Great news everyone! Hopefully the system works well and other cities will follow suit. I know in the USA (in the few places we do have public transit) the argument for keeping fares is always 1.we don’t want to pay taxes for that and 2.if we charge that’ll keep the vagrants from using it. Two arguments that make no sense at all, 1. We already pay taxes for the public transit, why pay more to actually use it? And 2.anyone who has used public transit knows the fare doesn’t keep vagrants out.
In the short term, there’s also a lack of capacity. Fares function as a limiter on the number of people using it. Too many people for your capacity? Raise prices. Spare capacity? Lower prices.
This can be solved by increasing capacity, but it takes time to figure out what the capacity necessary actually is and then buying more trains/buses and hiring/training drivers.
My home city of Riga tried to do that after success in Tallinn. The mayor thought of releasing special Riga cards to residents. The issue was that many people come to Riga for work from other cities, towns and villages and they got angry to pay for transport. So mayor said to declare themselves in Riga instead of their home towns. That caused an uproar from town councils as that meant that they will lose all the tax income and won’t be able to provide local services. And Riga is already home to a third of the country’s population, so town budgets are overstretched.
In the end the government had to step in and ban the whole thing. The end.
You have to renew your driver’s license every 10 years. That means in the worst case scenario, the image they’re using of you could be 10 years out of date.
Those images are also not detailed enough to be used for facial recognition. Sure, it could help narrow down the list of suspected people, but they’re crazy if they think they’d be able to pinpoint someone based on what they looked like 5-10 years prior.
I suspect these powers are being used for something else more sinister. Immigration, for example, to clamp down on people who have licenses and are delivery drivers, or taxi drivers for example.
It’s not the kind of search where they need to be very precise; certainly not pinpoint accuracy. t’s just another tool to narrow their searches that rely on other details.
And if you’re a fully grown adult, not undergoing radical facial reconstruction, it seems unlikely to be that the relative distances and orientations of your eyes, nose, and mouth are going to change very much. My driver’s license photo is at least a decade old and even though my face looks different on the surface due to age, changes in weight, and changes in hair color and length I’d bet my key features are still in relatively the same places.
Of course they could also be using this for more sinister purposes. No argument there.
Just makes me wonder how many Palestinians they’ve murdered in similar circumstances, and we just didn’t hear about it because they weren’t Israelis, so it was treated as if it didn’t matter.
I mean, the answer is loads. There was a hospital where they had to move all patients away from the outer rooms because the Israeli army were using snipers to pick off staff who came to attend to them. Uniformed doctors who were engaged in treating their patients were shot with no warning.
para-government tech companies are working as hard on that as possible, it will be soon. It doesn’t even matter if it really works, they’ll just say it does.
No more than the more common types of viruses and other steadily-evolving microbes though, plus humans have not changed genetically all that much from chimps even from 6+ million years ago, so most of this is clickbait hype.
We do need to maintain science funding around the world though - the next pandemic could strike at any time, without warning (as the last one showed us), and gee it sure would be good if we could be ready, with modern tools to meet whatever challenge comes our way.
Otherwise it is all too easy to fall for bait traps such as what happened with GISAID, which said the words that people wanted to hear but then were not skeptical enough to look at the source behind who was saying them. So now that’s a treasure trove of data lost to the public as a result.:-(
For the last several months I reduced my news intake and unfollowed a lot of stress-inducing accounts on social media. I have been happier and more relaxed. Can recommend.
If you think you can compensate with the strength of your own inner contemplation, you are wrong
Is that a thing about neurotypicals, or just people without any selfcontrol?
I know I can compensate all the rhetorics, because I can spot most of the techniques by name, never get “pulled in” by the news, extract only the facts (if there are any), then contrast them with other sources, before “making my mind” about anything. I’m not afraid of saying “beats me, I don’t know enough”, until I do learn enough to build a consistent picture without holes or contradictions (doesn’t mean I’m always right, just coherent). Most times when I look at news, I end up taking away maybe a single sentence, which almost never is the one being highlighted.
There is also picking which news sources to care about. Right now I only know about two sources that are somewhat impartial: one of them is the weather channel, and the other a news meta-debate where they like inviting people with opposite points of view, without letting it turn into a cage match.
As for the rest of the article… it’s just describing the techniques used to produce what I like to call “news for toddlers”: fake human interest, full of rhetorical resources, cut down into tidbits easy to chew and swallow, aimed at eliciting an emotional response rather than a rational one (BTW, they’re the same techniques used by trolls).
You shouldn’t care about “that kind” of news. There are other kinds, like scientific breakthroughs, investigative reports, or news meta-analyses, that you might want to care about. Or whether to take an umbrella tomorrow.
After I freaked out during the last couple elections, I basically stopped most news. It’s pretty unclear what I could do with it anyway. The theoretical benefit was mostly around politics, but the vast masses just do it as a team sport, so my being “informed” by the news isn’t helping hold politicians accountable or affecting elections. Outside of politics, except for the information about COVID during the pandemic, most specifically the vaccines, I have a hard time thinking of any useful information.
Even local news usually isn’t too relevant. I guess the “avoid this intersection because of power out to lights, flooding, icing or whatever” could be helpful, but usually I don’t get it till it’s later on anyway.
This article is a great example of the struggles of living in our highly constructed world. It has been thousands of years since the mathematically average human lived a natural lifestyle and the rest of us trying to make big interconnected settlements work have been blundering it because what a big society needs is for us to constantly work against many aspects of our nature. No one can just live by their instincts and expect everything to work out, and anyone encouraging people not to think are literally trying to take advantage of what people tend to do when they forgo rationally considering key decisions.
It is very uncomfortable and distressing to hear about major disasters my government is responsible for, and it would be much more natural and fulfilling to me if all I needed to know was how to master my local environment with the rest of my band, but we have historical examples of atrocities being allowed for long periods of time due to nothing more than popular carelessness. If more people had the moral courage to expose themselves to the realities of our government and their own beliefs, I can’t imagine Hillary, Trump, or Biden would have come anywhere close to winning their respective primaries over the past so many years. These elections took place as a consequence of trusting that there were no ulterior motives for any information offered by the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News by most who cared to vote and the rest simply closing themselves off from the process. Just carelessness. Simply hearing about the information spread by these outlets second-hand is probably even worse since it will be filtered through an individual’s interpretation of it. The solution can’t be to try to close oneself off from the outside world.
Uncritical reading of the product of highly compromised information companies is a bad thing, as this article discusses. The solution is not willful ignorance, but the more difficult and less comfortable path which is ultimately more beneficial to oneself and their society. Continue to read the news and in addition, be critical of it. Understand that the news starts with a reporter and then goes through a process of edits influenced by the editors’ biases, the advertisers’ desires, and the orientation toward maximizing profit. Reading foreign news coverage of the same events filtered through an often totally different set of biases can make the important information itself more clear. Just as important as what the major news sources are covering are important events they aren’t covering which tend to get picked up by independent outlets with fewer restrictions. The American media blackout of the Standing Rock protest was particularly notable. I have always wondered how that event may have turned out if it were given more coverage than page 7 of the AP one time.
It almost certainly is better for our mental health to block out unpleasant information. We weren’t built for this society we have. We have a lot of work to do before we can approximate a natural lifestyle in our constructed society. There are powerful forces creating an information environment to manufacture our consent, and ignoring that they are doing that will not fix anything.
I pay very little to no attention to the news at all and could honestly care less. And I feel as if I am better for it because I am not concerned about every little thing. Big news stories I will hear about through the grapevine, but the little things just pass me by and that’s okay.
We protected our borders long before these surveillance technologies existed. We should keep doing it without, because it’s just a matter of time that what is normalized for travellers is normalized for us.
The UK just had a big article revealing that their Prevent database was being shared with border control (edit: link). The Prevent database covers people who have not committed any crime but have shown some indication of potentially becoming radicalised towards terrorirsm or towards some other crime. The vast majority are labelled “no further action” but still have been shared with customs. Some were children as young as 6 and 4.
You absolutely don’t need to do anything wrong to get on a list. Hell, just browsing the internet gets you put on all sorts of lists.
That phase-out was in the works for 15+ years. Pretty sure I’ve read somewhere that the UK has been stalling it for years, so they definitely knew it was coming.
Shame they lost their voice in the EU commission and have yet another consequence of their own actions to swallow.
theguardian.com
Active