I don't follow German politics that closely, so I've probably missed something, but how was Baerbock involved in suppressing protests as Foreign Minister?
Her comments at the start of the genocide should be enough for her to lose her position in government. It is really sickening and sad. But when it comes to German politicians, I don't know any that are better.
Sadly she's probably one of the more moderate Germans from the last government. Germany as a whole, learned the most narrow lesson from the Holocaust and Munich Olympics; which, you would think would be "Genocide bad", but is actually "Israel good".
At least Baerbock has acknowledged the suffering and declared that "Palestine belongs to Palestinians". That's such a low bar but the majority of Germans don't clear that. It's very sad, but what can you do?
For so long anything critical has been labelled antisemitic and sometimes also made illegal. The first news org in Germany to do Israel-gov critical reporting would end up in court and might lose it's license.
Try organic maps! It's based on open street map data and doesn't track you.
And HTTP/2 can be used to provide video steaming, but that doesn't mean that nginx will be the next YouTube. This isn't a question of technical feasibility, but project focus. Though, I must admit, I don't follow the development of fediverse software all that closely, so maybe it is on the roadmap.
The president doesn't have that power, but the head of the federal reserve sets interest rates for large banks which set interest rates for most other things in the US. It is a heavily managed thing.
I haven't seen their governance structure yet, but I don't think it will ever be like Altman and OpenAI. Eugen just doesn't have that cult of personality around him, and there's not that much money in a free and open-source platform that doesn't lock people in.
I think it's unlikely that Mastodon (or other federated short form blogging platforms e.g. Pelorama) will integrate live-streaming as it's pretty far outside of the normal content they are built for. There is a project that does support live streaming and is federated though: Peertube https://joinpeertube.org/
I will never get over how much media attention this gets.
Because its all one thing. The promise of AI is that you can basically throw anything at it, and you don't need to understand exactly how/why it makes the connections it does; you just adjust the weights until it kinda looks alright.
There are many structural hacks used to give it better results (and in this case some form of reasoning) but ultimately they're mostly relying on connecting multiple nets together and retrying queries and such. There's no human understandable settings. Neural networks are basically one input and one output (unless you're training it).
Your keyboard warrior skills are sharp...
Thanks.
We should not expect a handful of communities\states to bear the social and financial cost of housing homeless from other parts of the country just because they are attractive destinations.
It seems we have different concepts about where unhoused people come from. Are they coming from other states? Or are they losing housing while residing where they are?
This survey at least, would indicate the latter: https://sfstandard.com/2023/05/22/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/
The city that brought the case, Grants Pass, is not a fancy tourist destination (and isn't really liberal). It is regularly below freezing in the winter, rains often, and is nowhere near a beach. Further, it has comparatively few resources for unhoused people. It's mid-sized (40,000 or so) and it's relatively isolated: why would an unhoused person go there to sleep on the street?
Classic example of a false equivalency fallacy. No one is violating the constitution or advocating for enslavement.
Did not mean to imply that they were equivalent. Just using an extreme example to show that the majority can be wrong, and that it is nonsense to base your morality on what is legal or what your able to do.
The case WAS made that penalizing people for sleeping in public spaces when they have nowhere else to go violates the 8th amendment; and while the majority of the supreme court did not agree, I maintain that is immoral and wrong to do so, and that a city choosing to do so would fall under "cruel and unusual punishment", violating the US constitution.
It is a public health and safety hazard.
I totally agree. Communities should do something about this; but regardless of what they do it is going to take money away that could have been used on other things (schools and other services). Jail and police aren't free. Shelter beds aren't free.
How elitist of you to ignore the will of the people. You seem to want to impose your morality at the cost of other people’s communities.
Advocating for the humane treatment of others isn't ignoring the will of the people. I'm not a czar and I'm not advocating for fascist policies. I'm saying that unhoused people are people; and they deserve to be treated with dignity, respect and empathy. Fining and jailing people who have nowhere else to go is immoral, regardless if people have voted to say that it's okay.
I can sympathize with the homeless kid and hope they get help. But I will not put their welfare over the safety and education of my own.
How would helping this child be in conflict with the welfare for your children? In many states there are early childhood intervention programs basically for this exact issue.
There is a social cost to what you are proposing. Those communities and the people affected within them have found that cost to be too high.
You can either pay with money, or with the cost of having homeless children in your community. Putting unhoused people in jail costs money and is cruel. Building and running a shelter costs money. Leaving people on the street without any alternatives (as many cities have done) is horrible.
Of course, there is a percentage of people who you just can't help, and for them it could be necessary to use a more heavy hand. But that's mostly not what we've been discussing; which is, what should cities be allowed to do regardless of shelter beds or other alternatives?
Feel free to campaign to spend your local funds on the homeless rather than schools, parks, etc.
Obviously city budgets are a whole other can of worms, but to be clear, shelter beds are almost always cheaper than jail beds. The cheapest option would be not to put people in jail.
I’m merely pointing out each city and state has the right to set their own respective laws regulating the public commons
This isn't a question of legality or ability! Obviously in the US it is now legal to fine and imprison people for sleeping in public spaces. This is a question of morality: is that law moral? Should we fine and imprison people for not being able to afford a roof over their heads?
If the majority that you respect gets together and votes to, idk, enslave a group of people and have them work on sugar plantations. That doesn't mean their laws aren't violating basic human rights, just because it's legal.
If you travel to other countries you are often required to show that you have accommodations to stay and a return ticket. Otherwise they will not allow you to enter the country. So there is precedent for these types of laws.
What are you talking about? Unhoused people aren't tourists. We're talking about citizens of a country, the vast majority of whom were born and raised there.
The problem with vagrants has become such an issue that the public seeks a more restrictive approach. I prefer to respect the will of the public who live there annd experience the problem first hand over your sympathetic platitudes.
How kind of you to respect the will of the people denying the humanity of their fellow citizens... Are you saying you personally don't have an opinion on the matter? Does homelessness not affect you?
The dirty secret is that Rheinmetal is now the most "valuable" company in Germany. Politicians skew more pro-israeli-gov than the general population (which is saying something!) and I strongly suspect the military industrial complex to be the reason why.