Depending on what motivations are, separate controlling interest from personal wealth, at least above some reasonable limit.
Obviously easier said than done, but unless the predominant incentive for everyone is just to generate more wealth for themselves/relatives/etc, other existing incentives should be sufficient to invest.
We have representatives in Switzerland, please don’t misrepresent our political system to push your anti-EU agenda. We do not vote on every single laws. It’s a semi-direct democracy. A representative democracy is the most common instantiation of democratic systems.
Making it not illegal for Facebook to scan your DMs is not autocracy. (And we know Facebook does that whether it's legal or not.) To make it autocracy, at a minimum they'd have to mandate the scanning, which is Chat Control 2, which is still not passing.
There may be no expectation of privacy in the sense someone may see you and take your picture.
There is an expectation you are not constantly tracked everywhere you go by a nationwide surveillance apparatus, that your location is not constantly monitored, indexed and shared. Unless you expect to live in an Orwellian distopia.
The have been cases of police harassing and stalking people using Flock cameras. Just because it hasn't happened to you personally doesn't mean it's not a real issue.
People are trying to apply a few internet reports to everyone and everything instead of the reality that it rarely happens and is typically a one off thing.
Quit applying online things and TV so-called "news" to the world and follow what's happening around you instead.
No. There's a reason that transparency, oversight, and controls are important in government. It allows citizens to detect abuse of power, it allows checks and balances, it improves government decisions, it protects citizens' freedom.
The issue is not that people are being recorded in public, the issue is people are being recorded in public and the data is being correlated nationwide and accessed by government officials without any of the usual controls, oversight, or transparency that necessarily goes with such efforts when government is involved.
Whether you realize it or not, you're arguing for an authoritarian society. Perhaps that's what you want - some people do - but sane people will always resist that kind of behavior, because ultimately it hurts everyone.
Not everyone can be a systems thinker, you shouldn't feel too bad. But you should probably refrain from commenting about situations where you can't see beyond your own nose.
Yes, banned by the status quo for trying to disturb it. Wikipedia is nowadays highly politicized and more time and energy are spent on politics than on actually contributing with any useful knowledge. I've stopped contributing years ago after a decade of writing because of how bad things had gotten. It's a lost battle, all that remains is scorched earth filled with toxic editors trying to push their POV and banning everyone who exposes them or attempts to change things.
Yes agreed, for example, there was an interesting table on the starlink page I used to check every so often showing which countries had access to starlink as it was rolled out. Was interesting to see the expansion.
Of course, some editor decided it was 'marketing' for starlink so it got deleted despite loads of people protesting. It was the only source I could find easily for showing which country got starlink when.
A huge list of prose is still on the page (not marketing?) showing the updates in a very hard to read and not comprehensive way. Something is really quite wrong over there.
On the other hand, some of the best is when a hoax written by a monk in the north of England some time around 1300 is debunked by late 20th century scholarship, and eventually someone makes Wikipedia no longer re-hash a propagandist revision of the Battle of Stirling Bridge re-set in Wales that stood unchallenged for almost 7 centuries.
If you spot it in Wikipedia, point it out, it does get removed. Leaving a comment on the talk page <!-- or in the article --> gets editors on-board to patrol for accidental attempts to add the incorrect information back in. Wikipedia does not like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citogenesis
Wikipedia has an article titled “Yahweh.” Now, as I am a Christian,[8] "Yahweh" is the name of my God.[0]
This is one of Sanger's proposed changes and this is not an undisputed fact, more like a dispute among theologicans [1] and with the confidence he wants this change implemented, I am highly sceptical, that misinformation will decrease.
Huh, ironically, the opposite happened with Tesla, when numerous editors warred to include a model on the list of "Fastest Production Vehicles", even though the model hadn't been released, based on a press release from Tesla (and even that said it was a simulated, expected number).
It got to the point where there was a column for "verified" numbers, others, and then "Manufacturer projected" numbers.
> There was an interesting table on the starlink page I used to check every so often showing which countries had access to starlink as it was rolled out. Was interesting to see the expansion. [...] Of course, some editor decided it was 'marketing' for starlink so it got deleted despite loads of people protesting.
...I mean, yeah, that doesn't sound particularly encyclopedic. "Marketing" might be a bit strong but that doesn't mean it belongs in a general encyclopedia.
Yeah, try to make any substantive change on many pages and you'll get met with a barrage of "WP:OR! WP:POV! WP:NPS! WP:WTF!" and don't fall into the amateur trap (that certain editors hope you will) of reverting their reversion. They'll look to get you blocked for a revert war. "What should I do then?" "You should respond to my comments on the Talk page for why I reverted you." "But you haven't made any comments on the Talk page about that." "That's beside the point."
For a few years now Wikipedia has had a mentorship feature where every new user can ask an experienced user for help through the homepage. They usually come through and help you go through the alphabet soup.
> "But you haven't made any comments on the Talk page about that."
Well then, make that comment yourself and you can go ahead and revert it later if the other person does not respond.
Or, eventually, as a user who had nearly 2,000 contributions over 10+ years, you finally say "Why even bother?" and just leave the project, like I did.
I’ll keep the status quo of rejecting MAGA lies over allowing Fox News as a reliable source any day
Go use conservapedia or grokpedia if you want the lies, no one is forcing you to use Wikipedia, and no one is asking for it to be turned into shit like everything the alt right touches
He is putting into question the character of the public workers involved in the project, not that it has anything to do with organized crime. Rio has relapsed into crime in the last decades and government workers in general have a reputation for corruption in Brazil. It's a low trust society specially north of Parana hence the lack of surprise.
Lost me on false but popular claims on fracking on the first paragraph. If you don't even take the time to research the main topic of your "metaphor", can't expect much depthness from the Discord philosopher.
Such items need to be standardized, and cars driving on public roads must conform to a standard. It's that simple, but legislative bodies seem to have lost the ability to regulate basic items such as rear-view mirrors and non-blinding headlights.
Why not both? My Honda has mirrors and a rear view camera. I always check both before backing up. The camera is viewed on a small (for today's standards) LCD screen (with physical buttons, no touchscreen) that also serves as the radio.
The discussion isn't as much about a common backing camera (which also falls under 'useful accessory' I mentioned), but about cameras replacing mirrors.
