If the Supreme Court says the decision is in accordance with law - and they're the ones with the legal authority to make that assessment, and the Congress has done nothing to reprimand the Supreme Court and overrule their assessment, then the judge's decision, by definition, is in accordance with law.
The problem as I see it is you disagree with that assessment.
People disagree in democracies, it's a defining feature. There are good reasons to disagree with the judge's decision and its legality. That doesn't change the fact that the people having the power vested in them by the state think otherwise and are supporting the decision.
Appealing to a vigilante like Musk to settle your internal disagreements is not a wise move, my friend.
> If the Supreme Court says the decision is in accordance with law - and they're the ones with the legal authority to make that assessment, and the Congress has done nothing to reprimand the Supreme Court and overrule their assessment, then the judge's decision, by definition, is in accordance with law.
That's completely false and not how the law works in Brazil.
> The problem as I see it is you disagree with that assessment.
Because it's just plain false.
> Appealing to a vigilante like Musk to settle your internal disagreements is not a wise move, my friend.
Nobody is appealing for Musk, he's just one, of several people affected by that and reacting.
I don't think so? I'm asking for sources that I can read from people who are making claims to, to support their assertions. I've posted material that is more recent than the first post I replied to, and I haven't seen anything more recent from you or the couple of other folks who seem to have formed the opinion that what I've related is either false or incomplete. So please help a brother out here.
Only according to some specific streams of thought within IT. It's not really the mainstream view. That's while apps still exist both on mobile and desktop.
Reading the first few paragraphs gives a vibe that this is purposefully written to bash on suburbs once more. Your takeaway is correct, as city living can be absolutely terrible, it usually is for most people in most cities, the "answer" lies in the middle of the road between downtown and suburb and the "question" is -- as always -- money.
America is in a place where people can actually make it happen as turning a suburb in a 15-min city is much easier than turning an existing city into a livable space that is not a crime-ridden concrete dystopia.
Sure but that presumes that where and how bad the crime is is an understood fact and people make decisions accordingly, when the evidence says the opposite. Over-policing in predominantly minority areas cases more crimes to be reported as occurring, even when the actual crime rates are more or less equal between those areas and predominantly white areas, simply because more police and police resources are allocated to those areas, and therefore, more crime is discovered and prosecuted. This becomes a death spiral for neighborhoods: more police presence equals higher crime statistics which in turn are used to justify increasing police budgets and police presence in those same areas, and, worst of all, those areas never actually become safer for the people who live there, often the exact opposite.
> you need to place the means of production under democratic control
That's a really good way to starve a couple million people. It's quite good to limit the wealth accumulation as well when people are only receiving rations for working from dawn to dusk.
So you're a proponent of the "give the fish" and not "teach to fish"? If the supplies flowing to them stop they starve again, so I am not sure you're right.
I think the biggest risk here - and the reason why talking about "bringing civilization" anywhere attracts strong pushback - is that historically, what happened was people ending up held hostage over supply of fishing equipment.
Giving hungry people fish obviously isn't a good solution, because then the fish giver becomes a SPOF. But also because the fish giver now has power over the hungry, and some givers will abuse it. Teaching people to fish doesn't work if they're still hungry. It also doesn't work if you're teaching methods that they can't employ. If your solution to the last problem is giving (especially licensing) them means to do fishing, then we're back to square one, with you being SPOF/risk of becoming exploitative.
The solution has to be helping people build self-sufficiency. That may involve giving money, or donating equipment and know-how - but with no strings attached, including non-obvious ones like "you'll have to buy spare parts from us, because your industry can't make them". The goal here is not absolute self-sufficiency (nobody truly has that), but avoiding the situation in which given society's affairs are being managed by outsiders, under threat of starvation or illness.
You can both give a person a fish, and at the same time teach them to fish as well. It is not, and never should have been presented as, an either/or argument.
Strange thought for someone writing a reply on a message board using a device there's no way they could build from scratch.
We've structured society in a way that not everyone needs to be a farmer (or microchip designer/electronic factory line worker) for people to obtain food/devices that access the internet. Are you a proponent of 'give the fish' because you didn't build the device you are typing in?
