SCOTUS: "Good news, everyone! We figured out how to keep up the prison population amid record low crime rates so you won't have to pay minimum wage, isn't that great?"
Guess we’re about to find out what happens when you take 600,000 economically disparaged people and temporarily lock them up in an understaffed for profit penal institution that is currently in the middle of historically low classes of recruits. Im sure this will make everyone involved a better person.
Living in Portland and seeing the Mayor a couple of days ago announce he was enforcing the camping ban starting on Monday, I pretty much expected this.
Frankly it’s overdue. The people who want to argue “what about human dignity??!?!?” are ignoring the realities of the situation:
“Those who accept offers of shelter won’t be cited, according to Wheeler’s office. For those who are cited, the courts will determine whether to waive fines. The ordinance says it encourages diverting people to assessment, emergency shelter or housing instead of jail.”
The article and ruling isn’t about Portland, it’s about Grants Pass.
At the center of the case is Grants Pass, a city of roughly 40,000 in southern Oregon with ordinances that bar camping or sleeping on public property or in city parks. The city’s rules define “campsite” as “any place where bedding, sleeping bag, or other material used for bedding purposes, or any stove or fire is placed.”
As far as I can find their ordinance has no such exceptions.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, it’s no longer Grants Pass, each municipality can set their own rules and in Oregon, it’s already been decided at the State level.
“HB 3115 requires that any city or county law regulating the acts of sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outside on public property must be “objectively reasonable” based on the totality of the circumstances as applied to all stakeholders, including persons experiencing homelessness. What is objectively reasonable may look different in different communities.
The bill retains cities’ ability to enact reasonable time, place and manner regulations, aiming to preserve the ability of cities to manage public spaces effectively for the benefit of an entire community.”
You seem to be overlooking that SCOTUS specifically ruled that it is constitutional to charge homeless people $300 for falling asleep outside with a blanket, which is what the thread was about.
Maybe it could be possible to connect someone sleeping to the brain of someone else to do mind-control IDK, or do you believe it will be some kind of AI?
Can they do that to the crime that has affected the greatest number of people and caused the greatest amount of lost money? Because that’s wage theft and it’s probably the only way I’d be cool with it.
I believe it should work with some kind of brain waves(telepathy?), apparently some kind of device you put in your head and it read information from your brain, the spooky question would be if there is a way to make a device like that to be able to read information from someone’s brain remotely. IDK this looks like a bad idea but anyway it’s already here, according to the information I believe there will be more places where law get updated about it.
Edit: maybe it could be used for interrogation also, I mean you could know if someone it’s saying the truth or not by reading their brain.
Reading thoughts remotely is a no-go, you need very precise measurements of the brain's electrical activity and that just can't be done with distant sensors.
Maybe there are people who have more powerful brain waves or something… like some kind of abnormality who can make they more likely to be remote targets…
Brains transmit/change state (a.k.a. think) using electricity. It’s basically a flesh computer. You can’t read thoughts without being able to measure the brain’s electrical/chemical activity. If you had any theoretically possible mind-reading (and by extension mind-controlling) technology, it would still need to physically connect to your neurons or something…
That being said, I don’t imagine it’d be too hard for sci-fi future folk to stick a chip in every newborn’s brain from the get-go. But that’s a future too far from now, we’ll all be dead by then probably.
Kinda like how they threw that lady in jail in India based on brain scans. It wasn’t remotely done, but that didn’t matter.
Also, Davos 2016 had a discussion on all the “social justice” applications they could use brain scan technology on. Nevermind stuff like roughly reconstructing the movie you just watched. And, by now, they’ve had plenty of time to come up with more fun ways to apply this technology.
It's concerning how this pseudoscience is getting so much traction, and we'll be left with a bunch of nonsensical privacy regulation. Granted I'm happy to err towards too much privacy regulation, but can imagine other privacy issues getting less traction.
Maybe this isn’t pseudoscience anymore… I must admit I need to see these stuff working in person to believe it but according to the video this is definetly interesting at least or it could open a new era in human civilization.
It isnt pseudoscience, theres some papers out there on locked in syndrome and they have a system that is very good at reading thoughts with something like 75-85% accuracy. Requires very sophisticated and large equipment to use though, and it has to be trained on each person individually (through things like yes/no answers with blinks or focusing on saying one word, so its not some sort of thing that can just be automatically done, it requires a great deal of consent and concentration on part of the staff and the patient). Its very possible this could be downsized and made more available in the decades to come, its still in the early phases.
Lots of misconceptions here. Brain waves are just the communication between neurons. This is basically internal wiring, everyone is wired differently. Also nothing gets out of your brain on its own, except heat.
A tool like this can only measure regular patterns between humans and compare them. You will only get are interpretations of your brain status. It can’t read your memories nor know if you’re thinking about eating a burger. At most it will get a “you’re hungry” alert. You can train it to be better at figuring you out (or to do other stuff, like controlling a robot), but you won’t get more without a very invasive direct link to your brain (and more training). Which is more like torture at this point.
This new law is just promoting fear for something they don’t even know if it’s possible or not. Very sci fi law.
Sci fi or not, I kinda want them to get this one figured out ahead of time. It is kinda like assuming that a convicted felon could never be President. You wouldn’t think that rule would need to exist because come on, how could a country possibly want to elect a convicted felon? Its a completely ridiculous notion that could absolutely never happen.
And Im telling you that is practically impossible to read your mind without committing other known already existing crimes. There is a rule already for it, it’s called basic human rights.
When I say sci fi law, it’s because it’s fiction. This new law is against fiction. Your example is for something that’s not fiction. Do you understand the difference? Do you think this politician forwarding this law understands it?
This is more akin to those old laws of banning all alcohol.
Want your privacy? Should force/convince your countries to ban cameras first*.
Is there a downside to having a law like this on the books?
Also, isn’t banning cameras like a mind-blowingly bad idea? That would mean people couldn’t do things like record police committing crimes, hell you wouldn’t even be able to install a dash cam on your car.
You’re wasting taxpayers money in fiction and pseudoscience. Every law needs at least one real example of something being done in bad faith or at least proven possible (even if the perpetrator fails at it).
The cameras was just a real example of invasion of privacy. By your logic maybe we need to make laws against time traveling ASAP, considering at any moment time travelers will be more relevant than ever.
You need to start making laws for things that really affects your life right now, instead of fictional maybes.
I mean, you said that camera thing like it was some kind of mic drop lol. I’m also not sure what you mean by “my logic”, since I don’t personally have much of an opinion on the law it’s self, I was just curious why someone would be so vehemently against it. I’m not the original commenter that started this chain.
If it’s a matter of wasted resources, I guess I see your point, but it’s a bit of a reach. I don’t know if it’s as big of a waste as you’re claiming when we have corporations trying to implant customers with brain chips like neuralink, I mean who knows where that technology could go if it ever gets off the ground. Personally I think the Justice system attempting to have a bit of foresight is a good thing.
Me: This new law is against fiction. Your example is for something that’s not fiction. Do you understand the difference?
This is what I mean by your logic. Do you understand the difference between fiction and reality?
I mean, you said that camera thing like it was some kind of mic drop lol
Because surveillance never has been an issue /s. Did you just read the last comment and ignore the rest? One is a real problem, the other is fiction. Do you understand the difference?
Personally I think the Justice system attempting to have a bit of foresight is a good thing
Sure man, let’s make a law about something we know nothing about, what could go wrong.
nothing gets out of your brain on its own, except heat.
I heard a recording of a song made by reading a brain that was thinking that song. It was far from perfect, but you could tell which song it was. I'm no neuroscientist, but if that information can already be plucked from a brain, surely that's proof that reconstructing thoughts is possible to some degree?
Nice article, but it’s more like reading stimulus reaction while reconstructing it in a form that’s similar to the original. But it has flaws. Based on the recordings you can make out pretty much any existant song (or memorized recording) but not original thoughts. Everyone can remember the beats of a song, but also everyone makes word associations in different ways, depending on which concepts sticks.
Very cool for an interface tho. It would be possible to use it as base for composers, if it’s possible to interpret original hummings, or beats (what would I know, I’m not a musician), which would require training.
But there is a catch
Continuing to probe musical perception is likely to be difficult because the brain areas that process it are hard to access without invasive methods.
What a shitty situation we’re in where this is ‘good’ news. 70%+ of Americans have forgotten what’s inscribed on Lady Liberty’s base. Give me your tired, your poor…
Any other situation, I would say that this is terrible news. Our immigration system is fucking broken, and if putting extra weight on the break makes it more noticeable, than put the fucking weight on it. Not to mention the moral duty to provide refuge for those fleeing any kind of circumstance.
But we’re also staring down a double-barrel shotgun of fucking fascism at the moment, so the opinions of our 70% of ‘very concerned individuals’ have to fucking matter in policy choices.
What the ever-loving fuck is that absolutely inane dogshite?
I can see why they turned comments off. You really buy into that? Like, that’s the kind of thing my youth pastor in an evangelical church would’ve shown to all the kids when I was in 6th grade. “The GLOBALIST ELITE are TRICKING US into TAKING IN IMMIGRANTS who DESTROY OUR GOOD GODLY GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS (that we also want to defund for the poor, but ignore that for now)”
“Just numbers” in the same way Ben Shapiro saying “Facts don’t care about your feelings” has any validity - ie in the abstract, but not in context. But hey, if you’re convinced because “One gumball small, many gumballs LARGE”, God forbid I be the one to break you of your happy, simplified world.
Your link has to do with the US economy, which is fine but only true as of right now.
However, the link I provided isn’t about that.
Oh, it’s NOT about America despite the speaker discussing American immigration and American immigration limits, and EXPLICITLY MENTIONS economic and infrastructure pressure as for a reason why America absolutely could not take in 2 million people per year. Yes. That’s definitely a believable take from someone who watched the video.
There are economic implications of absorbing greater populations. Why wouldyouthink there are not? Schools, hospitals, roads, etc. all must be increased. And as the vid points out, you still don’t have an effect on world poverty by doubling immigration
Okay, so other than the issue of American immigration and economics, what else did he touch on? Refresh my memory. Because the only other thing that sticks out to me is the implication that some nebulous elite is ‘tricking’ people into having empathy to cause ‘damage’ to social services.
The statement that most people that apply for immigration are the more active and engaged in their own countries. So, if you find that to be true, it may also be true that it’s in everyone’s best interest if they remain in their countries to change them. The idea is that the US should encourage this.
Emigration can alleviate unemployment in origin countries by reducing the labor pool and decreasing competition for scarce jobs. Between 2000 and 2007, unemployment rates in Central and Eastern Europe dropped by as much as 50 percent, in part because of increasing migrant outflows from these countries.
(Basic market principles, this - freedom of movement for labor is vital to achieving efficient labor distribution)
Successful emigration of skilled workers can sometimes encourage more investment in education, potentially raising a country’s overall skill level. Migration opportunities associated with nursing led to the development of a private education system in the Philippines that provides low-income women with career opportunities. Large numbers of nurses remain in country after completing their education, and as a result, the Philippines has more trained nurses per capita than some wealthier countries, such as Greece and Malaysia.
The idea that trapping people in their own country thinking that if they have nowhere to go, that will be better for the country than sustainable improvements in retention methods for skilled workers is just… not backed up by evidence.
All true, but who is going to force change in those countries? Of course nurses are needed in the US, but are they not needed in those countries too? And when they are needed and not there, will we send some?
All true, but who is going to force change in those countries?
Material conditions. Like the continued issue of emigration of skilled workers. That’s… that’s what the quote is getting at.
Of course nurses are needed in the US, but are they not needed in those countries too?
… yes. That’s why the emigration causing investment in the country of origin to create a supply in the local labor market is counted as a positive in this analysis.
So, you’re really not talking about permanent immigration, you’re talking about training.
… no, that’s literally the opposite of what was said. The country of ORIGIN is driven to invest in their education system by this, not the country of DESTINATION.
You’re really not getting it. Sending aid, even with strings attached as to what it’s used for, is not even close to the same as an internal decision by the national government of the country of origin to change their investment priorities.
That’s sounds great to me. More schools will help educate you dumbasses. More funding for hospitals, roads, and other infrastructure sounds awesome in our current state of disrepair. And like I said before the goal of immigration is not to end poverty, its to have people move. They are separate issues that have some overlap.
A couple of years ago, I read that California needed to open a school a day to keep up with a growing population due to immigration. If you’re a California taxpayer, you’re paying it. Rejoicing is up to you.
I’m not, but I still don’t mind paying for people to have the access to education that every single human on this planet deserves. Also congratulations for figuring out how taxes work.
The goal of immigration is to have people move to a better place then they were in. It has nothing to do with poverty other than a large amount of people emigrate because of poverty. They come to America because of the opportunity to not be in poverty anymore.
Immigration and poverty are two separate issues that you are trying to smash into one issue, in order to make one seem like it’s bad or worse than it is.
It would be more beneficial for them to change where they are at. We have a way to do this through foreign aid. For instance, a medical doctor can immigrate to the US, but their home country needs doctors too. Yet, we wait until there is desperate need and then step in.
This only works when aid is allowed to be delivered. Just look at what isreal is doing to Palestinians. They are denying international aid and killing international aid workers. And in many cases people immigrate to the US to learn how to be a doctor, for example, then go back to their home country to practice and teach there. Not all immigration is permanent too.
“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”
Honestly, hard to say. Maybe, maybe not… those guys had a weird disconnect between ‘nice black man I met on the street’ and ‘slaves I own’. But even if he wouldn’t want them, what he said is still true. America should be open to everyone. Pretty much all of us are immigrants here, our families coming in search of a better life. We should be opening our doors to the world, not closing them.
My issue is how they pick and chose what they like and ignore the rest. The issue with opening our doors to the world is that we have a gigantic welfare system that they have access to. If that were closed I can see the option being good to some level.
‘Gigantic welfare system’? What alternate-universe US are you living in? Our welfare system is shit. We don’t even have universal healthcare!
Welfare should be to help support struggling people. Helping those who are struggling improves not only their lives, but all of society as well. This has been proven over and over again—just look at UBI programs. We should be offering more support, not less.
These people pay taxes same as legal Americans, through their employer. They should therefore get access to every American system except voting.
You are not aware of how the system works… If you are poor there is a huge amount of money and services you get including healthcare. Since the War on Poverty began, the US has spend something like $20 trillion.
The ones who consider themselves American in the sense of belonging to the USA? Absolutely.
The ones who consider themselves belonging to sovereign (or semisovereign) nations that are under treaty with the USA, and do not consider themselves a part of the USA? Their opinions are not particularly relevant to the discussion, so I would see no reason to say that to them.
Colonization of the 16th-18th centuries consisted of organized groups of people under the authority of a state arriving in a land without a central government, seizing territory for a new settlement, carrying on their own ways with an intent to do so indefinitely, and extend the reach of the monopoly of force of their mother state over the surrounds.
Immigration of the 19th-21st centuries consists of individuals or small groups outside of the context of a state-sanctioned expedition being accepted in by the authority of the native state already exercising a monopoly of force over the area, and in doing so, renouncing other loyalties either implicitly or explicitly, arriving in settlements already dominated by the majority ethnicity, assimilating, and participating in upholding the social contract between government and citizens.
You will note, I hope, that colonization necessarily excludes the prospect of the colonizers joining the settlements of the pre-existing majority ethnicity of the land, that colonizers set up a state or an extension of a state that is non-native, explicitly refuse the prospect of assimilating into the majority ethnicity of the area (though to be entirely fair, there were few places with a true ‘majority’ ethnicity that managed to be colonized - that’s another discussion entirely, though), and that colonizers do so in the form of organized groups seeking a collective gain for the group, not individuals and their families or small social circles seeking individual gain.
To be fair, they were at all time highs before Biden’s administrative action. GOP is still going to be complaining about the border regardless, but the documented numbers were pretty high.
cbsnews.com
Oldest