Oddly the countries that don’t do this have far better outcomes.
Imagine being allowed to have a beer outside, or after 2 am, oh the humanity. Surely such a society would devolve immediately into chaos.
What if the government wasn’t meant to be a strange parent that let you kill your kids but felt having a beer outside was too much freedom. It might just lead to being the happiest country on earth.
> Imagine being allowed to have a beer outside, or after 2 am, oh the humanity.
Where do you live that this is not possible?
(I know you’re speaking loosely, I.e. you mean “where I live bars have to stop serving alcohol at 2
Am” but it’s so loose that there’s 0 argument made here, figured I’d touch on another aspect leading to that, other replies cover the others. Ex. The 2 AM law isn’t about you it’s about neighborhoods with bars)
That will be wildly unpopular with both parties and most importantly their constituents. I doubt even the libertarian party should they get the president, house and senate could pull it off
Note that the Amendment would apply only to the government, not to private interests. Even so, i could be unpopular among advertisers and data resellers, e.g. Clearview, who sell to the government. I guess these are what qualify as constituents these days. The people themselves have long been forgotten as being constituents.
What do you mean "even" the libertarian party? Libertarians would remove whatever existing laws there are around facial recognition so that companies are free to do whatever they like with the data.
Nah it’s privacy. Gotta get consent from users. Cookies, GDPR, and all. Meta has learned from their fines, and isn’t opting users automatically into features.
Just use unsafe then you have all of the good points of rust, like being able to say you wrote it in rust with none of the downsides, like having to write safe code in rust, or that code being slow.
This comment shines a spotlight on my issues with the US auto market. None of these vehicles are sold in the US, for a variety of reasons - both economic and regulatory. I hate knowing that the vehicles I want to buy both exist and are affordable, but I just can’t have them. Meanwhile, the cars sold in my market are all egregiously enormous, have giant screens inside, etc.
This is the very definition of a “first world problem,” but it sure is frustrating.
I don't know enough about El Salvador's politics to know whether the mass imprisoning brought down the gang murders and improved stuff on the street, but why, once you've got people trapped and unable to do harm, can't you go back through them using officials you audit for gang influence or whatever and have individual trials? Instead, they did a farcical hundred-person-at-a-time show trial for the people they imprisoned, so who knows what portion were guilty. What it makes clear to me is that there's no interest here in identifying the innocent or guilty, but plenty of interest in keeping the undistinguished mix caged up like dogs in a kennel for the rest of their lives. What excuses do you make for that?
How about caring for both? How about that as an idea? It’s impossible for you to accept that you can arrest and jail all those people to protect the lives of regular citizens but also not torture them while they are in jail?
Of course there is. Freedom is a pretty fundamental human right. We don't mind taking it away from some people, sometimes permanently. Then of course the death penalty is a thing.
Now organised abuse, or even not taking steps to prevent such abuse is accepted to be a bad thing by most of society so that shouldn't happen. But my concern isn't directed in any way towards violent gangsters that held an entire country hostage.
Imagine being allowed to have a beer outside, or after 2 am, oh the humanity. Surely such a society would devolve immediately into chaos.
What if the government wasn’t meant to be a strange parent that let you kill your kids but felt having a beer outside was too much freedom. It might just lead to being the happiest country on earth.
reply