Decriminalizing is not the way. The only way is legalizing sale, manufacture and distribution of drugs. That way you can:
A) control quality standards
B) extract taxes to pay for rehabilitation programs
C) eliminate black market and thus lower crime rate
The perfect, literally perfect, case study is alcohol. It was prohibited without eliminating the underlying demand, so what happened? The black market supplied the demand. What is happening nowadays? Alcohol consumption in the US is at its lowest levels.
It shouldn’t be done. The law is the law and giving enforcement the power to choose which laws to enforce and which not to, even if the intentions are good, opens the door for the same attitude to be used in the future with ill intent. Exhibit 1: the US right now.
The voters use it to excuse the abuse of power for their preferred party, which creates an acceleration of the abuse too. For example Obama ordered marihuana not to be prosecuted if I recall correctly, liberals applauded it. Trump if an agency or organization doesn’t enforce the rule he likes withdraws funding, conservatives applaud this. To most observers these are two sides of the same coin: It’s using the power of the executive to legislate, when the executive should be a manager while congress are the bosses. So the executive branches should not have a say in which laws get enforced, they should enforce them and let the judiciary sort it.
Well the Xbox app that suspends Windows processes is a reaction to this threat. The threat not being Linux in general but SteamOS and Proton specifically. I don’t think anyone imagined it would be gaming that would usher in the era of Linux but it does seem that that will be the case.
This is 100% not the advice you are looking for, but if you don’t need the service to have a domain I would consider just using Tailscale. It’s pretty damn good.
But are you aware of all the literally useless experiments that have been conducted that have given us 0 knowledge about anything? Were talking easily billions of animals tortured for nothing, and often it is pretty common sense that we were gonna learn nothing. Often it is more about using those research funds for something, to collect data for the heck of having the data because it might be useful to someone sometime. I’m not entirely against animal experiments but you need to have, I’ll repeat, absolute certainty that whatever process or Illness you are trying to understand is replicable in humans perfectly. This more often than not is not the case.
For example I can see very clearly how organ transplant techniques may be learned from testing in nonhuman animals, it’s almost self evident that it will because even if anatomy is different the mechanics that allow it to be possible are clearly the same across mammal species. But things like metabolic diseases or toxins are entirely different because chemical processes are different across species. My argument would also be that the only animal that should be used are chimps, which many people will oppose because they think them “rational” as if we have conclusive evidence of the non-rationality of other species.
I’m not entirely sure that it is the case but if it is the case that that is how it is done then good. But I have my serious doubts seeing how beauty products are still tested on animals.
One thing is to prioritize human lives in a fire or an accident and another one is to torture an animal, a fully conscious being, with the same ability for sense perception as you or me, for the small chance that it might produce some kind of insight. More often than not it doesn’t produce anything useful, even if there are a few instances where it does. I’m not entirely against animal experimentation but it needs to be justified at such a level that there must be almost no doubt that it will produce the required data. If there’s any doubt, you need more research to prove that an animal model will reproduce appropriately in human physiology.
I don’t need you to explain to me that human lives are prioritized, I’m not a retard. I need you to answer why John Everyman who clearly doesn’t value his life enough to stop eating slop, is worth torturing thousands of animals so that we may win him a few more years of life?
Just because they develop the same conditions doesn’t mean that we will learn anything that will help humans. And even if it helped humans, you need to consider whether it is right to sacrifice any number of animals so that we can help John Everyman who fills his gullet with burgers and hot dogs, cheat death. Get him a gym membership and a nutritionist instead and invest the rest into building synthetic human bodies or something so we can do this research without a single animal death.
Willing human beings are a better choice than unwilling animals. It’s not just speciesism since I don’t think speciesism is “bad” in the sense that it is inevitable, but rather that it is questionable how much results replicate across species.
I think the facial recognition bit of it is what makes it novel.
Under your argument the smartphone was not an innovation, it’s just a computer you carry in your pocket. And actually computers are not an innovation they are just calculators that can make a lot more calculations at one time.
Is it really unoriginal? If it is patentable then it is as original as one can get in an already very developed technological market. I’m not saying I want this out there, but that doesn’t mean that what they are doing is wholly unoriginal, especially if no one has done it before.
Moderation my guy. If everyone had a car they only drive on weekends or as a sport, there wouldn’t be an issue. So cars are not really the problem per se, it’s how we designed our world to revolve around moving in a car.
I fundamentally disagree. Look at what they are doing now framing Israel criticism as “hate speech”. Either all speech is free speech or none is, because “hate” can be defined as anything. You could easily frame all sorts of speech as “hate” speech against some group.
Now we can have a conversation about the merits of free speech, which is an entirely different beast. But if you are comfortable with limiting speech, you need to necessarily be comfortable with the fact that the same mechanism can and will be used to limit your speech.
I guess you could call it political theory? Philosophy maybe? I don’t really know. It’s in early stages and it will probably take me years to cover the whole gamut of topics my point of view covers but I hope to start publishing essays soon. My very naive hope is that someone will discover it and pay me to write the rest. Though they would have to be very foolish people, since I would do it for free anyways!
Oh really? I did not read this specific article because NYT reported on it, yet failed to mention that detail. Made it seem like someone just noticed. Good for them.
Decriminalizing is not the way. The only way is legalizing sale, manufacture and distribution of drugs. That way you can:
A) control quality standards B) extract taxes to pay for rehabilitation programs C) eliminate black market and thus lower crime rate
The perfect, literally perfect, case study is alcohol. It was prohibited without eliminating the underlying demand, so what happened? The black market supplied the demand. What is happening nowadays? Alcohol consumption in the US is at its lowest levels.