7 ms·
CSAM is terrible but how common is it to justify invading all of our privacy. Cars can kill people. Should we ban those? We know alcohol is damaging, maybe we s
by cebert 4y ago
CSAM is terrible but how common is it to justify invading all of our privacy. Cars can kill people. Should we ban those? We know alcohol is damaging, maybe we should ruin that fun for everyone too.
- blibble 4y ago> Cars can kill people. Should we ban those? the EU commission's starting on this one too: https://www.sae.org/news/2019/04/eu-to-mandate-intelligent-speed-assistance https://www.sae.org/news/2019/04/eu-to-mandate-intelligent-s...
- ajsnigrutin 4y agoPeople are already selling shirts with "20"(kmh) speed limit signs on the back because of this.
- pjerem 4y agoMan that's smart !
- varispeed 4y agoOnce they know what you talk about with your acquaintances, they can just trigger your (on subscription) car to drive into a tree and rewrite the car's black box so that it will look like an accident. Of course that would happen only if your social credit score is very very low.
- goodpoint 4y ago> Cars can kill people. Should we ban those? In dense cities: yes.
- Tade0 4y agoI would rather ban (too) dense cities. Nobody needs to live at a density of 10k+ people per square kilometre .
- Forgeties79 4y agoMakes a lot more sense than all the land we waste on roads and large lots for suburbia.
- pantalaimon 4y agoWhy? It's the most efficient use of resources and allows for some great cultural and public infrastructure to exist that just doesn't make sense without density.
- vetinari 4y agoJust because it is most efficient, does not mean it is enjoyable or that the life in such a hive isn't missing some qualities.
- pantalaimon 4y agoI find it quite enjoyable, everything is just a walk away and good public transport makes sense. You have enough people that even niche cultural offers will find an audience.
- ChadNauseam 4y agoIf you don’t find it enjoyable you’re welcome to not move there. Why try to ban it for everyone else?
- vetinari 4y agoI might be already there. Why do you want to move in and spoil it for us, who are already there? Find some other place, where building human hives is more welcome.
- Tade0 4y agoIs efficiency for the sake of efficiency worth it though? There's a second order effect I observed which I feel isn't discussed enough: when it's assumed that you can only walk/cycle or perhaps take the bus in an area, suddenly there's an additional premium imposed on space. The net result is accelerated gentrification. Anecdata: just about anyone I know from my generation was priced out of those walkable districts with access to public transportation they grew up in - simply because investors are aware of what is in demand, so they put all their money there and not into places you can only reliably access via car. What follows is people buying not homes, but apartments built in the middle of buttfuck nowhere and driving to/from there, because that's what they can afford. A net negative, but here we are. I'm all for livable cities, but what good is it if the only ones who can afford it are the 1%?
- throwuxiytayq 4y agoNot the finest example. Given the chance, I'd gladly press the "rid society of alcohol entirely" button, and cars in cities pretty much also... That said, the CSAM proposals they've inflicted on us recently are absolutely evil, insane and immoral.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago>Cars can kill people. Should we ban those? I'm not sure if you meant it this way (I like to think you did) or not but the answers you will get to this question when asked on this website are going to providing a great example of how things like "scan everyone's phone" come to pass. People with some extremist take on some issue that mostly nobody cares too much about, they get sympathetic politicians who become convinced it's worth the blowback. Repeat for hundreds of issues and you get 1984.