be way more likely to witness a crime. That matters.

People are just reaching for possible straws. Do you have any factual basis to say that? We can make up anything and put the word 'might' or 'maybe' in front of them.

I've spent lots of time in NYC and other dense, major cities, and I think I've seen one crime ($20 stolen). The interstate highway is more threatening, with the aggressive drivers.

Really, go to NYC. Look at the millions of people walking around without a care, going about their days.

You can look up the answers to some of the questions. Do you have any factual basis for your claims?

> Not all crime is reported and not all threats are crimes yet threats will certainly cause someone to feel unsafe.

What does that mean? We don't know anything about anything? Then maybe crime is even lower than I think. Everyone feels threatened all the time? What basis do you have for saying that crime is _____ (what?)? It's all fabricated so far.

I'm talking about objective facts. You can make up reasons, but so can anyone about anything - they don't mean anything without a factual basis.

Where in NY are these stores closing?

> the crime seemed to follow and exacerbate the problem

Did it? Not in NYC. Crime is very low; it's arguably one of the safest places to be in the country.

Do you have evidence of that?