> Three years ago, Snapchat offered to support the work I do as a sociologist, primarily applying social theory to social media. In these past three years, the company has also paid for the venue for a conference I co-founded and chair called Theorizing the Web, without asking for any editorial input or control. Snapchat is now funding Real Life, and we have editorial independence as well. The support means we can focus on writers and writing rather than clicks and shares. At the same time, there are inherent complexities attached to being funded by a company in the field of what we’re publishing about, sometimes critically. But the content will have to speak for itself. We believe in this project, and we’re doing this because we think and care about the things you’ll see discussed on the site: identity, power, privacy, surveillance, relationships, beauty, to name a few.
I know this website has a penchant for anti-China everything, but it's funny because every terms of service I've ever read has something in it about complying with law enforcement about giving up data and terminating service. If you're against zoom doing this, I would expect you to be against every other company having this clause in their TOS.
in nyc it's quite common (maybe even required) to run simulations of changes of infrastructure before making them to see how they will effect traffic.
source: my partner helps run these simulations as part of their job/their company gets contract work from the city all the time to check changes of bus routes/etc.
I've had some trouble getting in touch with the engineers who did this around Seattle. Any details they can share about the software they use, what metrics they base decisions on, where they pull demand data? Any thoughts on making the input and results of these simulations public so anybody can reproduce the analysis, experiment on their own, etc?
this is such a bad take on the real issue which is the radicalization of these men by website like the *chans.
saying "this is largely a mental health problem" completely ignores the problem of large scale violence the far-right is committing, and only perpetuates thinking of these people as "lone wolves". they may seem like that from the outside, but seeing how much destruction they've done over the past few years makes it clear they are not. they are organized.
treating fascism and nationalism as a "mental health problem" is a scapegoat so as not to talk about the real issue.
Can you not believe all of these are various inputs linked to the outcome?
There are millions of far right activists and likely a non zero percentage of them have the same views as the shooter. Yet the shooter was the one to break out while the rest of them stood still. Radicalization requires people in poor situations to do its biddings; regular people may fall into the propaganda trap but most people would never sacrifice the comfort of their lives for an abstract political cause.
I believe it is more of an education problem than a mental health. These movements based on the absence of facts and extremely reaching claims could only survive if the people participating do not have the tools to catch the logical snafus and realize they are being tricked. That people do not realize this and continue to fall for these movements tell me that we failed to equip my generation with the skepticism that results in critical thinking skills.
wrong could be contrary to your preferred style. that's just how it goes. just because you don't care if others misspell you name doesn't mean that applies to all others.
I care, it's just it's an emotional response and over time I've realised that there's no real logical reason to correct it in most every situation. Of course people are not logical, and I don't expect others to share my values -- in part that's the point of asking question to get another perspective that I can use to alter my own.
there are cases when you should treat a cyclist like a pedestrian and others where you should treat them like a car.
i don't think any driving teachers are doing a good job at teaching this, but as soon as you get on a bike you realize how silly it is to make a full stop at a stop sign, both from a safety point of view as well as a physics point of view.
> Nope. You follow traffic laws. If you're in the lane at a stop sign, you stop. If you're on the sidewalk, you can behave as a pedestrian.
My experience is that drivers tend to have a much worse understanding of the law as it relates to cycling than I as a cyclist do.
I've been told by drivers to ride on the sidewalk where riding on the sidewalk was illegal. (Regardless, riding on the sidewalk is bad practice because it's actually more dangerous than riding on the road and not nice for pedestrians.)
I've been told by drivers to get in the bike lane when I was in the sharrow lane on an official city bike route. They want me to ride in parking, which is actually illegal as far as I know, though not enforced. Sorry, I won't be swerving in and out of traffic so that you can get to the stop light 10 seconds ahead of me and then still have to wait 30 more seconds for the light to change. Add on top of that the debris in a "lane" that's not intended for travel and thus not often cleaned; I won't get a flat tire to save you a couple seconds.
Some drivers seem to get annoyed that cyclists "run red lights" at a few intersections near where I live, when there are signs that say "cyclists may use pedestrian signal" and I have never seen a cyclist go through red there without the pedestrian signal.
For "infractions" like these I've had drivers do close "punishment passes".
Now, there are bozo cyclists out there, but as someone who is particularly knowledgeable about the law as it applies to cyclists like me, I know that drivers frequently believe cyclists are breaking the law when they are not.
Thinking about it, it might actually have been legal to ride on the sidewalk at the time I had in mind when writing above. But still, riding on the sidewalk is bad practice.
Traffic laws and infrastructure have never really be designed to consider the fact that cyclists exist though, so it's not surprising that cyclists don't follow the law to the letter.
> Three years ago, Snapchat offered to support the work I do as a sociologist, primarily applying social theory to social media. In these past three years, the company has also paid for the venue for a conference I co-founded and chair called Theorizing the Web, without asking for any editorial input or control. Snapchat is now funding Real Life, and we have editorial independence as well. The support means we can focus on writers and writing rather than clicks and shares. At the same time, there are inherent complexities attached to being funded by a company in the field of what we’re publishing about, sometimes critically. But the content will have to speak for itself. We believe in this project, and we’re doing this because we think and care about the things you’ll see discussed on the site: identity, power, privacy, surveillance, relationships, beauty, to name a few.