I’m afraid I must inform you that I turned out to be right on this one.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/31/us/politics/david-hearn-reflecting-pool-vandalism-charges.html
https://www.baltimoresun.com/2026/07/31/reflecting-pool-charges-dropped-hearn/
There’s nothing inherently wrong with the concept of ANPRs (automatic number plate recognition) as these are called in the rest of the world. It’s more of an issue that there is a complete lack of laws surrounding how that data is to be used, and especially when it’s controlled by a private company. If there were strict laws limiting the situations where ANPRs could be used, such as requiring a warrant to begin searching for plate numbers and automatically discarding data from non-matching plates, I doubt people would complain as much about these.
It’s from a YouTube video (linked by the other reply) which discusses the mathematics of traffic flow modelled with linear differential equations using Newtonian physics and the optimal way to program AI drivers to reduce congestion. The video was made by a German.
It is intended to symbolise an excessively over-engineered solution to a problem, which is a common stereotype of German engineering.
Yes, electric cars are exempt from the registration games. But with China’s huge population, even if 80% of the city takes public transportation, that 20% who choose to drive still have enough cars to jam up the roads so they come up with these kinds of schemes to reduce traffic.
Uh, yeah, that’s how rules work. If you do something that’s against the rules, you’ve broken the rules, regardless of whether anyone ever finds out about it. Morality isn’t a concrete thing that exists. It’s an abstract set of rules which are a creation of human society.
I’m almost certain that the society the killer belongs to would answer “yes” to that question.
Unless, of course, that loner with no family is suffering from an incurable disease that is making their life pure misery, and resides in a place where medical euthanasia is legal. Then the answer might be “no”.
It’s a great example of how morality is relative.
I would argue that the assertion “there is no source of moral authority other than the disapproval of others” is absolutely 100% correct. People’s moral compasses are informed by what the people around them think and culture that they live in. I just argue that there’s nothing wrong with that.
At least for me, it seems that the assumption that there is no absolute source of morality besides religion is correct. Human morality has changed a lot throughout history, and lots of people have tried to dictate morality across borders and across time. The only ones who have succeeded in the slightest are religious leaders.
The argument is generally that one specific religion provides a source of absolute morality. The existence of conflicting religions does not invalidate that. It provides one source of absolute morality, not necessarily the only source of absolute morality. Anyone can claim something is a source of absolute morality. I can claim a magic 8-ball is a source of absolute morality. It does not mean that people will accept it, but I can claim it.
This is a common “gotcha” argument that floats around the Internet. Essentially, it posits that under the teachings of a given religion (typically Christianity), there is a source of morality which is absolute. That might be the religion’s holy text, deity, or the religious authorities of that religion. In either case, there is one authoritative source which dictates what is morally correct and not correct for the entire universe from now until eternity.
So, the argument goes, if one is to reject the teachings of this or all religions, as irreligious people do, it necessarily means accepting that morality is inherently relative and that there is no absolute standard for mortality that is universally applicable. Therefore, as the argument goes, since one would have to accept that morality is relative, it can be framed relative to anything or nothing, and therefore there is no act which can be immoral relative to any reference frames in a context without religion. And therefore, nothing can be said to be immoral because whether it is moral is relative.
That’s the end of the argument.
To its credit, there isn’t anything wrong with this argument. But I do believe the argument posits that conclusion to be far worse than it really is. Suppose I am an irreligious person. Why is fornication with roadkill immoral? Well, because I think it is. It makes me feel bad and the reward gained isn’t worth the risk (the embarrassment of being seen in the act or catching some disease from it). Therefore I don’t do it. Is it possible that some person could think that it is moral? Yes, absolutely. But that doesn’t matter, because even if relative to one person’s moral compass an act is moral, doesn’t mean that people in general can’t just collectively reject that perspective and condemn the act as a group. In fact, human societies imposing their views on what is and is not moral relative to their own experience describes pretty much the entirety of human history.
True, true
That’s WAY too much mustard sauce. That hot dog is ruined.
This is a zero sum graph, as market share must add to 100%. You may observe that the one large decrease in Windows market share occurs at the same time as three small increases for Mac OS, Linux, and “unknown”.
Nothing else increased. The three small increases must be equal to the Windows decrease.
Bruh people on Lemmy say the most mind-numbing things
Yes, that’s pretty much what I said in the line of text under the graph.
Looking at the included chart (below), I don’t think the growth in “unknown” is the primary factor of Window’s decline in market share. The chart does show, over the last two data points, that Mac OS and Linux have increased at the same time that Windows has decreased.
This is all but one data point anyway, so it’s not fair to draw a long-term conclusion based on that regardless.
No, I don’t think you’d follow through. I also think you knew you were going to lose that wager.
If you think you’re right, you’re more than welcome to take me up on my wager and win $20 for the charity of your choice.
You’re free to propose alternative charities. Maybe even a local food bank or some organisation. The point is: I’m happy to put my money where my mouth is, and I don’t think you are. In fact, even if you lose the bet, I don’t think you’d do it anyway. After all, I’m just some guy on the Internet.
I don’t have “faith” in the US legal system. I just know more than you about how it works and how it doesn’t.
I’ll be willing to make a wager with you. If David Hearn is sentenced to at least 12 months imprisonment in this case, I will donate $20 to an international human rights charity of your choice. If their case is dismissed, he is acquitted, or he is sentenced to less than 12 months imprisonment, you have to donate $20 or equivalent in your currency to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Do you agree?
-1 / 0 can be defined to be a special new number, ⭐.
This system of numbers is actually mathematically consistent and has all the properties that a number system should have. But using simple algebra, you can prove that in this new number system, ⭐ = 0. And then you can also prove that all other numbers equal zero.
This number system is known as the zero ring, and it’s the ring where the only number is 0 and the following operations are defined:
All other symbols, including 1, 2, and ⭐, are just alternative labels for 0 in this number system. In other words, defining division by zero is essentially the equivalent of reality collapsing in mathematics.
So yes, you can validly define division by zero. You just get degenerate mathematics if you do. So be careful what you wish for.