If they set their own place on fire, they're also homeless. Just as self-inflicted, but significantly less dangerous to third parties than driving drunk.
Driving while drunk is not a silly little mistake. A third of all fatal crashes involve drunk drivers. Letting these people drive at all even with a breathalyzer is an abomination. You can expect them to have a similar disregard for other fundamentals of safe driving.
I'm not commenting on the morality of drunk driving. I'm commenting on the effectiveness of just fucking them over, that being, not effective at all.
There's this thing in the mainstream where people feel like the best way to handle people doing bad things is to just pummel them into the ground as much as possible.
While that might feel the most justified, that doesn't actually solve the problem. Suspending licenses doesn't stop drunk people from driving, because cars are more or less a necessity.
So, knowing it's a necessity, we have to design the car around that and enforce safe operation by an alcoholic.
Which is a stop-gap solution. A better solution is making cars not a necessity. But until then, we should do the stop-gap.
Stop-gap is restricting the driving to work schedule then. Everything else is optional and you can learn to work within that system. We try to put up industrial solutions to everything. Why not keep the laws cut and dry. This action = this consequence. You determine your actions you must accept x consequence. Or better yet jail time for 6 months then you will be fed and you will lose everything. There are options
That's how the legal system worked a couple centuries ago. You might be familiar with some of the literature written about it, like Les Misérables. I don't know about you, but returning to the world of 18th century French penal codes sounds pretty dystopian.
It wasn't that long ago these devices weren't mandatory and they'd just suspend your license.
I am actually curious now whether that was more effective since the offender had to endure the judgment of the person in their life giving them a ride to work.
I don't understand why this is obviously untrue. Do we have any reason to believe that those people didn't just... continue to drive with a suspended license?
Not to mention DUI is a fairly recent development. In the 20th century, it was pretty easy to drive drunk and get away with it.
Yeah and what's stopping someone from drinking while borrowing someone else's car? Oh they don't want their car wrecked too? They may just drive the drunk to work then.
We arrive at the same place with the same real solutions (the people). The technology doesn't do anything except add extra steps and convince the public something was done.
If anything it creates enough hassle for the offender that new crimes are being committed with harsher consequences (domestic abuse), or dragging additional people into crime they didn't intend (negligent entrustment).
> We arrive at the same place with the same real solutions (the people)
This is always the case. There will always be murderers, and thieves. But technology just helps.
There are real solutions, and fake ones. Fake solutions include "make people not bad anymore". This just doesn't work, there will always be alcoholics, end of.
If there was less of a reliance on cars, there would be less drunk driving. We take drunk driving as a necessary consequence of transportation, but that's just not true. And, if we had less of a reliance on cars, we could actually suspend licenses sooner.
But as it currently stands, we cannot. We would just be permanently fucking people over in such a severe and unnecessary manner. Being unable to drive is one of the most reliable ways to become homeless in many parts of the US. This will only lead to more crime.
I didn't say it directly, but did mention depending on others multiple times in my replies. If you are truly all alone, that is the biggest contributing factor to becoming homeless. We live in a society.
There often is a ton of help for alcoholics with stuff like this. In fact, I would say alcoholics probably have the most support out of any type of addict because it's so common. When a drunk is forced to seek assistance to make their commute, it often comes with strings attached to put them on the path to quitting. I don't see what's so bad about that.
You might be a functioning alcoholic, but when alcohol intoxication is so prevalent in your life it interferes with day to day routines activities, it absolutely meets the psychosocial definition of addiction, and likely points to a deeper one.
Every rural area I've ever worked in had a non trivial number of folks who would have 2-3 drinks at the bar/whatever on a Friday or a Saturday and drive home. It was not alcoholism, it was "I'm totally fine to drive, the law doesn't know my limits" etc.
On some level that's just the price of wanting to go out and not wanting to drop a bunch of cash on a taxi (assuming you can get one to come).
2-3 drinks on a Friday night when you're supposed to drive home is different. I'd also say "I can drink because the law is wrong" is also not exactly a neutral take.
- I believe the law is overly proscriptive / strict / wrong.
- I believe I won't get caught
It's no different to someone speeding because "It's clear conditions and I consider myself to be perfectly safe at this speed". Or skipping a stop sign "I can clearly see nothing is coming".
Unfortunately driving on a suspended is mostly not enforced either, so giving them the carrot of keeping their license is the only thing the judicial branch can do that has much sway (other than jailing them) without being able to order the executive branch to change.
LOL. Do you know how many people are driving with suspended licenses now? The number would skyrocket if systems like these didn't exist.
Especially in rural areas, you can get away with driving on a suspended license for a pretty long time before a cop catches you. I know someone who was probably (she wouldn't admit to it) doing it for at least a year.
Once while hot air balloon chasing, we saw a guy driving his 4 wheel drive in the ditches along a gravel road and found out later from someone he had a suspended license.
They said he figured the cops couldn't stop him if he stuck to the ditches and didn't operate on the official roadway.
This is the Lords to coming up with stuff to justify the OSA and further tighten the screws on the internet. It's open season. What it will result in is all porn being watched via VPN, and us turning into Russia/China, where the State bans any source of information outwith its absolute control.
Amendment 297: "Pornographic images of sex between relatives"
This is just the tip of the slippery slope of starting to ban ‘nonconforming’ adult content and a later pivot to starting to attempt to ban LGBTQ+ pornography under similar bullshit morality clauses.
This depends on the courts and purrisdictions, to be honest. Some days I wonder if it’s one big old kangaroo court the way things are going in this dog-eat-dog world.
1) Deciding the really important issues. This occurs with minimal public involvement, and that always to the overt reticence of the ruling class. "Expert" voices are projected downward to the masses, pronouncing authoritatively both about objective truth and characterizing the subjective preferences of the masses.
2) What are often called "wedge issues", or more recently "culture war" issues. These issues are often sensational by nature, and further sensationalized by the media to evidently encourage public participation in the discourse. Expert voices continue to guide the conversation along an established Overton window, but without making the public feel unqualified to give their opinion, just the opposite.
Is this what democracy is supposed to resemble? The hoi polloi fighting amongst themselves over what genres of pornography are acceptable, while the leaders run off to back rooms to make global-reach decisions about war, macroeconomics, and the shape of our society to come?
I just can't imagine a functional democracy where the main discussion or topic of focus for any serious person, at this time, is incest porn.
Political debate suffers from Sayre's law: "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." Most people simply aren't knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion on truly important issues.
This is, by the way, a fundamental limitation of democracies, and why we tend to establish republics instead. It's not realistic to expect people to become informed about geopolitics, and economics, and education, and ciminal justice, and 100 other things, before casting a vote. So rather than vote on these things directly, we elect people whose job it is to know about these things and/or consult with experts who do.
War with Iran? Who can really say if that's right or wrong, we don't have all the info, I'm sure they're doing what's best for the nation.
A MtF person in a restroom? We cannot abide this, we must pass laws banning this throughout the nation, to end this travesty and the harm it is causing everyone.
Just once I want the proponents of anti-trans measures to say where trans men should go to the bathroom. You know they would freak the fuck out if they saw a bearded muscular dude washing his hands next to their daughter.
Yeah, most of the people who are so incensed about trans people in the bathroom have probably been in a bathroom with a trans person and were none the wiser.
My favorite part about this reply is how they felt this needed to be said so badly and added to the conversation that they created a new account to do so, thus proving the point originally raised.
Yeah, I remember thinking to myself "I wish the US had a referendum system like the UK", then I looked it up and found out that the UK has only ever had 3 national referendums, only 2 in the 21st century, and one of those was Brexit.
So yeah... Congress is really useless sometimes, but would the general public really be better at legislating important issues? Meh.
Actually I think that's the crux of it. After repeatedly delaying, dismissing, and dodging they were forced to arrest one of their own for his sex crimes. Now they are making more sex crimes to arrest common people for, because it cannot be the case that only the rich elites are arrested for their sex crimes. Normal people aren't involved in child sex rings at remote islands, so step porn it is.
Was it incest when the people who grew up in the kibbutz together ended up marrying each other? (and not blood-related, to be sure). Because they had affinity and the kibbutz community was a lot more family-like than many of today's modern families.
Probably depends on the size but kibbutzim appear to function like villages used to. (But they have changed their position on childrearing a lot.)
Today's modern families and villages are pretty messed up, and promoting the idea that "close" people (as we could call them) should become sexually involved creates additional problems.
We aren't talking about depictions of incest either. There is no relation between step-siblings/parents/etc. And in these videos, every single person is unrelated to every other person even in the depictions. The step-child has both a step-mom and step-dad... Where I come from, that would be an adoption? I would guess the next form of these videos will be adoption porn.
I assumed it was 'step' relative inorder to stop it being incest, and that it's basically a wink to the audience without changing the 'script'. Personally I don't think changing the title is morally relevant so it doesn't matter to me what precise relation the script and title uses.
Which takes us back to depiction, they're all actors so what ever the laws are, it doesn't matter. Or shouldn't.
You think incest is about inbreeding. It isn't just that. If you take that line to its logical extreme, then that means that it is okay if contraception is used or if same sex relations are involved.
I don't think it's healthy for fathers and adult sons to be having sex with each other, for example. Or that any of this becomes okay when a daughter turns eighteen (or whatever it is in your jurisdiction) and her father wears a condom. That is psychologically and socially unhealthy. Nothing to do with inbreeding.
If a school teacher repeatedly had sex with pupils a day after they left school (and were legal adults), that would raise numerous ethical issues. Consent isn't some kind of carte blanche or moral justification.
But no one is talking about actual incest, they are talking about a cheap storyline in a stupid online video made by consenting adults pretending (and actually) not related by blood.
If you have a moral objection to the content of the video, don't watch it, if you don't want to let people consume media that has objectionable themes, let's ban all violence as well, not just in porn, but movies, music, literature. No more Jason Statham, no more Daniel Craig, no more Dwayne 'the Rock' Johnson, no more Marky Mark, no more Eminem, no more Homer (sex and violence), no more The Bible (sex, incest, violence, rape, genocide, polygamy, slavery, child sacrifice).
"Step-cest" - a term I am sure has existed before, but I'm claiming it now, is make believe. And I'd bet 90+% of the watchers have it on mute.
The military already has access to Grok, but doesn't want it, because it's an inferior model, even compared to open source ones. So the military would probably choose to replace supply chain risk Claude with Qwen or Kimi before Grok.
It would be untouchable irony for the US to cut all ties with Anthropic and replace them with models developed by Chinese labs. The Onion becomes more irrelevant with each passing day.
How many generations does it take before the historians/archeologists uncover old issues of The Onion and decide it was the authoritative news of the day?
Grok is according to most benchmarks pretty close to SOTA. It is where the leaders were just a few weeks ago.
Which exactly is best changes on almost a weekly basis as different companies tweak their best model. I doubt the military would want to be switching supplier every week.
I think it says more about people's ability to ignore the truth if it doesn't support their world view. Oh you don't want Grok to be SOTA? Then it isn't! Problem solved
Only a matter of time before you hear about missing shipping trucks being stolen. China is opening up more production, but I don’t see any relief coming soon.
China is fundamentally limited by lack of ASML machines due to a ban. China can only help if they can recreate ASML machines used to produce RAM with good yield and small enough features.
As someone here with limited coding experience. I have built several custom applications that are too unique to be made by anyone. Now I can make several simple applications that do exactly what I need and want. It’s cut out hours of administrative work stuff I had to do. Do I share nope I gatekeep it at work. If only IT built these systems and databases to be easily used by us users.
reply