Given that police routinely assault peaceful demonstrators, journalists and random bystanders, wearing body armor if you might be anywhere near a protest (whether as a protestor or just because you live, work or transit through such an area) seems like common sense.
Body armor is the most obviously genuine "self defense" item a person could have. A gun, knife or pepper spray might be used for self defense or attack, but armor is purely defensive.
Your whole argument makes no sense. You just hate liberals and are happy to have your perceived enemy behind bars, no matter what degree of authoritarian police state it requires to achieve that end.
As soon as FAANG starts hiring people in Utah, Arkansas and Minnesota for the same roles at the same wages as they hire in the Bay, then people will move. As soon as VCs start funding founders in Boise, Kansas City and Chattanooga, then people will move.
Until then, maybe we work to improve the places where most of us are required to live by our jobs. (And yes, in parallel we can work to reduce the employer-mandated dependence on those areas).
What you are misleadingly calling "evidence" here is constitutionally protected free speech political materials. It's only "evidence" that he disagreed with the president on immigration, not anything related to a crime.
Take a step back and be honest about this situation, even if you dislike the people or disagree with their political views. This is an authoritarian attack on political opponents.
Everyone, regardless of political views or party affiliation should be outraged and horrified by this. This is the type of government violence against dissidents and opposition that we decry when it happens in other countries, and we shouldn't tolerate it here.
> when the effects of climate change are undeniable
I understand your meaning, but kind of a tragically funny statement given that really that's just... now.
So, it'll just be a continuation of the same insane talking points as today - "Weather has always changed" or "There have always been hurricanes/droughts/floods" while ignoring or denying or not understanding increasing frequency or intensity.
Also a lot of nonsense that because someone somewhere was still polluting (china, billionaires, whoever) that there was no benefit in decreasing pollution where we could, as if the problem was a binary where the only options were "zero pollution" and "unlimited pollution".
> A CC-BY license permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the work, including for commercial purposes, so long as appropriate attribution is given
This is a good thing. Building upon the published research of others is the entire foundation of academic publications. The "appropriate attribution" is the citations which are often the primary metric by which work is recognized as impactful and important.
My guess is the author is primarily unhappy about the making explicit that everyone, not just other academic researchers in the same field, can participate in this. But again, this is normal and good. As a society, we want people to turn research into real commercial products or to incorporate research into policies, regulations & best practices.
I'm a hiring manager. We post jobs on our website, along with LinkedIn and probably some others. We review applications from that, and interview and hire those people.
We get a lot of bots, but the software itself filters out 99% of that and then our recruiters filter out the rest. Referrals push candidates to the top of the queue for interviews, but otherwise it's literally just hiring people who cold applied to a job posting they saw online.
That's not to say it's not still terrible to be interviewing, just my point is, don't write off applying just because it sucks.
Police could switch to using VIN for tracking of warrants and such, which can be obtained after a car is pulled over.
Modern technology allows for every citizen to be tracked more comprehensively than the most wanted mob bosses or suspected soviet spies just a few decades ago.
Or simply outlaw the mass collection and sale or sharing of the data. We already outlaw sharing copies of music or movies, so I don't want to hear any complaints about enforcement- sure there'd still be some data floating around from random photos with a car in the background, but you wouldn't have repo tow truck drivers scanning 20,000 license plates a night or cameras in parking lots and such.
Peter Attia is a graduate of Stanford medical school and spent 5 years in surgical residency at Johns Hopkins, and his podcast is largely using his expertise to give context to recently published research. His opinions are always pretty directly linked to peer reviewed research and he updates his stances as new research becomes available and explains why (eg, his shift away from fasting).
He really shouldn't be lumped in with the general "health and fitness Youtubers".
Often, there's a recruiter or HR person (or piece of software) that's doing an initial screening against those "requirements" though, often with zero understanding or context.
Recruiters hiring for a Java role will pass on a candidate with 10 years of C# experience, or other similar tech-stack-swapping scenarios where the skill set is 95% transferable because they don't know anything about the actual technologies or understand the work.
And of course, the lack of honest feedback makes the whole system inscrutable. Did you get ghosted because the job was fake? Because your resume lacked some key words? Because they had a referral? Because they preferred more diverse applicants? Because they never even looked at your resume? Because you have too many years of experience? Too few? Who knows!
As a non-aphantasia person, this just seems like a really, really bad "test".
Famously, there's a psychology experiment where a person in a gorilla costume walks through the middle of a scene and beats their chest before walking off the other side of the screen, but people who've been given a challenge of tracking a ball being passed around will completely miss the gorilla. They'll laugh in shock on watching the same video a second time, amazed that they didn't "see" the gorilla on first viewing when their attention was on the ball.
In your simple test, focus is going to be drawn to other components - "fast", "zipping" and "windy" make me pay attention to the curves of the road, the wheels, the trees or cliffs causing the road to wind. The color of the car is irrelevant, so I don't pay attention to it.
I can't tell you what color the car was, but when I watched the gorilla video (without knowing in advance about it) I didn't know a gorilla had walked through the video either.
As a naturally curious person, who reads a lot and looks up a lot of things, I've learned to be cautious when talking to regular people.
While considering buying a house I did extensive research about fires. To do my job, I often read about computer security, data exfiltration, hackers and ransomware.
If I watch a WWI documentary, I'll end up reading about mustard gas and trench foot and how to aim artillery afterwards. If I read a sci-fi novel about a lab leak virus, I'll end up researching how real virus safety works and about bioterrorism. If I listen to a podcast about psychedelic-assisted therapy, I'll end up researching how drugs work and how they were discovered.
If I'm ever accused of a crime, of almost any variety or circumstance, I'm sure that prosecutors would be able to find suspicious searches related to it in my history. And then leaked out to the press or mentioned to the jury as just a vague "suspect had searches related to..."
The average juror, or the average person who's just scrolling past a headline, could pretty trivially be convinced that my search history is nefarious for almost any accusation.
I'd imagine for most of us, our professional lives are less interesting to the general public than other things.
If I were writing about my life, there'd be roughly a single line saying "I worked in tech, which gave me the disposable income and free time to ..." and then a description of all the things I've done which are actually interesting, unique or worth sharing for the sake of advice. If I waste my final days talking about my jobs, that's a clear sign that my mind is already gone.
There are probably some HN users who are working as research scientists on clean energy or vaccines, or at Doctors without Borders or similar, who have interesting things to say about their career. For 99% of us though, we sat at a computer and did meaningless drudgery in exchange for a paycheck.
> they are free to do anything and everything they like with their lawns
In this case, what they're doing is clearly going beyond their lawn and negatively impacting you.
It's weird to suggest that "spraying poison on your neighbors" is deemed acceptable, as long as you're standing on your own property when you do it. If they were standing on their lawn throwing rocks at your apple trees, or shooting a gun at your apples, we wouldn't say they're free to do whatever they like. Heck, we don't even let people play loud music if it disturbs their neighbors.
We really need to update our mental models of harm and violence to account for modern possibilities. We should treat harm from pollution exactly as seriously as we treat harm from projectiles. Dying from cancer from your neighbors incidental pollution is just as bad as dying from a bullet from your neighbors errant gunshot.
> Sometimes, communities are angry landowners hosting infrastructure will be paid, but neighbours and those further afield may not
Hilarious.
When a fossil fuel company started fracking near me, not only did I not get paid, but I also got poisoned tap water that's no longer safe to drink, earthquakes, and subsidence cracking roads and house foundations.
The double-standards are appalling. I'd rather have a solar farm or wind turbine next-door than be within 500 miles of a fracking operation or coal mine.
> it’s generally accepted that requiring some level of skin in the game from those that benefit does a decent job of doing this
"Generally accepted" by who? Based on what?
Sometimes the reactions on this site are silly. We're talking about community college here. The people going to community college are trying to transition their life from minimum wage retail job to useful careers as things like dental hygienists, nurses, IT workers and daycare workers.
Their own increased future earnings will offset the subsidies through higher taxes and reduced burden on social services, and everyone in society benefits by having people in the types of jobs that community colleges prepare students for.
Community colleges are just a massive benefit to society at large, regardless of whether you're leftwing, rightwing, rich, poor, young or old. Literally everyone is benefiting here.
> then the effective definition of the word "oppressive" being able to be "interpreted" by executive agencies
I don't get how this could ever be resolved though. You can complain about how "oppressive" is "interpreted" so they can add more words, they can say "people are harmed" and then it's up to interpretation about who is "people" and what is "harm" so then you add more words to define "people" as living homo-sapiens and then it's up to interpretation about what is "living" and on and on.
> If there is a vagueness
There is literally always vagueness. "I never said she took his money" can have 7 different interpretations just based on which word is emphasized.
It's a meaningless tautology that any English sentence has some amount of vagueness and that people will be interpreting its meaning.
As far as I can tell, Mastodon was briefly hyped on HN but nobody actually uses it. Bluesky seems to have a few people within a fairly narrow political range. Truth social is just for Trump. Reddit is pseudoanonymous as is HN. Instagram is for sharing photos not ideas or links. TikTok is a Skinner box.
I ask this as someone who genuinely doesn't know how to use the internet anymore. Reddit used to be useful but is now a cesspool. LinkedIn is a weird place where we all post like Stepford wives for our employers. The twitter-clones all feel a bit like using a paper straw to fight climate change.
I know there are semi-private slack groups and discord channels out there, but I don't know how to find or join them and it seems like a hassle to follow.
Basically, for me, no one I pay attention to posts anywhere any more.
Perhaps it would help if you considered concepts like "more and less".
Without DEI measures (as implemented by many American institutions in recent years) such decisions would be more meritocratic.
There's still nepotism and rich parents and connections and luck and a whole bunch of random biases by the people making decisions. The point is that while in theory DEI was supposed to be a counter to those forces, in practice it has just become another source of unfairness and injustice.
Body armor is the most obviously genuine "self defense" item a person could have. A gun, knife or pepper spray might be used for self defense or attack, but armor is purely defensive.
Your whole argument makes no sense. You just hate liberals and are happy to have your perceived enemy behind bars, no matter what degree of authoritarian police state it requires to achieve that end.