Whatever the conclusion of "is ICE the correct agency for..." the answer is no. But you use the brownshirts for things regular civil servants would gum up with protests and procedure adhering to the actual law.
Okay, if you just want to have a conversation with yourself I can see myself out as you addressed literally none of what I said and went off on some affordability tangent about housing in general.
Housing prices are too high for most people to afford. That wasn't what the sentence I responded to was asking about.
We created an extrajudicial prison outside of our borders to house "prisoners too dangerous for the normal court system", created an entirely new surveillance police force, and expanded FISA in response to 9/11.
So if that's not asking authoritarianism if they'd like to go out for drinks, we have very VERY different views on freedom.
Also, I really don't care about other "advanced democracies", we're talking about America and it's not really relevant to my points.
1- Costs of operating an larger house are higher than a smaller house
2- Yearly maintenance of a new house is cheaper than an older house (older the house, the greater this gets)
3- Easier to keep a smaller house tidy
4- Mobility/lifestyle issues.
5- Indifference towards resale value
Not everyone wants a giant house, and plenty of people like a small one. It's not the size that matters, it's how you use it.
Sadly, many people just want to be highly trusted in society (whilst themselves fearing most of the rest of it). It's why we flirt with/fall face first into authoritarianism every few decades.
Seriously. I'm as left wing as you can go and I still think that voting is useful to influence the system while building a critical mass of people willing to break the wheel. Saying "we'll never get class solidarity" is the most annoying and pointless thing someone can say so you have to assume they're working to ensure it is the case.
>>English majors seem to have banded together to crown only the most inaccessible and politically charged authors as worthy of attention
Tell me you're an Engineer/don't hang out with actual "English Majors" (I'm 41, I don't spend much time on The Quad these days) without telling me as much.
Lit nerds love nothing more than fighting over the Canon (which, is the point of the article). To hell with banishing whole groups because you're lazy and stereotyping (this sentence is ironic considering the start of the paragraph...)
The article references "England has Shakespeare (1600s), Spain has Certantes (1600s) Russia has Pushkin (1800s)" whom I assume are intended as their nations' versions.
You going to stand on your statement with that as a reference? We're closer to Pushkin than Pushkin was to Homer.
Since nobody seems to want to do it, I'll throw Kurk Vonnegut out. We're a satire of a nation and he's our greatest satirist (sorry Sam Clemmens, you're too earnest, even when telling a joke.)
The problem with Flock is its continued existence as part of the surveillance state. Like guns or bombs, these are things with one intent, and that intent is always ALWAYS bad as the resource is inevitably concentrated in the hands of a few to control the many.
I for one can't enjoy a piece of creative media made by AI because I know it only exists so that a handful of losers can profit off the wholesale theft of actual human creativity. Other people don't share these qualms (they are also losers) and that's their choice. Honestly, I could give a fuck if AI tanks coding because I think the internet as we now know it is a mistake of capitalism and if using the plagiarism machine causes codebase maintenance to be harder, aww shucks sucks to suck, guess that's your job now? IDK, I'm married to an artist/writer and was a cook for most of my 20s so I have become a neo-luddite in my middle age when it comes to this specific topic.
Weird how "where you are in the world" affects your view of things, right?
I could be! And in science when you posit a hypothesis you then back it up with data points of statistical significance.
The authors of this study have done that here. To borrow from your example, if you saw a statistically significant amount of my posts highlighting the merits of the Iranian government in a ways that run counter to the general global consensus of their actions, you would then have something that other people might agree was worth looking into. A hypothesis is not “misinformation”.
This article has not claimed to have proven anything other than outcomes in a process. I don’t understand why this is so upsetting to you.
I'm going to assume that people aren't allowed to put "don't send me black applicants" into their process even if they do see race in the application as that's entirely illegal.
The paper's conclusion, that we need to study this more, is showing the authors likely believe this to be a byproduct of inherent/invisible bias.
How would you like me to define "starting point" in a way that you believe you'll be able to understand?
If you are trying to say "more data needed, headline misleading" you should say that instead of misrepresenting the 4/5ths rule. Also the word "can" implies uncertainty of conclusion. This isn't ridiculous, the authors point out that this is the first large scale study of this topic. Nothing has been "proven" here, it's showing that this warrants further investigation and attention.
Do you read many academic papers, because you seem to be having a rough go here.