Yes. Otherwise one half of contributors would have died in a famime and the other half at the hands of secret police.
I remember them tryimg to subvert linux with some unconsequential contributor accusing people in the core team of sexual misconduct and whatnot.
How can people believe that a censored politically correct process can get even close to something like AGI is baffling to me.
Lysenkoism in computing.
It does this by asking for a government issued ID as proof.
Prima facie, this makes sense. When you get cigs or beer, you're asked for ID to prove you're over 18. Porn is age-restricted, so porn websites should also ask for ID. QED, etc.
But if you go even one step beneath this reasoning, you'll see that this is an unbelievably slippery slope:
- What's stopping state governments from subpoenaing ID verification systems to find out who's viewing porn?
- This is from the same state that "pioneered" a legal bounty system for phoning in women who might be getting an abortion so that they can be "dealt with." What's stopping the state from doing the same from people who watch porn?
- What's stopping the state from extending this law to require age verification for anything that feels right for an ID check? Abortion sites? sites about birth control? Sites saying the wrong things about $DEITY?
- This is also from the same state that, as the article outlines, has also passed a state bill that makes any form of moderation on social media illegal. So enacting spam control for folks spamming OnlyFans links is fine, but if you click on those links, you're viewing contraband and should be dealt with? What the fuck?
Not really. I’m fairly confident the lawmakers knew the operators of porn sites would just exit the market, because the methods of proving identity were onerous, and also who wants to submit proof of their identity to a porn site?
Similarly, VPNs are a dime a dozen and incredibly easy to use, so a minor who wants to access it can just hop through another state. The law has no real impact.
You don't think that refusing to pay your debt, no matter moral qualms about the holder, impacts the value of your debt?
Investors could start wondering when you'll accuse them of being evil for any reason and refuse to pay them.
Good thing there is that whole court system and associated bureaucracy rather than autocratic rule supporting "accuse them of being evil for any reason". If any "investors" are actually wondering whether they're at significant risk of the US government "refusing to pay them" (read: seizing their assets), their first stop should be an attorney who can give them a rough idea if they're engaged in illegal activity. This is a good idea if one has any assets within the reach of US jurisdiction, regardless of whether those assets are government bonds or not. And sure the justice system, the legal system, and USian pan-jurisdiction all have their problems. But with this situation of ethnic cleansing in service of some hollow Make Russia Great Again nonsense, both the legal outcome and the morality are quite clear cut.
Pretty sure that's not how it works. If a party you lend to can unilaterally it becomes much harder to justify investing.
That's simply how it goes. Lawyers don't come into it since the decision is unilateral.
Except the whole point of courts is that these decisions aren't unilateral. From what I've seen, Russia's assets have been frozen (not repudiated), awaiting a much longer legal process (involving many lawyers) where they will (hopefully) be turned over to Ukraine as war reparations (once again, transferred not repudiated).
All I see is a lot of cope and bickering about small things.
Fact of the matter is that google doesn't make good interesting and innovative products because it has started drinking it's own cool aid.
About at the same time as when they started becoming evil, getting political and influencing elections everywhere, they also stopped even trying to make innovative products and instead went full communist.
Everyone knows the effect that has on innovation but somehow SF techies and american wokies are unable to comprehend it, and vehemently deny it.
> It used to be that the best city for technologists was the Bay Area.... ...but Covid reordered the world.
The Bay Area governments and surrounding State have/has essentially unlimited budgets. They have no political opponents. The actual problem is the ideas, and I wish they would stay in California where they belong.
No problem with the ideas that cause Alaska, Tennessee, Arkansas, Arizona, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Texas to have higher violent crime rates than CA as a whole?
1) The FBI web site recommends against using its data for ranking because these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents
4) From your own Wiki link: "Often, one obtains very different results depending on whether crime rates are measured for the city jurisdiction or the metropolitan area."
5) The BJS reports that 45% of violent crimes and 36% of property crimes go unreported to police. And I don't know that we can assume the rates of not reporting crimes are consistent across metros.
For one, 4th is looking at property crime, not "most dangerous," where SF is #37 for violent crime. Yes, SF attracts the nexus of crime around the BART stops, but that also pulls it from most of the surrounding area, which OP was talking Bay Area as a whole.
Anecdotally, I've been here 30 years and never victim of a "dangerous" crime. Fat chance you move to Mountain View to work at Google and anything happens to you.
The only place in CA someone reading a "Best City for Techies" will encounter crime is Market St. and Tenderloin in SF. The rest of it in deep Oakland, Stockton, Modesto, San Bernardino, and pockets of LA, they will never end up.
I am pretty sure most people who work for Google and live in the south bay could tell you stories of having their car windows smashed in, and I do mean most. I think it is about 100% of the googlers and ex-googlers I know have had that experience.
Also as of two years ago, the chances that your Catalytic converter was stolen unless you parked your car in your garage was getting near 50% as well.
I suppose if you limit crime to just "dangerous" maybe it comes out on top, but I would prefer to be somewhere that I don't have to worry about 50,000 of my neighbors OD'ing on the street every year.
South Bay petty crime and homelessness has unfortunately arisen but that is a real alarmist way to speak about the most mundane stretch of suburban sprawl outside of LA County.
Interestingly, this is a similar experience I have from friends from when I lived in Johannesburg. Smash and grabs and car/parts thefts were very common.
> Most of the Bay Area is safer from crime than 90% of the country
That's pretty hilarious.
In the 48 hours I was there, I had a homeless exposed his dong to me, another offered to sell me cocaine, then while I was eating at a nice Thai Restaurant, a lady in her underwear smashed the front window of the restaurant with a fire extinguisher.
Literally none of these things have ever happened to me anywhere else in the world in 39 years, except for the 48 hours I was in the Bay Area. Now please tell me about Selection Bias next.
It's the same deal in Seattle, I don't even bother reporting this stuff to the police. Elsewhere, the police would respond and it would show in statistics.
I grew up in a small Midwest city that I thought was pretty nice and safe, but is a statistically very dangerous place to live. I knew of Oakland’s rep before I moved here, and was underwhelmed with the reality of it.
I’ve never once felt as unsafe in any part of Oakland as I did at the Taco Bell on S. National in Springfield, Missouri on any given Friday night.
People have these ideas because “most dangerous city” lists usually mean most dangerous big cities, and leave implicit that more-rural areas are far safer.
If you start analyzing and carving things up other ways, it quickly becomes clear that the “small town and small city America is safer than big city America” thing that a lot of people assume is true, isn’t. Muddled at best, and bordering on simply being backwards.
This makes perfect sense when you consider that violent and property crime correlate with poverty, and small towns and cities tend to be much poorer than big cities. Add in that density effects mean that you might see more crime in a big city while in fact being safer than in a small city, and the picture starts to come together.
There are about 40 traffic deaths per year in Amsterdam.
Someone else commented here that when hit by a car at 50 kph, there's a 20% chance of survival, and at 30%, there's a 90% chance of survival. So in the best case, this might save 35 lives per year. Not to mention the reduction in noise, pollution, and damage to vehicles. I think that's easily worth it.
Just in the UK it's like 5 road deaths a day or so. A pedestrian being killed by a car every single day. I've also read they've somewhere reduced speeds.
I posted a graph in another comment here about the drastic effects such a small speed change has for survival rate.
When it’s your life it makes a world of difference. Public space is shared space, the car lobby has tricked you into believing it’s primarily for cars, but it’s wrong. Free up your mind, drive slowly, be kind.
Kindness is not a matter of speed. Kindness is a matter of comprehension with a bit of investment into creating cities for everyone. I want cars to be there, maybe it's just me, but why my desires are lesser than yours?
Cities are not a place for me live anymore. Airbnb, Uber, Uber-eats, delivery robots, security cameras everywhere, gentrification, poverty...
It's ok if you guys feel this is normal but for me it´s too much. Cities were vibrant places to share experiences that today are a complete mess of zombies taking pictures for the trendy social network. And this is just one more drop to make cities more soulless and "2030 ready" for people who does not really exist. I cannot say this is useless, it's just another politically correct decision to deal with. Too much already for me at least.
Wait, reducing the numbers of cars in the city makes it _more_ soulless? How on earth does that work?
Like, was an important part of your urban experience traffic noise, or the sound of ambulance sirens going to pick up a dead pedestrian? I'm genuinely a bit baffled by where you're coming from here.
You got cause and effect completely backwards. The "soulless" cities are the cities full of cars and asphalt. The nice cities are the ones where people can use the city, where communities gather outside, there are markets, people eating by the curbside, kids playing. Where the city isn't dominated by the cars.
It goes far beyond directly saving lives. Cities with slower traffic are more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists, which is good in itself, but also encourages more active transport. More active transport means a healthier population which is also good. Reduced noise levels also is a consequence of slower traffic, which has plenty of benefits.
