hunterb123

> the vast majority of American vehicle miles traveled are not doing things which can only be done by a large, expensive car or truck.

Source? People get cars because they need one. The first big thing you get for yourself is a car, because it's so useful.

I believe the opposite of your statement is true, biking is only really practical in a very limited bubble.

I don't really disagree with your points, but your usecase is nowhere near the norm where I live or how I live.

I'm perfectly fine with city dwellers having more bikes (if they so choose), whatever helps the traffic and parking in the cities.

My point still stands that in no way is a bike a replacement for all the utilities of a vehicle, whether you're offloading that by renting, borrowing, etc.

I'll drive my vehicle, you can ride your bike. The power of choice! No conflict needed.

A bike is a great mode of transportation when you don't need to carry anything heavy, bulky, passengers etc. and when weather permits.

It's not a replacement for a vehicle, nor will it ever be.

No I'm saying anyone can register as whatever.

At no point did I say the entire history it has happened.

Are you saying it's impossible for someone to lie about their party affiliation?

Are you saying that worse hasn't been done by an an agency? (NSA spying, Project Ultra, IRS scandal, etc.)

I believe most people at the agencies have the best intentions, which is why you commonly get leaking, but I do believe there are some people who abuse their powers.

But I am also very very skeptical given the past actions of agencies.

It's not about predicting the DA's decision, it's about enforcing the current laws that were decided upon by the people.

The problem was the DA was letting people off even though they were breaking said laws.

Effectively poor local policies hurts lower income people the worst.

The ones without garages, without strong security systems, in worse off neighborhoods, etc.

Unfortunately higher income people only act when it reaches their doorstep, which happens more gradually.

I guess we'll see how the new DA performs.

I'm curious, do you think the previous DA did a good job or did you support the recall?

-- EDIT @dragonwriter --

  > I think that debate is about as relevant to the law enforcement problems in San Francisco as a debate over the china pattern in the first class dining room is to the problems with the maiden voyage of RMS Titanic.

Okay... so you don't want to answer the question if you supported the DA or not.

It's very much relevant as we were talking about the performance of the DA and you brought up the recall itself.

You could have easily voiced your opinion of the DA instead of spouting off a silly analogy.

-- EDIT2 @dragonwriter ---

  > since apparently you’re doing upthread edits in lieu of responding

Yes unfortunately I hit a post limit so I opted to respond in an edit because this conversation is interesting, thank you for adapting.

  > No, its not relevant to the point that SFPD apologists 
 blaming the past DAs prosecutorial approach for why SFPD won't arrest people now after they succesfully got that past DA thrown out and replaced based on that argument makes no sense.

  > It doesn’t really matter if they were right about Boudin when he was in office, that’s moot when it comes to their current (in)action when he isn’t.

You act like it's been awhile since the DA was recalled for not doing his job, it's only been a couple months and old cases are still being reviewed. We'll see if the crime in SF lowers, or how the new DA handles cases in the very near future.

I find it very interesting that you have no problem trying to put blame on the SFPD, who have little control in policies other than striking for change, which they did, while not even wanting to comment on the previous DA which generated the problems which led to the recent recall.

  > It doesn’t really matter if they were right about Boudin when he was in office, that’s moot when it comes to their current (in)action when he isn’t.

It certainly does matter as these things take time to progress, they aren't instant. The problems of SF today are the problems because of the last two DAs, not the one that just got in, depending on their actions.

It will take time for the negative incentives to influence the criminals. This is why it's important to always enforce the law and not just let people out.

Yes, it seems certain areas have two conflicting political problems.

The DA is either letting too many people go or the mayor is keeping too many police.

Personally I believe certain DAs are completely out of line and don't reflect the will of the people, but the will of certain donors.

Neat analogy, but you didn't finish it. It would be like if the garbage men took the trash out and at the end of the month and the person in charge of the dump released it all back out on the streets. Certainly you would have a garbage strike, which is what happened, and the dump manager (DA) was recalled.

When you arrest the same person over and over again and they are just let out by the DA, you may just not arrest that person again.

You aren't refusing to do your job, you're listening to an elected official that has more power than you do.

Do you have any criticisms to direct at the DA, or do you agree with their actions?

Monitoring, that's what the TFA is about. They just don't take action because the DA won't take action.

Why open yourself up to liability, danger, just to have the DA let the person off and back out.

Fix the issue from the top. It's specific DA's in specific areas that are the problem.

Generally a mobile wifi hotspot will do.

Airbnb's usually provide one.

So in your mind it's not your behavior that sets you apart as a tourist, but your ability to get a special visa?

Personally, someone going with the main purpose to take photos of a place is the most touristy of tourists.

Even when I visit a place like Japan for 3 months, I barely take photos because it takes you out of it and you get in the way.

Take enough photos to capture key memories and places but mainly enjoy the actual adventure.

To not be a tourist in my mind you should be living there, not trying to document it.

But to each their own how they want to live, I just wanted to rant on your rant.

Yeah all of those pesky tourists always taking pictures with their iPhone 14 Pros, oh wait...

No just the countries that previously didn't need a visa.

They'll just make it so complicated where you have to use an embed from Google or something to implement it properly, similar to CCPA.

In the end Google ends up in a script on the page somehow in the name of privacy.

He sued and got the outcome he wanted, his platform to be reinstated, thus he "won".

That's a fine opinion, but others clearly want it and want to do it. There's a supply and demand.

It's legal and doesn't even meet the definition of pornography so it's up to Twitch's ToS.

Maybe don't visit them if it irks you so much.

Personally everyone on Twitch is a prostitute in some way, whether it's of their personality or looks.

Or is it only girls you're having a problem with?

It's all panhandling imo...

Well no, they're banning gambling on stream in some regions to meet government regulations.

> what does it matter how big the company is? Rules should be the same for everybody regardless of how big they are.

Do you support existing antitrust laws? I'll respond to the rest of your post once you answer that.

Your post is a great example of analogies not being HN users strong point.

I can't believe so many people (or bots) here are defending the social media oligopoly.

This isn't forcing a mom and pop store to bake a cake, it's giant corporations that are picking and choosing which users and ideologies in the world can be heard.

We don't let ISPs or mobile carriers do this, why let giant social media platforms do it?

These platforms have government officials and even entire administrations solely using them.

First off, I'm not the user you were replying to.

Second, you're not really listening, you're just hurling insults and getting angry, that's not a healthy debate.

You didn't attempt to answer any of my prompts. You didn't even attempt to clarify your definition or understand mine or the GPs.

Sure maybe spam filter lists should be more open? I don't really disagree nor is it really relevant. It's whataboutism.

Yes spam filters could be more user sided, but so could social media moderation. Do you agree or disagree with that?

No you just loosened the definition of censorship to fit your terrible analogy, then you insulted the GP accusing them of doing mental gymnastics. You're projecting.

But since you do want to stick to the spam filter in your email box analogy I would like to propose a solution.

Would you prefer users be able to manage block lists, filters, and such themselves instead of content being removed for all users?

Do you really prefer this large social media oligopoly to have have final say in what the masses should see? Why not let the users manage what they see?

Do you feel the same way about all subjects? Do you support the right of ISPs blocking porn for example?

Yes as I said I choose not to live there and would never live in a place where the voters choose such a system.

It's their choice, but it's a stupid choice. Personally it seems they were naive or even lied to about the outcome.

I can argue their decision because of the 1A. Same as you can argue against their previous system...

No because the system is overly complicated, thus the lack of trust in the system because it can't be validated by a common person.

But if a heavy blue state elected a red governor (especially with a popular blue opponent) out of nowhere immediately after switching to a new voting system people here would be suspicious right?

But because it happens that blue candidates are winning in areas they weren't before, everyone here is fine looking the other way and even defending it.

> IMO, we're already doing a form of ranked choice everywhere.

Then why introduce the complicated system if we're already doing it in your opinion?

> Primaries promote extremism.

Wow what a statement, please elaborate. Personally that's the only time I've seen issues talked about the majority of the time. Otherwise it's just non-answers and pandering.

> Polling is inaccurate.

That has nothing to do with the voting system and everything to do with the media and pollsters.

> When candidates drop out early, they take away choices from voters.

Not really and it's not relevant, if they didn't survive the primary, if they drop out of the race they would have been a bad representative anyway.

> Ranked choice results in the best outcome.

Saying it doesn't make it true. It's overly complicated and you haven't said anything of substance to make it worth switching over from the simple voting system.

No, it's simple addition for all candidates.

You either got a vote from a person or not, leave it at that.

Currently you have Alaska being majority red but Pelosi losing to a Democrat, I wonder how that happened.

But certain people when they lose want to change things, whether it's advocating abolishing the Electoral College or implementing a complex RCV system to create arbitrary rules to tip the scales to candidates they favor.

-- edit @mikeyouse --

No I'm not mad, as I said I prefer to live in a place that has a simpler voting system where it's easy for everyone verify the vote and be confident in the system.

I'm maybe more disappointed in people allowing it and being that naive.

Do you feel the same way about the tax code or should just voting be complicated?

How do you feel about the EC system? Were you advocating getting rid of it recently?

There's a certain group of people wanting to flip the game table up here recently.

-- edit @ceejayoz --

So the flipside of your statement would be you "grumping" about the simpler system.

Has RCV solved the split vote issue? Hint: no it hasn't. Nor was that ever really a problem, just an excuse to implement RCV.

-- edit @esoterica --

That's an extremely partisan take and not at all what I've heard from Alaskan friends. Pelosi is well respected in the party and in the state, no matter what liberals think, they usually mix her up with Tina Fey anyways.

It makes voting so complex you can't follow it, allowing manipulation.

It's much simpler to have one vote from one person for one candidate.

You shouldn't have to have a degree in stats (and that doesn't help much) to calculate the winner.

Voters should be confident in the system and that means being able to verify it yourself with simple addition.

Ranked choice voting is like the current tax code, full of exceptions and rules for the elite to manipulate while the common person gets boned.

Ranked choice voting is a complete scam, obscured by complexity.

I would never live anywhere that has it.