stabby_cicada

To be fair, it's strongly suspected that Trump had extensive ties to the New York Mafia.

I mean, Jesus Christ, he was a real estate developer in New York in the '70s and '80s. There's no possible way he wasn't in bed with the mob.

Say what you will about Trump, he's probably closer to gangster than like 99% of us.

Sorry, did you post in response to the wrong comment? I didn't say the US was anti-left (though a lot of it is). I said the US was anti-vegan, which is not the same thing at all.

(I think veganism should be apolitical - eating healthy food, saving money, animal rights, self-sufficiency, public health, and so on, are not inherently leftist political issues. They're common fucking sense. But that's another rant.)

One thing you have to always remember about Donald Trump is: he's incredibly insecure. His fragile little ego is desperate for approval. It's why he constantly shitposts on a social media site he owns - so he can get that constant dopamine rush of upvotes and fawning comments and "megadittoes, Mr. President". And it's why he's desperate for the approval of people he considers strong leaders - Putin and Xi and Milei and so on. And when somebody he respects flatters him, he becomes putty in their hands.

Mamdani won decisively in New York. Mamdani proved himself a strong leader. And then, after taking everything Trump could throw at him and coming out on top, Mamdani went to Trump and basically said "I talk a lot of shit about you, you talk a lot of shit about me, but we both know that's how the game is played and not to take it personally. You do good work and I respect you. We both believe New York is the greatest city in the world so let's work together to make it great again."

And Mamdani certainly didn't have to ask for a meeting with Trump. It probably hurt him with some of his base to talk to Trump at all. So you have this strong man, this leader, this winner, who decisively proved himself the leader of the Democratic Party in New York, with incredible momentum behind him - and he goes to Trump to kiss his ring and ask for his support.

And when a strong man gives Trump the manly validation he craves, he melts like a teenage girl at a David Bowie concert.

Because you also have to remember, Donald Trump has no actual political positions. He doesn't care about anything except winning - and he loves winners. And whatever Mamdani is, he's a winner.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/discrimination-against-vegans

A shockingly high number of people have a negative view of vegans. And, separately but relatedly, veganism is (unfairly) associated with the far left in the United States. So a lot of conservative and moderate readers will see the word "vegan" and automatically think "this must be irrational leftist bullshit".

Even to some meat-eating liberals and leftists, "AI vegan" will read as "arrogant moral scolds who want to take away your chatbots and think they're better than you because they don't use AI."

I can't tell from the article whether "AI vegan" is a term people are calling themselves or something the media made up. But when mainstream media compares a movement to animal rights or veganism, it's almost never meant to be a positive.

I read some of the comments, and now I need a shower.

I think not violating people's privacy with technological data collection is a technological issue, not a political one. Because you can have a society without capitalism or the state, you can have incredibly strong social norms governing privacy and the use of people's data, but as long as that society is collecting and storing information about individual people, that information can still be leaked, stolen, or misused by whoever controls it.

(I mean, imagine somebody in smart city IT has some sort of personal issue or conflict with another citizen and decides to abuse their access to data collection to gather information about that citizen. Even in an anarchist utopia we'd still have stalkers, domestic violence, controlling partners, child custody disputes, and all the ways people in relationships hurt each other that come with humans being human.)

The only way to guarantee data collection doesn't violate people's privacy is to not collect data capable of violating people's privacy - that is, don't deploy systems that can collect that data at all.

And that restricts the type of data that can be collected so much that, I think, it rules out most of the benefits of a "smart city".

Open source code for public infrastructure is extremely important, I agree. But it's not sufficient. If data about individual people is collected by a smart city at all, or even capable of being collected by the hardware the smart city deploys, no matter what the laws are around it or how much you trust the current government, it could be exploited by a future, less ethical government, or stolen by third parties.

I think the examples you gave would be good ways to gather data for smart city management without collecting data about individual people that could be misused, but the way surveillance is implemented now, that sort of data collection is dangerous.

For example, a sensor that triggers a traffic light is great, but currently just about every major intersection in every major city in the US already has license plate cameras for traffic enforcement. So any smart city program is going to incorporate those license plate cameras, because why would they spend money installing new sensors when they already have perfectly good cameras? And then those cameras will be used for police and immigration enforcement and other privacy violating data collection even more efficiently than they're already being used.

One aspect of a "smart city" is a system to constantly monitor a lot of data streams about its residents and use that data to allocate the city's resources more efficiently in real time or better plan future upgrades to city infrastructure.

This obviously raises a lot of surveillance concerns. Some of it could be done in a manner that respected people's privacy, with, for instance, extensive algorithmic anonymization of data and strict limits on what data is permanently recorded, but that requires a lot of trust and oversight and, I think, the benefits are likely not worth the risk of having that data collection system in place.

Another aspect of a smart city is enhanced local participation through e-governance, making it easier for people to know about, suggest, and weigh in on policies impacting their homes and communities. This aspect could be implemented without any kind of surveillance apparatus and has some appealing qualities imho.

So, you know, it depends on what benefit you're talking about.

Well she fucking didn't did she?

A child hitting another child isn't a crime that requires an arrest, trial, and conviction. It's a discipline issue that requires teachers to call the kids' parents.

And honestly? A kid creating deepfake porn is a much more serious discipline issue, but it's still a discipline issue, because a middle school boy is still a fucking child. That kid should have been expelled and sent to therapy, but not arrested, because, again, child.

Arresting a child for anything is insane - but private prisons profit off that insanity, and conservatives love the idea of black babies growing up to be prison labor, so the school-to-prison pipeline ruins more children's lives every day.

God, some people out there would have parents call the cops whenever their kids get in a fight. I hate this century.

Webre added that he does not expect to criminally charge the young girl.

“Due to the totality of the circumstances, we chose not to pursue charges on the female student,” he said.

What the fuck. Why is this is a question. Why would it even be possible to criminally charge the victim. Why are you acting like you're doing her a favor by not "pursuing charges". WHAT fucking charges would you be fucking pursuing.

I don't expect commenters to know the answers to this. I just want to emphasize how American cops hate women so fucking much that when they have a 13-year-old female victim of a sex crime they ask themselves what crimes they can charge her with.

And men wonder why women don't report.

A really simplified explanation: the wind pushes the kite, which unreels the kite string, which spins the generator shaft to generate electricity.

When the kite string runs out, the kite folds up or changes its orientation so the wind isn't pushing it anymore, and the generator reels in the kite string. This takes less power than the kite previously generated because the kite isn't pushing against the wind while it's being reeled in.

When the kite string is reeled in far enough, the kite catches the wind again, the kite string starts unreeling again, repeat as long as there's wind.

It's actually, I think, a really creative implementation of wind power.

Economics, as a science, has generally been used to measure and describe capitalist economies, since economics as a science has only existed as long as capitalism.

Which is fine.

Economics has had a bad habit of universalizing its descriptions of capitalist economies as if they were fundamental facts about human nature.

Which is not fine.

So, for example, economists talk about the "tragedy of the commons", as if it was a law of nature that publicly owned resources are necessarily used to destruction by selfish individuals, and only private ownership enforced by law can prevent this destruction. When, in fact, publicly owned resources have been maintained by societies ever since society was a thing, the commons in England existed for thousands of years before capitalism was a gleam in Adam Smith's eye, and the term itself was popularized by Garrett Hardin in 1968 as a justification for abolishing welfare and letting poor people starve.

But hey, our colonial ancestors took millions and millions of acres of "unowned" land from native peoples, auctioned it off to private landowners, and turned the native people into slave labor to farm it, and isn't it nice to tell ourselves that we're using that land more efficiently and protecting it from overuse and mismanagement by privatizing it?

I mean, look, if I said to you "making profit is the highest good, and it is morally right for me to use every legal method at my disposal to make as much profit as I can from you", you'd say I was evil or insane.

But if I said to you "making profit is the most important goal of my business, and it is morally right for me to use every legal method to make as much money as I can from customers" you'd probably nod and smile and agree.

And that's the corrupting influence of economics, which has confused efficiency and morality so greatly that it's convinced us that capitalism is the most moral form of social organization because a capitalist economy is the most efficient form of economic organization. Neither of which is true.

And this ties into fascism, and dictatorships, and Belgians in the Congo, and all sorts of monstrous human rights violations in the name of profit, because monstrous human rights violations naturally occur when you reduce human beings to commodities and tell yourself the highest form of morality lies in using those commodities as efficiently and profitably as you can.

Economics is not exclusively used for fascism, sure, but it's done more to promote fascism than any other single science I can think of.