If only. Unfortunately police unions ensure that's nearly impossible.
If only. Unfortunately police unions ensure that's nearly impossible.
But Maxwell never saw him do anything inappropriate and the charges against him were manufactured. Right.
The inventor of the Venn diagram has died. He touched many lives, some more than others.
A man who was just getting names and badges for officers was wrongfully detained in D.C. He then yelled, “AFTER THE TRIALS ARE HELD, YOU WILL ALL BE IN JAIL.” 🔥 #FreeDC
And then there's the whole problem of how search itself has been ruined (and how a small part of that is because of how "ai" companies have behaved)
LLMs don't reason, so it doesnt know that the reddit post is likely an uncritical repost of the other articles. It doesn't follow the discussion to see it is (probably) debunked in the comments. All things a marginally educated human would do. AI summary raises that bar, because of ai hype.
I feel like this assumes anyone doing a search would scan the reddit post and some unknown sites and conclude it's real. When without ai mode those would likely be skipped over and instead they'd dig into a site like Wikipedia, and maybe even check out the citations.
mRNA tech is some of the coolest, most powerful, most promising scifi shit humans are currently doing. They are being investigated to help with cancers, autoimmune diseases, M.S., stroke recovery, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, and high cholesterol.
Yiles, the latest iteration of “the 2024 election was stolen” conspiracy crap is an order of magnitude more bonkers than the last. And, unsurprisingly, echos almost perfectly the bonkers stuff from 2020, with the parties reversed. Just stop.
If you've read that Atlantic story by Annie Lowrey about why ranked choice voting sucks, I'm telling you she's wrong. And I know this because I did something in 2017 Annie did not for this story - I talked to a mathemtician.
I can see how you got there but that's not really my argument. Bluesky just isn't designed for nuanced conversation.
Journalists have it bad enough already without having to constantly move their limited support base around to keep the keyboard warriors happy.
I have no problem with people making that choice for themselves, or advocating that others do it. But when someone makes that choice the ethical standard for everyone else that's where I have a problem.
(btw - I'm still interacting with *you* because your disagreement was reasonable and not ad-hom. I don't think there are easy answers here and I'm happy to engage. I just dislike seeing us tearing down those who would be our allies over an ethical gray area)
Look at the kind of things that have been said to me here for saying that people should be able to make different ethical choices wrt using substack or subscribing to one without being constantly dragged for it. Even the original comment I replied to that started this.
But I'm not asking anyone to befriend or even read the people on substack. I'm just saying maybe we shouldn't tear down those who are allied with us because they view the ethics of this differently and choose to keep their content on substack or to subscribe to people who do.
Because friendship requires genuine affection built around trust. I could build that kind of connection with someone so diametrically opposed to me, who would actively want to hurt people I care about.
True, in the sense of public ownership. I'm meaning a space open to the public, like the theoretical "bar" mentioned in this discussion. I don't see it as fundamentally different than that.
I'm not arguing for bothsidesing. I'm not even arguing deplatforming is a bad idea. I'm arguing that this kind of "purity test" mentality where we demonize people for not making the exact same ethical decisions we do as the enemy isn't productive. And mayben either is leaving those spaces sometimes.
I'm arguing we should not fall into that same trap. We should learn from their mistakes.
The point is that we've seen the way the right labels everything they don't like as communism and specifically, the communism of authoritarian regimes. Or to associate people with it to discredit and silence them.
I specifically didn't use a specific number because the specific numbers are debatable and often inflated by propaganda. But it doesn't change the terrible suffering under lenin, stalin, mao, pot, etc. but that is not the point.
Not the way I would define friends, but I do know people who I would argue support fascist ideas. But I'm not arguing we should be friends here, I'm arguing we should cede public spaces or accuse people of guilt by association just for using a common software tool.
That's a fair critique. I should've said their official policy is to be content neutral, but they have definitely acted inconsistently with that in promoting content like hers.
What I'm against is authoritarianism in all its forms.
Weiss is not a neutral voice. She pretends at it but not very well.
The problem is authoritarianism, not just the fascist brand of it. Millions have been killed under both communism and fascism. Should we also bar "communists" from public spaces? Who gets to decide who is a "communist" or a "Nazi"? Is the mere accusation enough? Is associating enough?
That is a self fulfilling prophecy though. We cause that by ceding those spaces to them, and by castigating folks who choose to stay and make sure other points of view are represented.
And the perceived "oppression" of those views by the elusive "they" only adds weight to those arguments for those folks.
When someone gets pipelined into those dark corners they only get the propaganda. Nobody is engaging with them, and with the data we have on the level of literacy in this country too many don't have the tools to see through it on their own.
I understand your point of view, but there is an argument to be made that forcing these views underground hasn't helped. Having it out in the open where we can respond to it and expose its intellectual bankruptcy might be better.
That's disingenuous. They are aggressively content neutral and therefore do not remove people for having views they may find abhorrent. That's not the same as being a far right platform. There is a lot of progressive content on substack.
Hi everyone I was denied entry, detained, and deported from the USA over the last 48 hours because of my reporting on the Columbia student protests I arrived back in Melbourne hours ago and had my phone handed back to me upon landing
Fortunate son isn't mocking the military, it's protesting that the wealthy and connected made sure their kids didn't go while flippantly sending others to fight.
Unless whoever picked the music was a subversive intending for this to be a big middle finger to Trump.
They do have that right, but it only protects against the *government* infringing on it. As individuals in a community we are not required to give them a hearing.
A couple of things about these claims circulating that the 2024 election was "rigged": 1. The supposed "proof" is essentially the same nonsensical statistical gobbledygook that the MAGA people were claiming about 2020, with the parties reversed. 2. There is no legal mechanism to "recount" an […]
From the federal complaint against David Huerta. Note: DON’T TALK TO THE FUCKING COPS. THAT INCLUDES PROCLAMATIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
Oops, that should read *will not click thru*
Except the insurrection act is an explicit exception to PCA, and the NDAA further guts its protections. Even if that wasn't true, who is going to enforce it? Congress? The Courts?
There is more in the article, though I have a laundry list of issues with that as well. However, the NYT has data on readers, they know most people watching this short will click thru to the article, and of those that do most won't read beyond the headline or first paragraphs. nyti.ms/4kxgvAf
So, in summary, the NYT has data on police killings, but not in a way that they feel confident about a hypothesis of their own. But they will say "others" think it's because of more gun owners, police reform, and/or because we don't trust police? youtube.com/shorts/bDhYc...
These are crimes. They're committing crimes. And when people understandably protest the fact that they're committing crimes, they're shooting flashbangs at them.
just that period reminder that content posted to Bluesky is public to *anybody*. if you don't want to see it used in a court of law, don't post it here. and DMs here are not E2EE, they can be subpoened. a great use for bsky DMs is to share secure comms and move the conversation there.
Tolerated? In a lot of them it's considered a delicacy!
And I'll be honest, I'm not sure I care if they were cited for being in a u-haul. It seems like a petty and futile response to the repugnant ideology being put on display. A thunderous unmistakable rejection from us is needed, not a moving violation from the state gov's costumed lapdogs.
I understand why you came to the conclusion but I do not hold the position from your final clause (following the "but"). Is there some point about the rest you feel is incongruent with reality? And do you think the city gov dissenting would be meaningful when KCPD doesn't answer to them?
*more* than a strongly worded letter? Are you trying to give Chuck Schumer the vapors?
If they're right, then there *should* be consequences, but I think we both know...
I am not an expert, so I'm prepared to be wrong on this - but I don't put a lot of stock in a police officer's knowledge of the law. Particularly given that it is to their benefit to be ignorant of it under current case law.
Often unmentioned as well is the tax paid by employees in commuting to work, child care, parking/transportation, etc. The opportunity costs we pay in our own well-being when we end up commuting 2-3 hours a day plus a full day of work. (Mind - I know all of these matter to *you*.)
intervals what amazon and other tech giants did to the areas around Seattle. Wonderful local businesses, restaurants and people driven out by rising cost of living and skyrocketing property demand. Not to mention the other impacts of growing urban environments.
and they see the need to be intentional about leadership, investment and communication as an undue burden. We are too quick to accept this without considering the other point of view. What about the tax *we* pay as society for what it means to concentrate a workforce? I saw firsthand in punctuated
In this thread you also mentioned a tax businesses pay, and I can't help but come back to that because I do think this is an issue. The costs of office real-estate often come with benefits to an employer, and so they struggle to see the costs they pay for remote as a wash.
I don't think *you* are saying they're insurmountable - but that is a common refrain among the RTO crowd...esp the uh, "less savory" elements. Nauseating viewpoints from techbro C&C types we constantly see promoted across business "news" and opinion sites like Forbes.
For #2, yes - you said those were defaults. However, I was referring to the broader scope of your comments and I was attempting to express how that wider commentary was coming across to me as an individual audience member.
It's not actually against the law to do that in MO or in KC, as best as I can tell from reading the relevant statues as a layman. It's hard to say what would happen if the same size group of BLM protestors did the same thing, but if the reaction wasn't the same it would be *unlawful*.
Arrogance.
This is all bs. It's a way of convincing people who don't understand the technology to believe the marketing about how advanced it is. Particularly gullible CEOs that will then mandate paying obscene amounts of money for access.
It is frustrating that in this framing the only thing considered is the tax on the org. What often goes unconsidered are the ways in-office fobs that "tax" burden onto it's employees and society as a whole.
I absolutely agree with this. You can build *on* trust remotely...for awhile. But regular (min 2xyear) in-person interaction is absolutely critical. And I don't mean sitting in rows watching a PowerPoint presentation. This difference *is* magical.
This is true, but I'm also really tired of being told about things that are insurmountable downsides when there are others out there absolutely surmounting them. But yes, some folks will never be able to do this. They're too married to outdated Taylor-esque ideas about work.
So the problem is hidden from bad leaders. Good middle mgmt or ICs are compensating for their failures. In remote, they can't do that -- but I'm both it's a leadership failure, not a failure of the model.
So you have to be intentional, but I've worked in person and seen exactly the same org problems among people in the same building on the same floor. It is more exposed in remote orgs because motivated people cannot fix it if leadership isn't behind it. You can't just walk over and build bridges.
Some companies get teams together but do not pay attention to org design, and do not make time to get people together outside their normal circles. Too many leaders do not understand what you've said here - that connection and trust is needed beyond your first team.
The reasons for this are varied but they largely center around not having an intentional remote culture playbook. In particular, in-person time still matters in a remote culture, and too many leaders ignore that. But it's more than just this.
I would phrase this as, "remote organizations require capable, intentional leadership and design. Being in-person can help a 1900s mgmt org stumble along but falls apart in a remote org. Implicit isnt good enough in personneither, but those failures are so familiar we mistake them for success.
I believe these have been your experiences, and your conclusions. I also don't think you're alone in them. But it feels like you're stating them as unavoidable realities when they're really just obstacles created by choices your org made which can be overcome.
That seems...unlikely. Why wear masks and go to another state if you were just going to put yourself after?
Almost interchangeable quotes.
Yeah, it's against u-hauls rules, just not sure it's against the *law*. I imagine they are not transporting those folks all the way home in that thing. I hope someone saw where they went and got footage of that.
Yeah, and were stopped in Idaho about to do something similar at an LGBTQ event there the same year.
I'd much rather we oppose them as a community than lean on the government to silence them. Let them know they aren't welcome because we all say so, and don't let them spin it like only MayorQ doesn't like them.
Agreed, but we also can't hand them a media victory by reacting when they aren't doing those things as if they are.
Being in public or even being a parade isn't what triggers a permit requirement though. The footage I've seen so far wasn't blocking public access but I wasn't there and I haven't seen all of it. If they did cross over into activity that required a permit then I agree it should have been enforced.
That said, these guys clearly aren't very bright...so maybe I'm wrong. If we just assume that's the same people then we stop looking and we let people fly under the radar.
This list of folks is going around now as people who were in KC, but this is the list of folks arrested in Idaho a few years back. It's unlikely many, if any, were involved in this event in KC. I expect that would've carried too much risk of being identified. www.threads.com/@jr._johnpat...
It looks like this list is from when they were arrested in Idaho. There's no guarantee these were the same folks that showed up in KC, and my guess is that there wasn't a lot of overlap. That would be too risky.
It looks like this list is from when they were arrested in Idaho. There's no guarantee these were the same folks that showed up in KC, and my guess is that there wasn't a lot of overlap. That would be too risky.
Looks like from here: www.threads.com/@jr._johnpat...
Is there more information somewhere on how this list was gathered? We obv don't want people being wrongly targeted and having their lives ruined by these schmucks.
As long as they don't block public access (like roadways) they don't need a permit. One of the first things I looked up when I saw this happened. That's a good thing, as I'm glad our community is able to protest ad-hoc, but it sucks when others use that freedom for this kind of garbage.
Is there some documentation somewhere for the assertion the people who were here were part of jan6?
(BTW There are counter demonstrations planned for next weekend. )
I think you would as long as you weren't blocking a street. These loons were just walking down the sidewalk. KCPD have their problems but I don't *think* the same number of people from our side doing the same thing would elicit a different response.
Mind you, I'm not praising kcpd generally - but I am trying to be fair. They did show up to ensure the peace was kept once they formed up, but I don't know what else they could've done given how it went down.
I mean, 100 people rolled into town, likely separately, without any real notice. I don't know how kcpd could be expected to know this in advance when nobody outside of the group knew.
All they did was walk down the sidewalk and spew bs. That's not illegal. I'm sure that was intentional, as was coming to the heavily blue KC. They *wanted* to provoke a confrontation so they could make a big issue out of it. They wanted to be seen as the respectable ones.
I dunno about dangerous. Looked like a bunch of losers LARPing as best buy employees to me. Probably more in need of mandatory psych evals than being sent to a concentration camp.
No, but in my layman's reading it doesn't seem like they make a distinction in the law. That said, if I saw a bunch of people in the back of a u-haul I would absolutely call it in. Doubly so if it was a bunch of white dudes.
Glad is too strong a word, but you know what I mean.
We didn't know they were coming. We have some of the video because a few did find out in time to go and confront them, esp as they were loading up to leave. I only found out today (mon)
I agree but I'm also glad. It is a reminder that even they know their ideas are unpopular and there are more of us than there are of them.
Let's hope not. The work ahead of us will be hard enough as it is. We do not need the shared trauma of a civil war on top of that.
Missouri side. But they're Patriot Front not proud boys, and they traveled here to help hide who they are, they're not from here. There may be sympathizers here but they dont join in marches in their own city as that would require courage of conviction.
They weren't from here. They travel to a city to make it harder to identify them. Cause they're so brave.
Probably but they apparently came from all over the country to explicitly make that more difficult.