To be fair, those directors were told it was their fiduciary duty to maximize profits, and the systems surrounding them clamor with nonstop praise. We allow these empires of selfishness to be amassed, we have chosen which wolf to feed ever since we stopped trust-busting.
Indeed, if self-driving cars killed 1,000 people a year they would immediately be banned, but 30x that in human-caused fatalities and nobody bats an eye. We have created a culture that idolizes the personal freedom of the automobile while ignoring every externalized cost it dumps onto the general population.
It mostly puts the risk and consequences on the elderly, disabled, and impoverished. Which is evil, but socially acceptable and with many other strong precedents in the US.
Similar results when looking for disability too. Age I'm not following up on right now for time reasons but since the elderly are more likely than average to be either disabled or impoverished it almost doesn't matter.
What's your goal on bringing attention to the BAC of the pedestrians? People are allowed to drink, even be drunk. Is "drinking and walking" to be a crime too? Road safety needs to account for all conditions and decisions likely to be encountered by drivers, including drunk pedestrians just as much as children and wheelchair users.
I could only access the one article you linked https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta... which mentions: “With miles of broken or missing sidewalks, inadequate outdoor lighting, distracted drivers and wide streets that facilitate speeding, Gulfton could also be Exhibit A in what has become an alarming nationwide increase in pedestrian fatalities in recent years, disproportionately concentrated in the neighborhoods of people of color with low incomes.”
On reflection, I wonder whether there is any component of cause and effect because black people could be harder to see at night: “Pedestrian fatalities occur mostly in urban areas, at night in dark lighting conditions”, “In 2015, 74 percent of pedestrian crashes happened in the dark”.
I also assume survivability is strongly affected by age and disability.
> I do kind of question your intent or at least motivation here.
In this case I simply used poor search terms. You are violating the site guideline to “Assume good faith” when you write that. I had thought that my examples supported your paraphrased point of discriminatory death. For anti-discrimination, sometimes men and drunk people (as you rightfully reiterate) are not seen as targets.
I am generally curious about causes and effects. It is difficult to tease out the underlying reasons why we measure some clearly unfair and biased outcomes.
I heartily agree we should aim for streets to be safe for all pedestrians, whether: drunk, impoverished, man or woman, PoC, children, etcetera.
> You are violating the site guideline to “Assume good faith” when you write that.
Call the hall monitors then because I'm about to do it again.
Neighborhoods where minorities and the impoverished live are dramatically under-resourced and this has been widely understood for decades now. You can see it by just walking through the black neighborhood in any city I've lived in and comparing the physical streets and sidewalks! Lights and crosswalks are fewer and less maintained, sidewalks are more busted or not even there, forcing people into the street.
But instead of considering, or even looking into, any of that you go straight to "hm maybe black people are just hard to see." What the shit man seriously.
I am listening and agreeing with you. Attacking others is a poor way to help others learn your point of view.
I thought I was https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning but maybe not. Trying to look for facts even should I dislike them, and trying to avoid unfair bias (which is very hard to do).
> hall monitors
We are each responsible for writing comments that create an ambiance on this site which encourages civil discourse. I only use the hall monitors for truely offensive material. For minor communication difficulties, the idea is that we all politely help each other. Conflict is fine, and it is difficult to offend me.
It isn't difficult math - selfish flow of traffic produces extremely un-optimal results, and congestion is simply a function of how much traffic chooses a certain path. I highly recommend Tim Roughgarten's work if you want an academic analysis: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262182430/selfish-routing-and-t...
The site in question has regularly been used as a place to coordinate doxxing and serious harassment. AFAIK no measures have been taken by the owners to remedy this, and thus they've forfeited their rights to run a website.
Doxxing and serious harassment (probably depending on how "serious" it is, IANAL) are crimes though? Why isn't there a court order to shut down the site? Why did the site die at the hands of Internet vigilantes instead of being properly executed after a trial? Is law enforcement inept enough that it needs help from random activists, coordinating a Twitter/Facebook/WhatHaveYou campaign to convince some influential people to act? Why the same influential people were not told to act by a court? There's something wrong here...
> The site in question has regularly been used as a place to coordinate doxxing and serious harassment.
I have no way of verifying this and I suspect neither do you.
What I have seen is that the owners have explicit rules laid down that state that coordinating harassment is not allowed, which seems very much like a measure taken.
Posting publicly, self-posted in many cases, information hardly counts as doxxing.
and as for harassment, let alone "serious harassment", 100% utterly false.. Even talking about interacting with people talked about is and has always been banned! Users downvote attempts as well. It's a gossip and documentation site, not a place for calls to action. "Look but never touch"
> ...and thus they've forfeited their rights to run a website.
You cannot forfeit a right. The right either exists or it doesn't exist. Anything that can be forfeited is a privilege. Free speech is a right, but using other people's hardware to do so (via hosting/CDN services) is a privilege.
Of course you can forfeit a right. If I commit a felony in the US as a US citizen I forfeit my right to vote. If I sell a copyright I've forfeited the right to monopolize that work.
Nevertheless, you have the right to free speech, just not a platform. The government hasn't made it illegal for Kiwifarms to have a website, it's just that nobody wants to be a part of hosting or distributing it. That's literally the right of free association at work.
> If I commit a felony in the US as a US citizen I forfeit my right to vote.
Many hold the opinion, as do I, that a felon serving their time and then being left unable to vote is a violation of their civil rights.
> If I sell a copyright I've forfeited the right to monopolize that work.
You haven't forfeighted anything. You've sold a commodity. That's not the same thing.
> Nevertheless, you have the right to free speech, just not a platform. The government hasn't made it illegal for Kiwifarms to have a website, it's just that nobody wants to be a part of hosting or distributing it. That's literally the right of free association at work.
A platform is a privilege (e.g. a VPS), but they do have a right to common carrier infrastructure. The author talks about their ISP dropping them, which ISPs in the U.S. are considered common carriers (not sure about Paris). A common carrier cannot discriminate on it's clientele short of direct government action regarding criminal or national security issues. Neither of those is the case with KiwiFarms. Distasteful? Sure, but not criminal.
> In most (all?) societies that I am aware of you can forfeit your right to personal autonomy and/or life by committing a crime.
Criminals still have rights, some specifically regarding the criminal justice system. Society has agreed after a conviction to not allow criminals to exercise some of their rights to protect the rights of their victims. For example, in order to protect others' right to life we have decided to infringe a murderer's right to liberty.
> Is your argument that we should not punish crimes with imprisonment or is it that people do not have a right to personal autonomy?
No, my argument is that even when imprisoned criminals' rights don't go anywhere. Society has decided it's better to violate criminals' rights to prevent the infringement of innocents' rights.
Did they break the law? If not, then they didn't forfeit any rights, since you don't forfeit rights by exercising them. If so, then they should have been shut down by the legal system, not via extrajudicial punishment.
Kingwood is the closest thing, because you can at least go for a nice nature walk or have your kids safely bike to school, but there is zero 'walk to the corner store' infrastructure. It's a shame becausse my mother grew up in a much more walkable houston but now this was the best neighborhood she could retire in.
My counterargument: The real work is not increasing complexity, but boiling down complex concepts into ones that can be worked with and exchanged easily. This is why math is so vital, and why tools that 'hide' layers of abstraction so powerful.
A physical metaphor: Shipping containers don't make things harder to ship, even though untold millions of containers contain a lot of heavy things inside of them. It's not about the box full of stuff, it's the entire vastly more efficient global shipping industry! This is, I assume, why Docker uses the container metaphor.
We live in an age of profit pollution. Any farm doing this would be bought out by soy/corn growers, because the latter will be more profitable than the former. The same pollution is why your mailbox is full of wasteful garbage and your telephone line is harassed by scam calls until you stop picking up.
In large part farms doing this don't get so much bought out but destroyed with herbicide drift from cash crop farms next door. Not everywhere, but in major parts. And when you complain, the locals pitchfork you, because what are you even doing here if you're not growing corn?
