I agree that this is a meme. It’s not a meme with widespread meaning yet, but I think a chip on the forehead, the obvious young age of the boy, and his expression of mixed happiness/fear is enough to convey something about the state of society that calls for nervous laughter.

I 100% agree with you.

I do, of course. I even do my hair. I didn’t mean to imply that one should not care about it hygienically, just for your own health and personal self image.

I just don’t understand the urge to thrust gender identity onto hair style and then argue about what that means to the polity online.

Why do people put so much energy into projecting identity politics on a superfluous detail like hair? Who cares? It’s all just a vanity concern, selfishly obsessed with what others think about how you look.

Does your hair make you have some intrinsic identity to others that you are or are not going for? Fuck you, I don’t care.

Do you authentically care, yourself?

Maybe you care about the politics - I can understand that. There is legitimate fear around legislating serious, dangerous things to your identity (not hair). Why the fuck are you spending your time and energy on hair???

Just get the dates right, down to the month. Beyond that, you can make just about everything else up and since most employers don’t want to foot the bill for actual due diligence, your interview performance is what matters next-most.

Change your job titles to whatever fits the job you’re aiming to get now(remember you’ll actually need to interview for and do the job if you get it, so consider inflating only about 1 level of seniority upward).

You can add unverifiable resume items to explain gaps, such as a side gig or volunteer experience or family event.

You can make up 90% of the bullet points under each experience item too, which will increase net job search performance by 28% on average and 122% of hiring managers won’t read them or will read them and not ask about them anyway.

If you think companies are going to keep your data and blacklist you, then you just need to formally request your complete PII file under applicable data privacy laws such as GDPR or CCPA. If they did keep your data, the same laws can be used to make them delete it entirely (assuming you’re not also their customer, in which case they’ll have permissible reasons to keep it until you discontinue your subscription).

Oh, if this is just about what people want and not about shelter for the unhoused, then that really changes things. I may have misunderstood, as that’s a totally different spirit behind the bill.

If that’s the case, then it just comes down to which group of people have the political power to mandate what they want.

The central valley does have some of the highest rates of housing expansion in the country though, so I wouldn’t count it out. There’s a lot of opportunity there, it’s just not directly on the ocean.

Is this a weird kind of “war” where there are only two choices?

It seems like a lazy solution to pass a bill at the state level which overrides local zoning ordinances instead of actually handling city planning on a case by case basis.

Why wouldn’t California just incentivize building homes in the central valley? Or inland from Los Angeles on all of the completely open land? What is keeping homeless people at the city center, and will that cause actually be changed if the buildings around them are 3 or more stories tall?

People who live near the areas affected by state-level bills like this will be pretty upset that their local layer of democracy was circumvented by voters from out of town.

Meanwhile, people who move into the new high rises are not necessarily going to come out of the pool if unhoused Californians who were sleeping on the streets nearby. Does the bill control who is allowed to live in these new units? Does the bill account for housing the unhoused during the multi-year period while high rise construction is underway?

If the government has cameras then the footage should be public record and available to the public to download - street cameras, body cameras, security cameras, etc.

If you are ticketed based on camera footage (not the testimony of an officer who was at the scene as a witness), then footage from these camera systems should be enough evidence to prosecute government malpractice when it occurs too.

I suspect that won’t be the case, but California should not let it’s government uphold a double standard wherein citizens pay fines while footage is guarded and not used to prosecute police/politicians when they’re on the other side of the law.

Hey what part do you think looks like AI slop?

I can’t see anything suspect but I’m looking pretty hard for it. If I’m wrong then that’s scary.

Is the photo somehow glitched that I don’t see?

I think there is a path forward where the internet and the content on it are sufficiently commoditized that the costs become trivial to average people, like the cost of running an LED at night, and so monied interests move into other areas like robotics and the internet begins to drift back toward the idealized vision mentioned in this post.

I doubt it will ever drift all the way back, but it is getting super cheap to run edge compute and store data on the cloud.

It’s getting increasingly cheap to write code with LLMs too, and if that continues to evolve at the rate it’s going then users are not going to feel locked into their big-name platform of choice anymore. Porting from Apple to Google to Microsoft to Amazon to Self-Hosted etc, will be a lower and lower bar with fewer and fewer barriers for the average user, making for a hint of that old wild frontier feeling online again.

Super weird. I recall that tickets from cameras were found to be not enforceable in California back in the early 2000’s because officers signing the tickets were not on site at the point of the infraction and so could not testify that they actually witnessed the full scope/context of the events in question before any court of appeal.

I wonder if that’s changed or if this system is somehow different than the previous iterations where officers signed tickets after only witnessing video footage.

Bummer, you are right. I was wrong. I misread the first study and thought they were detecting faces through object like glasses using infrared, however that is not the case. They just mentioned detecting eyes through glasses(using visible spectrum) and then moved on to talking about infrared for other purposes.

Damn, well I’ll take down the comment. Thanks for pointing this out, sorry to waste your time!

deleted by creator

Whether it passes or not, civilians need to start using the infrared on their phone cameras to see through face coverings and profile law enforcement identities during execution of illegal orders anyway.

I cannot believe there is not a widely used FOSS app for this when the hardware is in your pocket already and the research is prevalent for how to do this.

This is incredibly simple to fix.

Prosecute the power companies for their gross negligence leading to deadly wildfires instead of giving them a free pass every time - there are multiple opportunities to do this every year, like this: Reuters: PG&E Guilty On 84 counts

Instead of plain monetary fees, we just need more severe sentencing.

For example: In the interest of public safety, confiscate large swaths of the infrastructure implicated in the manslaughter, including the resources necessary to maintain it and the consumer contracts funding it.

Build in community service agreements forcing them to subcontract their own personnel to train a new state power agency on the intricacies of the confiscated equipment of the following years.

The more manslaughter, the bigger the state agency becomes until there is no longer a profit motive behind our power infrastructure.

FatTony Search engine is it down or just me

Walmart near me

Mark Zuckerberg now a backstreet boy