It's good to go into radio with an idea of what you want to do with it, then find a community of hams who enjoy doing that. People chase distant contacts, they practice emergency communications, they run low-power stations from remote locations, and many more kinds of activities.
> Police officials say she had arrived at the complex after working a full shift and was still in full uniform when she entered the victim's apartment, thinking it was her home.
> "It was, like, police talk: 'Open up! Open up!'" 20-year-old Caitlin Simpson said.
Sounds like she got pissed off when her key didn't work and the occupant got shot because he went to answer the door because that's what most people do when someone bangs on the door and then they see a cop through the peephole.
It isn't illegal to be hated, at least not yet. You seem awfully eager to coerce your neighbors into behaving in a way consistent with your personal values.
Conformity is a rational method that society uses to maintain order. It shouldn't be surprising. That's an objective observation and my own values are irrelevant to it.
It's altogether worse than that because at the very least most city dwellers are being taxed to support these transit services. They can't exactly opt out of supporting it.
Not to mention that someone who does not want to be screened is more than welcome to buy a ticket, but then not be able to use the ticket unless they "volunteer" to be screened.
The devil is in the details, so they say, but what you describe is not negligence. They didn't disable a safety feature and do nothing, they replaced a safety feature with something else. You'd need to make the case that this something else was somehow deficient in some material way and management shipped this feature knowing it was materially deficient for this to be negligence.
Why don't we instead start with the individual who was supposed to be monitoring the road and the vehicle's systems? It's well known at this point that they in fact were negligent in their duty.
they disabled both the built-in emergency braking system and their replacement emergency braking system. they absolutely did disable a safety feature and did not have anything in its place.
As you acknowledge, the human was only the secondary driver. That meant that Uber put a primary driver in the car that was designed to not stop for pedestrians.
> A much simpler (and more plausible) solution to chapium's problem is simply getting rid of the electoral college.
Which would then require that a candidate only pander to an even smaller number of densely populated cities.
It would be far better to revoke much of the power of the central government rather than to try and debug our way through to a mythical process by which all individual interests are considered. Because, in the end, minority interests will always be cast aside once the election is over anyway.
> Which would then require that a candidate only pander to an even smaller number of densely populated cities.
NYC/LA/Chicago combined is only 15M people. That's clearly not enough people to win a majority of a 300M+ population. Perhaps you mean a wider class of cities. But 80% of Americans live in cities! If you can't get elected by "pandering" to a whopping 80% of your electorate then something is terribly wrong. We have to choose a very "just right" definition of "city" for your assertion to be true.
But there's an even more important misunderstanding here.
When discussing this topic, many people get distracted by the fact that removing the electoral college would increase the voting power of Massachusetts residents and decrease the voting power of Montana residents in presidential elections.
This is a distraction because neither Massachusetts nor Montana is the winner in the current system! It's states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that have a truly distortionary amount of power in the current system. Those states are not particularly rural or particularly urban.
Here's the key observation that could make changes to the electoral college politically feasible: if you don't live in a presidential swing state, getting rid of the electoral college increases the power of your region in selecting the president regardless of the size of your state/city.
So, this is not a case of favoring one small set of states over another small set. Removing the electoral college would substantially weaken the power of 5-6 states over the Executive branch and increase the power of the other 45 states (some more than others, sure, but nearly everyone wins compared to the status quo).
> Because, in the end, minority interests will always be cast aside once the election is over anyway.
This is exactly why I favor keeping Congress as it is but reforming the electoral process for the Executive branch. Montana has a very loud voice in the Senate and House relative to its population. I do not suggest changing that.
> It would be far better to...
1. An omniscient and beneficent dictator would be even better; the point of my post was to suggest plausible alternatives :-)
2. There are many merits to federalism, but this is quite a bag of worms and we're already straying OT.
