Oh, if this is just about what people want and not about shelter for the unhoused, then that really changes things. I may have misunderstood, as that’s a totally different spirit behind the bill.

If that’s the case, then it just comes down to which group of people have the political power to mandate what they want.

The central valley does have some of the highest rates of housing expansion in the country though, so I wouldn’t count it out. There’s a lot of opportunity there, it’s just not directly on the ocean.

Is this a weird kind of “war” where there are only two choices?

It seems like a lazy solution to pass a bill at the state level which overrides local zoning ordinances instead of actually handling city planning on a case by case basis.

Why wouldn’t California just incentivize building homes in the central valley? Or inland from Los Angeles on all of the completely open land? What is keeping homeless people at the city center, and will that cause actually be changed if the buildings around them are 3 or more stories tall?

People who live near the areas affected by state-level bills like this will be pretty upset that their local layer of democracy was circumvented by voters from out of town.

Meanwhile, people who move into the new high rises are not necessarily going to come out of the pool if unhoused Californians who were sleeping on the streets nearby. Does the bill control who is allowed to live in these new units? Does the bill account for housing the unhoused during the multi-year period while high rise construction is underway?

If the government has cameras then the footage should be public record and available to the public to download - street cameras, body cameras, security cameras, etc.

If you are ticketed based on camera footage (not the testimony of an officer who was at the scene as a witness), then footage from these camera systems should be enough evidence to prosecute government malpractice when it occurs too.

I suspect that won’t be the case, but California should not let it’s government uphold a double standard wherein citizens pay fines while footage is guarded and not used to prosecute police/politicians when they’re on the other side of the law.

In recent years, people have used increasingly mixed metaphors to obfuscate partisan loyalty tests and characterize objections as suspiciously avoidant or condescendingly elitist so that they can make friends with bigots online and feel a part of something bigger than their lonesome, superficial lives.

For example, the list in the meme hardly makes any sense. It’s true that some people consider some harsh words to be ‘violent’ but there is no reason to believe they are the same people who conflate ‘stress’ with ‘trauma’. So the question “Do you agree?” is a poor question because any straight answer risks confirming the implication inherent to the list of metaphors in the meme: That there is a specific group who believes each of those statements and that group is being “increasingly extreme”.

The meme itself is a political wedge device to make people feel bad and neg on the disaffected and vulnerable in our society so that people who feel tough right now, most of whom have not been through trauma or discrimination, can also feel correct and ethically justified by virtue of not being part of the vulnerable group being called out as “increasingly extreme”.

What’s sad, or funny depending on how you look at them, is that this kind of meme is so awkwardly transparent to both the political left and center that it makes the right seem pathetically ignorant. That’s a shame, because stress is not trauma and only certain words actually lead to violence and disagreement isn’t related to gaslighting at all and being irritated is a matter of opinion while harm is most often not a matter of opinion and people who are repeatedly difficult for the sake of being difficult really are toxic personalities and really do exist in the world.

Any one of these statements make for decent conversation, but this meme turns them all into one long and fruitless gish gallop so that nobody can really discuss any of it and all we’re left with is a loyalty test and virtually zero substance.

Hey what part do you think looks like AI slop?

I can’t see anything suspect but I’m looking pretty hard for it. If I’m wrong then that’s scary.

Is the photo somehow glitched that I don’t see?

I agree with you. Something I noticed and wanted to add: When I mention UBI to people, a lot of them are hearing it like a guarantee that everyone gets enough income to be happy or be comfortable.

I have found that people who interpret basic income in this way tend to become strongly opposed to UBI on the grounds that it could never be funded and would lead to social collapse due to limited resources.

Idk what you picture, but I imagine a person on UBI affording to eat rice and beans in a studio apartment somewhere in a low cost-of-living and low property value geography (though perhaps among pleasant neighbors and like minded folks).

So I kind of think the name “Universal Basic Income” needs to be reworked so it sounds more harsh, almost like a necessary evil. Something like “Rock Bottom Income”, idk.

I don’t have the perfect answer, but do you think conservatives would get on board if it was like “The poors can’t complain, they can take their complaints straight to Bean Town if they don’t like the wages” or do you think they’d still find it unpalatable?

I think this kind of research and discourse about it is important from an ethical and social reckoning standpoint, but I don’t think it is economically worthwhile to engage in a neverending arms race between AI censorship and the boundless determination of trolls.

So my hypothesis is that we are going to see governments roll out legislation that just recognizes defeat and fully deregulates AI generated content online rather than spending the time/money/energy trying to hold corporations or individuals accountable for what LLMs say.

Perhaps we will see regulations around what AI agents do insofar as executing code or submitting transactional requests, but I really doubt there are going to be many enforced limitations on what LLMs say in the near future.

It will probably be the same policies that finally put the copyright concerns over their enormously controversial training data to rest, ultimately killing any prospect of copyright holders to sue for damages over stolen art/code/etc.

I think there is a path forward where the internet and the content on it are sufficiently commoditized that the costs become trivial to average people, like the cost of running an LED at night, and so monied interests move into other areas like robotics and the internet begins to drift back toward the idealized vision mentioned in this post.

I doubt it will ever drift all the way back, but it is getting super cheap to run edge compute and store data on the cloud.

It’s getting increasingly cheap to write code with LLMs too, and if that continues to evolve at the rate it’s going then users are not going to feel locked into their big-name platform of choice anymore. Porting from Apple to Google to Microsoft to Amazon to Self-Hosted etc, will be a lower and lower bar with fewer and fewer barriers for the average user, making for a hint of that old wild frontier feeling online again.

Super weird. I recall that tickets from cameras were found to be not enforceable in California back in the early 2000’s because officers signing the tickets were not on site at the point of the infraction and so could not testify that they actually witnessed the full scope/context of the events in question before any court of appeal.

I wonder if that’s changed or if this system is somehow different than the previous iterations where officers signed tickets after only witnessing video footage.

Bummer, you are right. I was wrong. I misread the first study and thought they were detecting faces through object like glasses using infrared, however that is not the case. They just mentioned detecting eyes through glasses(using visible spectrum) and then moved on to talking about infrared for other purposes.

Damn, well I’ll take down the comment. Thanks for pointing this out, sorry to waste your time!

deleted by creator

Whether it passes or not, civilians need to start using the infrared on their phone cameras to see through face coverings and profile law enforcement identities during execution of illegal orders anyway.

I cannot believe there is not a widely used FOSS app for this when the hardware is in your pocket already and the research is prevalent for how to do this.

I don’t understand why protestors would even show up in Washington DC during the fascist parade like is being implied in the article.

The union protests and social unrest currently underway are not really related to Trump’s authoritarian birthday bash except for how the media paints them as a “warm up”.

Protesters would be better served popping up all over the country except in Washington DC during their synchronized goose stepping contest.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

During one of the mass exodus events from Reddit to Lemmy, a lot of people started using these tools they would install to automatically scrub and obfuscate their Reddit comments and posts history. Often these tools would replace posts with random letters and even nonsense links because there was suspicion that outright deleted posts could be detected and then programmatically restored if Reddit really wanted to get that user content back.

I suspect these tools probably exist for Lemmy as well and you are seeing users with long comment histories use them because those also happen to be the users who have a lot of previous content to cover up/obfuscate to maintain/ensure their own privacy.

Inject it with bleach! That’ll do the trick.

No, but you have access to the protocol so you write your own algorithm.

Then it is your algorithm, using the common protocol, that goes out and retrieves search results for your feed.

Likewise, 3rd party corporations can write their own algorithms on the protocol and everyone can choose which algorithms fill their personal feed with search results - turning them on or off on a whim, at a personalized level.

I recently listened to Paul Frazee talk about Bluesky on the Software Engineering Radio podcast and it struck me that one thing they got right was looking at social media like a search engine looks at the web, instead of like a centralized platform(Facebook) and instead of like a federated network of platforms(fediverse).

If your feed is understood to be just the search results you see, then users can understand that their algorithm is something they need to work on in the same vein that they change their search parameters on Google or Bing or other search engines.

This is incredibly simple to fix.

Prosecute the power companies for their gross negligence leading to deadly wildfires instead of giving them a free pass every time - there are multiple opportunities to do this every year, like this: Reuters: PG&E Guilty On 84 counts

Instead of plain monetary fees, we just need more severe sentencing.

For example: In the interest of public safety, confiscate large swaths of the infrastructure implicated in the manslaughter, including the resources necessary to maintain it and the consumer contracts funding it.

Build in community service agreements forcing them to subcontract their own personnel to train a new state power agency on the intricacies of the confiscated equipment of the following years.

The more manslaughter, the bigger the state agency becomes until there is no longer a profit motive behind our power infrastructure.