What about changing the parking requirements to be vehicle agnostic? Require construction projects to have parking for X people, rather than X cars, and consider the requirement met if it’s a mix of bicycle parking, cargo bicycle parking, and car parking.

this is already how most parking mandates work (they’re not for X amount of cars, they’re obliged to have a set ratio of parking spaces to people), and changing it in this manner would almost certainly lead to no change because Los Angeles is extremely car-dependent and sprawling, and bicycling is only useful with actual pro-bike infrastructure which largely doesn’t exist.

It’s not a coincidence this is happening alongside age verification and outright bans. It’s all one big manufactured moral panic to isolate a vulnerable population I won’t give an once because people like you won’t stop taking.

you are the sort of uncritical, single-minded person who is going to help turn us all into digital serfs on a latifundium that can never be overthrown and permanently enriches a class of technolibertarian freaks that want to remake society in their image. the fact of the matter is smart phones as a whole are arguably the most successful corporate mechanism to privatize social life yet devised, and any “liberation” you think can be derived from them by any class of people is illusory without overthrowing capitalism. the phone companies and the apps they host have successfully positioned themselves as middlemen with free ability to hoover up an endless amount of “consensually given” data that can then be used to quantify said social life, commodify our personhood, and preemptively snuff out any real competition to the existing economic oligopoly. if you were to structure a system so incapable of being challenged that we’re doomed to live under it forever, this would be a pretty good way to do that.

children, needless to say, are especially not liberated by this state of affairs–or by the future that people like Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg want to build and which you seem to want to enable–and giving them free rein online in this absolutist way because you want to “emancipate them” is, ironically, often the best way to ensure capitalists exploit their labor and data in the current system. Roblox, for example, has made a fucktillion dollars off of your subtextually proposed strategy of just “letting kids be kids”–those children have essentially provided the company with a free, uncompensated, popular series of games for them to exploit the entire value of. totally coincidentally, they don’t even spend any of that money they’ve made protecting children from the actual social harms children could be exposed to on their platform, so Roblox is awash in grooming and cyberbullying and hate speech and sometimes even graphic violence that is never dealt with.

You’re also conflating certain corpo slop apps with literally any use of any mobile device, which is a common slight of hand that doesn’t get called out enough

the “corpo slop apps” have like 95% market penetration among people under-18 and as such are the almost-exclusive mediums through which they interface with digital spaces (because they are explicitly engineered to make us envious and addicted, and to make us all into people who live and die for the fix for attention that such websites give us). let’s not pretend this is a serious “conflation” when all available evidence is this is the overwhelming use-case of mobile devices.

Blanket bans are going to cause lots of issues, and for some kids (generally the ones who are already the most bullied and vulnerable), will cause more harm than good.

name one issue that a blanket ban will cause “more harm than good” on.

Actual LGBT and neurodiverse people disagree with you.

let’s not invoke monoliths here, i am both and i think there are quite a lot of defensible arguments for restricting phones in the specific context of a learning environment–not least of which is that it’s hardly “censorship” or “isolation”^[1] to ask them to just not use a phone for roughly 8 hours of the 24 hours in any given day.

of note, CUPE leadership was willing to go to jail over the strike. for a sense of what they struck over, see these two articles from Spring Magazine, and CUPE’s “Unpaid Work Won’t Fly” page

this is significant because it initially looked like Harrell, the more centrist option, would breeze through this race; now, though, it seems like a very real possibility that Seattle will also elect a progressive mayor this November in Katie Wilson. (her platform is, though not socialist like Zohran Mamdani’s, still pretty good and deserves your support)

also in this edition: Democrats have started to introduce bills to bar federal agents from concealing their identity; there are pushes to also do this in California and New York

the relevant paper here:

Humpback Whales Blow Poloidal Vortex Bubble Rings.

When we everyday people see patterns, we then make deductions from them that tend to be accurate. […] Let people see evidence and make their own deductions

…no? as humans, our pattern recognition, while well refined, often still causes us to make completely incorrect inferences from nothing. even restricted to the realm of the medical: you need only look at what people think made them sick versus what actually does; most people will blame food poisoning on the last thing they ate, or their sickness on the last person they encountered, even when there are many other possible reasons for their sickness.

also: a pre-print by definition has not been subject to rigorous peer review–it’s roughly analogous to a draft–so i would be exceedingly hesitant to even assert something like it having “good data.” even if you’re the author you wouldn’t definitively know that at this stage.

Duncan is an interesting guy these days. he is one of a number of Republicans who was basically run out of the party for refusing to be fascist and autocratic enough, and he was formally expelled from the party last year after endorsing Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris. i doubt he has sufficient distance or credibility to make it through a Democratic primary, but you never know. the Republican-to-Never Trumper-to-Democrat pipeline has been a pretty successful move for other people

because western media–at least on the issue of Palestine–is almost entirely biased toward Israel, Israel’s right to exist without change to its apartheid and oppression of Palestinians, and the legitimacy of Zionism as an ideology; Al Jazeera obviously is not, and is far more willing to cover what Israel is doing without attempting to justify it, explain it away, or downplay it

the “chart” is just the thumbnail for the submission, so yeah; you have to actually click through, since that’s the point of a link aggregator

the Supreme Court is not a legitimate institution and you should be screaming at the Democratic Party to annihilate it if they ever come back into power, because otherwise it will be yet another reason this country croaks

the study: Majority support for global redistributive and climate policies

We study a key factor for implementing global policies: the support of citizens. The first piece of evidence is a global survey on 40,680 respondents from 20 high- and middle-income countries. It reveals substantial support for global climate policies and, in addition, for a global tax on the wealthiest aimed at financing low-income countries’ development. Surprisingly, even in wealthy nations that would bear the burden of such globally redistributive policies, majorities of citizens express support for them. To better understand public support for global policies in high-income countries, the main analysis of this Article is conducted with surveys among 8,000 respondents from France, Germany, Spain, the UK and the USA. The focus of the Western surveys is to study how respondents react to the key trade-off between the benefits and costs of globally redistributive climate policies. In our survey, respondents are made aware of the cost that the GCS [a global carbon price funding equal cash transfers] entails for their country’s people, that is, average Westerners would incur a net loss from the policy. Our main result is that the GCS is supported by three quarters of Europeans and more than half of Americans.

Overall, our results point to strong and genuine support for global climate and redistributive policies, as our experiments confirm the stated support found in direct questions. They contribute to a body of literature on attitudes towards climate policy, which confirms that climate policy is preferred at a global level17,18,19,20, where it is more effective and fair. While 3,354 economists supported a national carbon tax financing equal cash transfers in the Wall Street Journal21, numerous surveys have shown that public support for such policy is mixed22,23,24,25,26,27. Meanwhile, the GCS— the global version of this policy—is largely supported, despite higher costs in high-income countries. In the Discussion, we offer potential explanations that could reconcile the strong support for global policies with their lack of prominence in the public debate.

the study: Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task

the crowsourced sheet, which is still taking submissions: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/158rlsPk0jxXwh3GIKl2YP1W84dPLC_2RXZnMjaG5bVw/edit?usp=sharing

for context: Shawn Fain has been pushing for this since at least the beginning of 2024. so by the time the date happens, he will have been organizing this for over four years–that is the kind of lead time you need for this to not just be toothless posturing (and there’s a decent chance it still won’t be nearly as sweeping as you might expect of a general strike due to low US union density).