The city of Tacoma, WA recently implemented new ALPR ticketing systems to enforce speed limits in northern Tacoma. They received so many hits, they had to build out a new system akin to a lottery for sending ticket / infraction notices.
To me, that seems like the city is entrapping its citizens to make up for a lack of revenue, when the data clearly shows the speed limit should probably be adjusted. But no, they move to develop a lottery system to send the infractions.
Speed limit cameras are highly effective at slowing cars down. They were recently removed in Ontario, and the average road speed increased substantially. The pedestrian death counts spiked in both Toronto and Ottawa this year. This is likely not a coincidence.
But did Toronto and Ottawa have to develop a lottery system to enforce the new systems due to capacity issues? Over the course of a month, it was over 400k infractions captured... 40MPH road.
The only reason for the speed to trend downwards is the increasing threat of a ticket from an automated system that cannot be reasoned with. A real cop generally isn't going to ticket me for going 5, maybe even 10 over a posted 40MPH zone unless they fished me for something else during the the stop. Flow of traffic is everything.
Almost all of the cameras were in front of school zones. 10 mph over in a school zone would definitely result in a ticket here. 5mph likely wouldn't, but the speed cameras didn't issue for 5 over either.
The cameras in Ontario issued an order of magnitude fewer tickets than yours. The highest volume cameras issued about 100 a day.
Yeah, 10mph over in a school zone is absurd. The issue I'm referring to are literally TWO speed cameras on common city corridors, non school zones.
The lottery system they're building to support the capacity issue is going to calculate weights based on the most egregious speeders, which I guess is nice...
What also works without needing a huge bureaucracy and fining people regularly is electronic speed detectors that display your speed and flash at you when you're going above the speed limit.
We've got those everywhere. Everybody ignores them. They're probably one of those many things that work while they're new, but stop working after people acclimatize.
The trick is to occasionally (on an unpredictable schedule) put a police cruiser in the same vicinity if the average speed creeps up too much. This turns the readout into a legitimate warning. When you put them out without enforcement then everyone learns to ignore them.
Police regularly giving speeding tickets lowers road speeds. If the police regularly hang out at speed indicators, then people will learn that and only slow down at the indicators. OTOH, with regular enforcement and without the speed indicators people will slow down everywhere. I'd rather have people slow down everywhere.
Entrapment means the government induced the illegal behavior. An ALPR speed cam doesn't induce anyone to speed. Its not entrapment, just drive the speed limit and you won't get tickets.
It's the road design, not the cameras, that are entrapment. Or maybe it's most accurate to say it's both together. We understand how people drive on different kinds of roads and choose to build ones where people will go fast, then make going fast illegal. We know that mere illegality doesn't stop approximately everyone from speeding. We know how wide lanes and long stretches of straight road interact with human psychology.
This is the difference between Design Speed and Posted Speed.
I remember twenty years ago flying into someplace in Florida and finally getting my rental car on the road at 2 AM. At a certain point I was on what was, to me growing up in New England, the equivalent of a divided six-lane highway.
I open up because no one the was on the road, and immediately get blue flashing lights in my mirrors.
Turns out this "six lane highway" was considered the equivalent of a back alleyway and the speed limit was 35.
Nothing about road design forces people to drive fast. People can drive at 5 mph along a perfectly straight road. They're speeding because they're impatient, not because there is something about road design that forces drivers to exceed the speed limit.
This isn't true. Road design imparts a psychological effect on the driver, and in some countries this is in their design standards. See for example the UK's Manual for Streets 1, 7.4 "Achieving appropriate traffic speeds" (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...)
You can slow people down by making lanes thinner, adding in-road obstacles or chicanes, removing road markings to take drivers out of their complacency and get them actively thinking, and at the slowdown at the end of a road, using tightly packed lines or rumble strips to give the impression of speed, to which they naturally react by slowing down. You also stagger junctions, and put in bends, rather than have a fast road run directly onto a slow one (or vice-versa) and then say to yourself "WELL, I DID MY PART, I MADE A NICE FAST ROAD SLAM RIGHT INTO A SLOW ONE, AND IT'S ENTIRELY ON THE DRIVERS TO NOTICE THAT STOP SIGN AND SLOW DOWN IN TIME. NOT MY PROBLEM IF THEY DON'T"
Naturally, if you do the opposite, and build a wide, long, straight road with few visual indications of how fast people are going, even the most conscientious will likely zone out and start unintentionally speeding up. It's simple human psychology.
You can't be like "human psychology's not a thing, I'll judge every single human like they're completely omniscient and perfectly rational", because there are millions of people who unintentionally do things they don't rationally want to do, every single day, because they were psychologically manipulated. Use road design to manipulate them into doing the right thing, rather than manipulate them into doing the wrong thing and then directly take money from them. That's a dark pattern.
Sure, if someone is used to going 70 on the highway then they drive to Oregon where speed limits max out at 55 then yeah they'll probably speed if they drive carelessly. But that's ultimately still the responsibility of the driver to obey the speed limit.
I wasn't claiming anything was entrapment, I was taking up your claim that "Nothing about road design forces people to drive fast."
Indeed, nothing forces, but road designs really strongly suggest through the use of psychology. The mafioso didn't force you to be a drug mule when he said he'd murder your family if you didn't. The website didn't force you to let them sell your data when they put in giant bold letters "AGREE AND ENTER" and in 5 point grey on grey "decline" -- after the website's owners ran multiple rounds A/B testing to see what was most effective at getting people to click the option that gives them free money. They didn't force you, it's all your choice buddy. You feel tricked or conned? Like you were carefully goaded into making a choice against your best interest? Well, you shouldha read the small print, sucker!
Anyway, I don't think these things are "entrapment" (meaning the police coerce you into breaking a law you wouldn't otherwise have broken), but they are sketchy, especially if the organisation in charge of enforcement also gets a cut of the fines.
> Brookside "recognizes" that its "policy of aggressive policing," which "prioritized generating revenue for the department's expansion," "likely interfered with the Town's obligation to administer justice equally under law," "undermined the public's trust in the justice system," and "raised serious constitutional concerns under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
> Indeed, nothing forces, but road designs really strongly suggest through the use of psychology. The mafioso didn't force you to be a drug mule when he said he'd murder your family if you didn't.
Uh, yeah it is? This is literally textbook coercion through threat of murder. I'm not sure how this is relevant to people who don't pay attention to speed limits and speed, though.
Also, the example in your linked article isn't even related to speed limits:
> According to the lawsuit, Coleman "was following three or four car lengths behind" her boyfriend's car. But Sellers claimed she was "tailgating." He also claimed to smell marijuana, which supposedly justified ordering Coleman out of her car and handcuffing her.
Traffic engineers, road designers, and car makers deserve a lot of the blame and should be held accountable.
You keep designing deadly streets and roads that encourage speeding, you keep producing and marketing bigger and bigger more dangerous vehicles... Ads about power and speed... And then turn around and blame people as being solely responsible?
No, the overall system is a direct cause of crashes and deaths as well.
You could say that but you'd be saying it with the same amount of honesty that one could say nothing about gambling and fast food ads everywhere makes people piss their money away on sports betting while being fat.
At the societal level these things are numbers games. If you don't want people going 60 on a road don't build a road where normal conditions cause that to be a comfortable and safe speed.
> the data clearly shows the speed limit should probably be adjusted
The problem is a cultural one. Most people interpret a speed limit of N as "I should go N+10" (or something like that). If we remove speed limits, the majority of people would end up driving at unsafe speeds. People will always break speed limits unless they are set at that unsafe level.
And the solution is to build the roads such that going over the speed limit feels dangerous.
Make roads narrower. Add more bends and lateral shifts. Plant trees along the road to obstruct sight lines. Build roads so that only speeds below the speed limit are safe on them and people will travel below the speed limit.
When people talk about what speeds are "safe", everyone bakes in some assumptions, but everyone is using different assumptions.
I come from the position that on a dry, well-maintained, and straight road, with no traffic, I think even 100 mph is a safe speed. I assume people like you that even consider 80 mph to be unsafe are assuming there's significant traffic on curved roads that might not have the best maintenance. I also assume you're driving a large truck or SUV which has abysmal handling, whereas I'm used to the tighter handling of my Subaru BRZ.
Generally, I don't think speed causes crashes, it just makes crashes worse. So if I'm coming from assumptions above, then crashes basically won't happen.
Add some traffic? Then the safe speed depends on their discipline. Are drivers keeping right except when passing? Or is some asshole playing "traffic cop" and camping the left lane at the speed limit, or even below it?
Not true people drive what they feel the safe limit of the road to be. You can easily devise a road that has 55 mile an hour speed limit and no one will go over 35.
The speed limits are a useful safety signal. If I suddenly see a 30mph limit in a 50mph zone, usually it's because of upcoming curves and it likely not safe to continue at 65mph.
Unless it’s a blind curve then it takes no time to adjust to the conditions on your own And it comes naturally. I say this as someone that just drives as fast as I want and don’t usually attempt to adhere to any posted sign. In cases there is a sharp/blind curve that’s when I see they usually just use the curve arrow sign to warn me and so I know to pay a bit more attention and make sure I am ready and able to adjust my speed if actually needed. I almost never adjust just because I see a sign.
It’s not always required. I rarely brake at all on an open road, except for stops and if something else is physically in my way.
If if the conditions actually require it, that’s when I brake. Not because a sign told me too when I may not actually need to. I feel that’s probably the most economical option.
Most people drive at a comfortable speed for the road and conditions with little regard for the posted limits. Most studies I’ve read, sorry not going to look them up to cite, say speed limit should match the human level. Not some imaginary forced number that the DOT came up with on a spreadsheet.
Problem is ma t of those limits were set for cars with horrible bias-ply tires and drum brakes. In modern cars that can easily traverse those roads at 20 or 30mph over they feel assinine.
I would be totally fine fine with speed limits being actual, enforced, no wiggle room limits, IF the actual limits were reasonable in the first place. This would mean most interstates outside of built up areas being posted at 80-90mph, say .
25 mph limits abound in Seattle and hardly anyone bothers with following them. The only way they are going to ever enforce that is with speed cameras since we also don't have enough police to even deal with violent crime, let alone with traffic violations.
Where I live, speed limits are regularly reviewed and set higher or lower based on collected data about safety, traffic patterns, and average speeds. Red-light camera auto-ticketing isn't allowed either.
Lol driver preference should have nothing to do with it. Cars are the biggest threat to public safety everywhere and making people slow down is a good thing.
I think we need to stick with it for a while. After getting a fine or two most people will adjust and start treating the speed limit as the upper bound.
Agree that the lottery is silly though. I would give people a free hit a year. You get a warning saying, this one is free if you don't break the limit again. If you do, pay both fines.
Also index the fines to income.
We can kill speeding. It's just a matter of resolve and time. It'd save a lot of lives.
Running very similar setups. PAM handles FIDO / security key based auth on my local systems for root users and sudo commands, as well as LUKS decryption.
I have a handful of security keys, so I have a helper script to drop them into new hosts and another helper script on my systems to import keys straight to ssh-agent once detected.
Has worked very well and I don't think I'll ever go back to a "password manager as SSH agent" again, but it's probably the best alternative backup. I still have Bitwarden holding some backup keypairs for this reason, but haven't needed to use them in months.
It starts in college, having lived through those first couple sentences verbatim. There is a group / pack mentality around this behavior as well, but I'm not really educated on psychology enough to describe it further.
I don't think CEO personality types have changed all that much. I work IT in manufacturing, and have consistently seen this "macho masculinity alpha" type before. He was quickly let go by the board, thankfully.
We live in a world where CEOs typically have gotten their position through nepotism, or fucking over many people to get to the top. It's just who they are.
To a lesser extent, myself and others already are in the 'simulation'. I go to work, go home, play some games or muck around in my lab, repeat. I don't really have aspirations or an outside presence, just focused on ignoring every manmade horror that has been shown to us over the past four years.
It's pretty easy and straight forward, the login UI is similar to netflix where you can have profiles per user and have them shown on the login screen, etc. They get placed straight into the view of your library, from there they can simply click play.
I'm not up to speed on transcoding, but I do notice my web users always have to transcode, assuming due to their native browser playback support for codecs. Local installs of the Jellyfin player seem to avoid this on most systems.
Are the shows foreign or rare media? I almost exclusively use Jellyfin for TV and generally the only media that breaks from weird metadata tagging is asian stuff like Animes. Naming convention of the episode titles usually has very little to do with how Jellyfin shows them, unless that's the only data it can see.
Why is eBay acting as the FCC? I can still buy lasers that will rip through your retina in the blink of a eye from eBay (lol). The equipment is completely legal to own and operate, and transmit with the proper licensing (which is not required to purchase said equipment).
I was using eBay back when you could buy/sell blackpowder rifles. A lawyer must have told them to shut that down even though it was (still is) 100% legal.
(Blackpowder rifles, etc. are not considered firearms believe it or not.)
Because these companies have large legal departments essentially in charge of minimizing regulatory and reputational risk. It's the same reason they've been progressively cracking down on firearm accessories, BB guns, knives, fireworks, laboratory chemicals, erotica, pill presses, and a bunch of other things over the past 20 years. All of that is generally legal in the US but makes lawyers and PR people queasy. It's not just marketplaces, Paypal has asinine rules on what you can and cannot pay for. So does Google Pay, Zelle, Venmo, and so on.
I don't think it's useful to point out inconsistencies; the bottom line is that lasers will be on the chopping block within our lifetime too.
You can't buy firearms parts or tooling on eBay in the UK because quite frankly if you're a gunsmith you're probably not buying stuff on eBay, and it's unlikely that anyone who isn't a qualified gunsmith is buying them for anything legit. Similarly, there are age restrictions on buying bladed items, just as there are on buying bladed items in shops. Turns out that all those 13-year-olds buying 14" butcher knives weren't actually filleting venison with them, who would have thought it?
Yer cheapy Chinese radios though? Baofengs are currently about £19 each on eBay, with a discount for quantity.
The amateur gunsmith scene in the UK is pretty small and if you're buying and selling parts and tools, you probably already know who you're buying from or selling to.
It's easier just to speak to someone, bank transfer some money over, and they'll stick it in the post.
Yeah, but you can't in the UK, because the laws are different.
You can, however, buy cheap Chinese HTs (Baofengs are less than 20 quid these days) which are illegal in the US, test equipment that's illegal in the US, and even Tonka beans which are illegal in the US (although honestly if you're buying a poisonous bean to add flavour to a dish you're better buying it from a reputable supplier - a bit like yer gun parts).
Interesting thing about gun laws in the UK vs the US too - apparently if you buy something like a tank with a really massive gun, in the UK "deactivating" it is really just a case of cutting one part off the mechanism. But if you try to ship that to the UK, you've got to basically gas axe off the entire breech and plate up both ends of the barrel, or fill it with concrete or something similar. A "deactivated" weapon in the UK is nowhere near deactivated enough for the US.
Over here, you can actually have a tank with a fully-functioning gun in private ownership. It's expensive to get the right paperwork for it, but it can be done.
I want to say something mean and sarcastic, but I will tell you that for gunsmithing eBay was (is?) very useful, at least for the gunsmiths I know. It was the best place to find a replacement 92S slide and a lot of second hand Tony Kidd parts before a rimfire carnival, but we live in the land of the free, and I don't need to get on my knees and beg for a loiscene like some people.
If someone wants a 14" blade, one can fetch some steel from a junkyard and apply an angle grinder to it. Best results with leaf springs. Then wrap one end with electrical tape and it'll chop an arm or a head off no problem. A bit more effort with the grinder and you get yourself something like a gladius.
Now, what is the point of those bans? So people feel safer while not being safer?
> If someone wants a 14" blade, one can fetch some steel from a junkyard and apply an angle grinder to it.
I'm sure that's what the average 13-year-old wannabe gangster is absolutely going to do, spend 50 quid on a budget angle grinder and traipse around scrapyards for a lorry spring.
Yeah, that makes total sense.
Is there any *legitimate* reason why a child needs to be able to buy chef's knives?
Maybe wind the misplaced sarcasm down several notches please, it's unseemly particularly as knife making is easily one of the more popular goto shop projects in high school (outside the STEM nerd and theatre kids circle, I know) and that "wannabe gangsters" even in their teens have easy access to stolen goods at a discount or often five finger their own.
UK (and Canadian, Australian, etc) weapon disposal schemes frequently land home made weapons eg: https://kk.org/streetuse/english-ownerbuilt-weapons/ from 2006 is barely a trickle of the flood that gets swept up by amnesty programs.
Why isn't a child allowed to practice cheffing on their own? Say kid in a halfway or foster facility where the place doesn't have the knives and no one will buy them for them.
What are you going to tell them? That they're allowed a boning knife that'll easily cut every artery in a human but not a chopper because ooooh those are super duper scary? That they're not allowed any "chef's knife" but the steak knives for dinner are fine?
You know the average 13-year-old wannabe gangster can shave a shank on the sidewalk just as well, right? That a perfectly-capable-of-murder-and-menace device can be manufactured from just about anything? That a common 2x4 or bat or shoestring will do? And that preventing their committing crime with a larger knife is easier to police than a smaller concealable, right?
> Why isn't a child allowed to practice cheffing on their own?
They are, they're just not allowed to go and buy chef's knives. My son is 6 and is actually pretty good at cooking - he can make pizza from scratch, but does still need his old dad to knead the dough, for now I guess, don't know how long that will last.
Can you think of anything you *wouldn't* want your teenager to just be able to go and buy without your permission? USians are pretty weird about alcohol and pornography but equally weirdly permissive about weapons, and I've never heard of anyone stabbing someone to death with a jazz mag or stabbing them with a double vodka.
>Can you think of anything you wouldn't want your teenager to just be able to go and buy without your permission?
Not really (outside of those things that are only dangerous and have no other legitimate use like drugs, guns outside hunting rifles), because I don't believe it is the role of the state to decide what my child should be allowed to purchase. It is my job to raise them such that they don't do dangerous shit; to show them that brandishing a machete in public isn't allowed for anyone, regardless of age, and that threatening someone with a bat is the same as threatening them with a knife.
If the specific concern is "might be used in menacing or as a weapon" a large rock will suffice. Or a baseball bat. Or a sufficiently weighted wooden dowel. Or a crochet needle sharpened for 30 minutes. Or a hammer. Or fishing line. Or twine. Or a sufficiently thick plastic bag. Or a sock full of rocks. Or pantyhose. Or a torn up blanket/towel. If the goal is to eliminate the use of props used in crimes committed by children, you'll need to outlaw their ability to purchase more than half the items in the store, but even that doesn't prevent them from actually having the items. Does the child now require a written note from me to carry their baseball bat with them to practice? So that I get in trouble when they commit a crime with it? Or must they now have two bats so that they have one at the field and one to practice at home to eliminate their need to transport it? Must they be locked up like firearms to prevent any accidental practicing? Because, you never know when they stop practicing ball and switch to practicing crime. Best be safe, surely? Of course, this means that the child cannot practice hardly any hobbies given the large assortment of items that can be used in crime and should be banned, unless they have a supportive parent or there's a community program, but we know 100% of kids have those, so I guess that's no concern.
And what of non-violent crimes and accidents? Matches? Candle starters? Candles? Sewing needles? multi-meters? Soldering irons? Chisels? A printer? A computer? A phone? Hell, paints can be lethal in a closed space. If we're giving the government the task of preventing all injury and damages resulting from children purchasing things, we'd be better off just forbidding children access to purchasing in general than trying to cobble together some list that slowly chips away at the goal.
My child shouldn't be legally barred from purchasing any of the above, including a chef's knife or machete, because they have legitimate uses if the child has particular hobbies.
And my child shouldn't recieve some extra priveledged access to these items because they have a supportive parent rather than an exploitative foster parent.
The specific use of the bans is to provide a law that allows the questioning of people carrying knives and the seizing of those knives from those that appear to have no legitimate reason to be waving them about in public.
Like seatbelts they're not foolproof in making people safer, but they do act as a damper on knife crime.
Eh. I don't like these bans, but I think there are at least two good-faith arguments you can make:
1. People who decide to go on murder sprees are usually not high-functioning individuals, so even modest barriers can improve outcomes.
2. Fewer weapons in homes means fewer heat-of-the-moment acts involving these weapons. For example, there are very few firearm suicides in the EU, compared to the US.
Naturally there are less suicides via firearms when firearms are verboten. Firearms may be more fatal than hanging (the most popular method in the EU), but we’re comparing a death rate of 14/100,000 to 10/100,000 which really isn’t that different (and in fact some EU countries like Hungary and Belgium outpace the US avg dramatically, Idk what is happening in Hungary but it’s comparable to our ‘Suicide Belt’). From what I read, hanging has a 70% mortality rate while firearms have a 90% rate, so when adjusted for failed attempts (since I cannot find the actual numbers of attempted suicides) we get 15.5 in USA vs 14.3 in EU per capita. As for other acts such as domestic disputes, fists are far more prevalent because the intent is rarely to kill, and all households have knives if the intent is to kill, so I’m not sure if firearms are a major factor in the actual rate of disputes.
As such, we see little raw change in human behavior. Firearms do not increase suicidal ideation nor intention, they merely provide a more fatal means to do so (although, given the health complications of a failed hanging I question whether the ethics of this outcome are truly superior). So I really don’t consider the argument that restricting a population from firearms is good just due to that, when the method of suicide is independent of the reasons for suicide.
As for #1, cars are still widely accessible, and those who go on murder sprees would have far worse chances if more people carried weapons for self-defense.
As parent stated, these bans do not meaningfully change human nature, they simply give an air of safety. In fact, I would further say they create bad habits within society that criminals can and do exploit. Do you have a meaningful way to protect yourself if you were attacked? You should, your safety is a God-given right that only you can properly defend in the heat of the moment. Does your place of residence not allow for self-defense? Then that is a flaw in governance that must be addressed.
> but we’re comparing a death rate of 14/100,000 to 10/100,000 which really isn’t that different
Its 40% more.
> As for other acts such as domestic disputes, fists are far more prevalent because the intent is rarely to kill, and all households have knives if the intent is to kill, so I’m not sure if firearms are a major factor in the actual rate of disputes.
It wouldn't be a factor in the rate of disputes, it would be a factor in a dispute that turned into deadly one as opposed to not.
> Firearms do not increase suicidal ideation nor intention, they merely provide a more fatal means to do so
They are also extremely convenient and instant.
> So I really don’t consider the argument that restricting a population from firearms is good just due to that
I don't think people are making that argument.
> As for #1, cars are still widely accessible,
Cars are only practical for killing more than a few people when there are large, condensed crowds with road access into them.
> and those who go on murder sprees would have far worse chances if more people carried weapons for self-defense.
"But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer."
"It was twice as common for bystanders to physically subdue the attackers, often by tackling or striking them."
> Do you have a meaningful way to protect yourself if you were attacked? You should, your safety is a God-given right that only you can properly defend in the heat of the moment.
That is not a strong argument for anyone who doesn't feel that they will be likely in a situation which requires them to kill someone for their own safety.
Good job; you can do math. Care to interface with the rest of my argument that you ignored, discussing what that disparity actually means?
> It wouldn't be a factor in the rate of disputes
That was my central point. There is nuance to the way gun legalization could take place in Europe that can help offset fatalities like this, rather than a blanket ban.
> They are also extremely convenient and instant.
Hence the “more fatal means to do so” that you quoted.
> I don't think people are making that argument.
That’s quite literally the entire discussion. “Good-faith” arguments for banning firearms. If you need a refresher of the context, I suggest starting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50125399
> Cars are only practical for killing more than a few people when there are large, condensed crowds with road access into them.
They are practical for killing whoever is in front of them, physics permitting. They are far more practical than firearms for killing tightly packed groups, but little stops a massive block of metal from killing say a lone cyclist. Everything is situational; it doesn’t make it any less of a threat.
> "But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer."
Firstly, defensive gun use is defensive gun use regardless of owning a badge. Secondly, this is not accounting for gun-free zones (bars, school campuses) where most mass shooters will target because of that power disparity.
“…while 36% of active shooting attacks have occurred in places where guns are allowed, almost half (42.3%) of those were stopped by people who legally carry concealed handguns.”
> That is not a strong argument for anyone who doesn't feel that they will be likely in a situation which requires them to kill someone for their own safety.
While I am happy you feel so secure, that is a privileged position. Just because you feel secure in your safety doesn’t mean those who don’t should be without self-defense, nor does it mean you should neglect your safety out of complacency.
It would be nice if you weren't dismissive and belittling. You know there are a lot of good conversations we could be having about the role of firearms in American life, but it seems like whenever the topic comes up, it turns into this debate where facts are pulled out and theories proclaimed and no one is convincing anyone of anything because we aren't talking about anything productive. Do you really, honestly think that that convenience isn't a huge factor when you know that any extra click in an payment process will lose a percentage of potential purchasers, or that a tool designed to be incredibly good at one thing isn't better at doing that thing than something designed for something completely different that can accomplish the same thing if someone is motivated enough? Of course not. Why are you acting as if they are ridiculous?
Let's sit down and have a productive discussion about how we can actually move forward and do practical things to reduce gun violence. I have some ideas:
1. Reporting for lost and stolen firearms: stolen firearms go into the illegal market and make everyone more unsafe. If personal responsibility is the crux of safety, isn't this a no brainer?
2. Training for concealed carry: have you driven on the road with other people? Would you want those people aiming a gun at a crowd of people in a panic situation trying to get a bead on a shooter if they have only fired their weapon twice in their life?
What do you think? Let's drop the patronizing tone and the made up 'what if' arguments and talk about this seriously.
What statute gives authority to the FCC to "make up rules for marketplaces"? My understanding is that they only have authority over actual broadcasting.
the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (47 USC 154 1601 ff) is one place, among others, that Congress gave the FCC the authority to make rules about importing and selling electronics
I looked up the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-116publ124/pdf/PLAW...), and it appears to be the act under which products from certain manufacturers were excluded from being purchased with federal funds. It seems to make no mention of either regulating domestic marketplaces or giving any powers to the FCC. Are you sure you're citing the correct statute?
yeah the 2019 act begin this odyssey, and the authority to regulate electronics imports is 47 USC 302 when Congress gave up their power to write down specific laws about electronics to appointed bureaucrats at the FCC back in 1934.
No person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.
Yes, another person in the thread found that already. The provisions in 302a don't originate from either of the statutes you cited, but rather from Public Law 90-379, enacted by Congress in 1968: see https://www.congress.gov/bill/90th-congress/house-bill/14910....
It sounds like it will be up to the courts in this case to determine if these specific FCC regulations are actually made pursuant to the purpose of that section, and whether operating a marketplace within which others are offering radio equipment for sale can be interpreted as you yourself offering that equipment for sale.
I cited 47 usc 302 in the grandparent, to which you responded “no”
( i was in error about it coming from 1934, which I acknowledged in a child comment)
The 2021 and 2019 laws are relevant because the FCC said they expanded the FCC “authorization power” in 47 usc 302a to include covered entities and national security threats, not just regulation over electromagnetic compatibility issues
>Such regulations shall be applicable to the manufacture, import, sale, *offer for sale*, or shipment of such devices and home electronic equipment and systems, and to the use of such devices.
I appreciate the reference to an actual, applicable statute. Based on that, it sounds like whether eBay acting as a marketplace is actually the party offering equipment for sale, rather than merely providing a venue for others to offer it for sale, is something that would have to be figured out by the courts, as would the question of whether the specific regulations the FCC is enforcing actually are pursuant to that section.
If you believe the FCC or Congress misapplied the interstate commerce authority in the constitution or prior case law, then you can take this up in Federal Court after you synthesize standing by trying to list a radio for sell on ebay
this SCOTUS has expressed interest in reverting the interstate commerce authority to its pre-New Deal interpretations, which would disintegrate the administrative state of the last 100 years, so they’re just waiting for a case, if you’d like to see what small government looks like again
> If you believe the FCC or Congress misapplied the interstate commerce authority in the constitution or prior case law
I'm looking for the specific statute in which Congress exercised its interstate commerce authority to actually assign this power to the FCC.
> this SCOTUS has expressed interest in reverting the interstate commerce authority to its pre-New Deal interpretations, which would disintegrate the administrative state of the last 100 years
The the post-New-Deal interpretation of the interstate commerce authority still relies on understanding that the power to regulate interstate commerce belongs to Congress, such that administrative agencies only have those powers specifically granted to them by statute.
So regardless of this, the FCC still doesn't have direct interstate commerce authority under the constitution, and can only exercise such regulatory authority as has been assigned to them by by Congress.
Whether or not those statutes will continue to be recognized by the courts as a legitimate exercise of commerce clause powers is another matter entirely.
Because the FCC is puppeting Ebay through regulation, the author is deliberately painting this as evil large corporation because I assume
that gets more clicks, the real title would be "FCC Enacts Rule Restricting Sale of Radio Equipment, Marketplaces Like Ebay Forced to Pull Listings."
> Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain…
Yeah… a foreign adversary is totally going to be thwarted by FCC certification. The Russian's are probably just kicking themselves for buying at Walmart.
I'm 25. I go to work and then I go home. Same schedule since I got out of university. I do networking / IT. I usually buy a six pack of beer and then go to bed when I'm off, sometimes I'll stay up on my lab but I usually regret it because lack of sleep.
No bars, no dinners with anyone. I think the only blessing this lifestyle has given me is minimized impact from the failing economy we're in, at the cost of not seeing anyone or doing anything. I still have outside hobbies, but it's all too expensive to keep up with now, or being heavily regulated.
So it's basically Rush's "Working Man" - "So I get home at five o'clock and I take myself out an ice-cold beer. Always seem to be wond'rin' Why there's nothin' goin' down here. It seems to me I could live my life a lot better than I think I am. I guess that's why they call me...They call me the workin' man"
(and this goes back farther than 30 years. Closer to 50 now)
I love not socializing. I've never enjoyed a party in my life, I hate dating, I don't want to lose any time in the day to hanging out with anyone. But what I wonder is if am I fundamentally an antisocial person, or am I a product of my cursed environment and trapped in the momentum of the antisocial tidal wave that has been happening since before I was born?
I think it’s also a comfort or maybe risk/reward analysis thing.
I think staying at home basically rotting is more comfortable, sure. No judgment here, I’ve done that for months at a time. But the payoff is also… underwhelming. I mean you get basically nothing, just monotony and silence.
The more risky things, like dating or going to a party, are much more uncomfortable. But the potential payoff is a lot more. I mean you can really strike it up with someone, find someone on your wavelength. It can be exciting, exhilarating.
But it lacks the certainty. The reward is higher, but so is the drawback. If I stay inside and do nothing, at least I know the outcome. It’s more enticing in that way. But I also know I won’t make any memories that way. There won’t be some moment or some person I’ll look back on fondly.
I have an abundance of positive social experiences that remind me that the highs are high and the low are low and I just need to push through it to find that next great experience.
I can definitely see how someone who doesn't have many positive reference experiences would prefer to just be alone and avoid the lows all together.
Not that you asked, but I'd encourage you to not define yourself as antisocial. You just haven't found your kin yet, and if you keep looking you can find it.
Not really satisfied, but the alternatives seem like an uphill battle for myself. Most of my friends have moved on to their marriages, kids, etc. Certainly entering childless uncle phase of my life.
You don't have to live this way. To begin with, drinking a six pack at night on a regular basis is absolutely terrible for your health. It disrupts your sleep and so you will always be operating well below what you could be. The social problems are harder to solve because they are society-wide and not individual, but at your age a lot can change, and I think it's really important that you don't start to give up and think of your situation as inevitable, lest you ossify.
I'm 32 now and met some of my current best friends when I was 26. My parents are 60 and just moved to a new country and within a year they met a dozen new people they now hang out with all the time.
It sounds cliche but it's literally true that there's always time to meet new people no matter what phase of life you're in.
Related: when I was 25 I had a depressive existential crisis and felt like my life was basically over. It's common, and therapy was a lifesaver. If you feel like you might be depressed then talking to someone can really help. Take care of yourself as best you can!
Friend, I'm in my 50s now and I can tell you that you really are only just getting started. I highly recommend finding a new activity or social group and without making massive changes, as those can feel daunting, just make a small change to involve yourself with that. Even just once a month being part of a park run club, or getting to know people in your local art scene, or doing a cooking course, can start you down a path that will enrich your life.
The flip side is that you have time for hobbies, regular workouts instead of beer belly dad bod, you can play sports, bike or skateboard (including socializing), play chess, whatever you like, go to concerts, walk around town photographing.
Everything young parents don't have time for or are too tired for.
Mate you are only 25, those people getting married and having kids are doing it early. You have another 10+ years before you could even think about the childless uncle phase as a construct.
Relationships don't fall in your lap, you need to work on it. Fail, repeat, maintain. Yes, it is an uphill battle in many cases, for few it never ends well, but many reaches the hilltop. Those not 'fighting' uphill will not get up there, ever.
"Nothing in this world worth having comes easy"
And we always can try finding the gentle slopes, going around on the longer track, less crowded. The journey is what counts not the destination here.
I am the childless aunt. I'm in my late 40s, never desired children, so that won't change.
That said, I met my spouse in my early 30s. Was worth switching countries for and that was 13 years ago. We met playing the same silly text-based MMORPG some years ago. I have never been very social, but not being social doesn't mean that you won't meet people in non-traditional ways.
Work as much overtime as you possibly can for a few months or even a year and save as much as you can. Then get rid of any material possessions bogging you down and go travel and find life.
To me, that seems like the city is entrapping its citizens to make up for a lack of revenue, when the data clearly shows the speed limit should probably be adjusted. But no, they move to develop a lottery system to send the infractions.
reply