Except they did. Prop 1A does specifically mentions the corridors that need to be built, including the cities that need to be served in section 2704.04 subsection (b)(3).
This is exactly right. All of these details were laid out at the time we voted for it! This is what we voted for. Newsom getting cold feet on it hasn’t helped, I’ve gotta say.
This is sort of misleading. Burglaries, motor vehicle thefts, and homicides went up, but all other crimes went down. Specifically in the case of homicides, there were 7 more compared to 2019.
> I have never seen it this bad.
Crime is still at an all time low in SF. The rate of crimes has roughly remained static for the better part of two decades. The increased number of homeless just makes it more visible.
Murders don't just disappear, they are almost universally reported and investigated. Burglaries and car thefts need a police report to make an insurance claim.
For crimes like assault though, if the police convince the victim that reporting it is pointless, it doesn't show up in the stats. Anecdotally, this is what I have heard is happening.
You don’t suppose this is passive resistance by the police to all the scrutiny they’ve been receiving? Start telling people that the system is all backed up and their hands are tied?
Right, anecdotally. The police don't keep stats on how often they tell crime victims to not file a report, so it's hard to get good data. If you look around on the internet, or ask people you know in SF, you will get stories.
I feel like the simpler explanation here is that these movies did not have a coherent story and had poor character development, not that they were the victims of "being too woke" or whatever the current most popular explanation that said internet reactionaries like to claim.
Yes, but the question is why didn't they have a coherent story?
Is it really just "some movies have coherent stories, and some don't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯".
I think if you listen to Kathleen Kennedy talk about her vision for Star Wars, it becomes pretty clear that her goal was not "make good cinema", it was "push (racial and gender) diversity-for-the-sake-of-diversity agenda".
I mean, her contribution to The Mandalorian (which luckily was entirely conceived outside of her influence) was:
> In March 2018. Kennedy added that the series was an opportunity for a diverse group of writers and directors to be hired to create Star Wars stories, after the franchise's films had been criticized for being written and directed by only white men.
I'm not sure how section 230 bypasses due process. If a social media site removes something you posted, your first amendment rights have not been violated. The first amendment only protects you from being censored by the government. It says nothing about a private business enforcing whatever arbitrary rules it has against you.
due process may not be the most appropriate or in any manner appropriate terminology.
but prior to 230, I could sue a site for distributing defamatory material.
Congress removes my right or my ability to do so. It gives my rights away to the site who it provides 230 immunity to.
Sites and society may have benefited from this trade, but individual have lost fundamental abilities to seek their day in court and have gained nothing.
I think Congress should temper 230 by saying that if a company accepts 230 immunity from lawsuits, it needs to provide basic due process rights to appeals processes to users.
If it doesn't want to provide reasonable appeals processes, it forfeits its 230 immunities and can seek redress in court.
You still have the right to sue the originator of the content, Section 230 just recognises the reality that platform owners (from Facebook down to little guy with a comment section on his blog) are not the originator of the content just because they filter spam and/or [occasionally] delete something manually. Without that, they would of course have deleted a lot more users and a lot more content a lot earlier, because who wants to pay the legal bills for defending some random citizen's claim about a person or company?
How would a "due process" proposal even work? Do we have the US government step in and set global rules determining what is and isn't legitimate speech and who should have posting rights on your website? And if so, how is this making the Internet more free?
This proposal starts looking weird as soon as you go into detail because it ties one persons rights to redress in court with the due process accorded to their opponent - because any due process would start only if a takedown (a) happens and (b) is appealed.
I.e. if user A makes a post that defames you, you complain, it gets taken down, user A makes an appeal according to the new "230+ process" and gets it restored - then you'd have no redress in court because the provider followed the due process. (in any case, due process would be about the process of evaluating whether the post meets some editorial criteria, but the criteria themselves can be absolutely arbitrarily set by the platform; if they decide to ban the posts which contain the letter "a", that's compatible with due process, as long as they look in the appeal and point out that yup, there was an "a" in it so the ban was appropriate; and if they decide to ban only posts which they're absolutely required by other laws and leave everything else, that still fits due process).
In the opposite scenario, user A makes a post that might defame you but it gets immediately taken down by an automated algorithm; user A complains but gets auto-rejected without due process - so then you'd have a right to redress in court, but for what? The post got taken down.
And if you had in mind right to redress in court for the person making the post, they don't have any valid claim pre-230, during 230 and in your proposed scenario either way.
GORM is nice for beginners because it's pretty easy to get started with, but in my experience starts to fall apart when you need to do anything more complex or start to scale up. I've had good experiences with SQLBoiler [0] on the other hand. I haven't used it in for anything in production, but it's been a breeze to use in a couple of personal projects, and it handles complex SQL queries much better compared to GORM.
> > If the mob had managed to find and destroy the electoral certificates,
> Then nothing different would happen because this particular part of the vote is a formality. Well, the news would be even more one sided on this, but nothing else.
I can guarantee to you Trump would have used this an excuse to try to stay in power, or at least use it as another excuse on top of the ones he has concocted already. He's taken plenty of advantage of grey areas to wreak havoc on administrative norms. Furthermore, it would likely have emboldened his supporters to undertake further violent action more quickly.
And he'd have had zero supporters at that point. He'd already lost the VP, who refused his request to reject the votes. Absolutely nobody would have stood with him on extending his term as a result of a violent interruption of this ceremony in the Congress.
130 Republicans in the House voted to overturn two states' election results, not to mention he has an undeniable popular following. I seriously doubt he would have trouble with finding support with a lot of people if he had taken advantage of this. His supporters will follow him no matter what. If storming the capitol wasn't crossing the line, quite frankly, nothing is for them.
