Skip Navigation

Posts
19
Comments
1,111
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Is that an option? I would gladly do a crypto transfer but I didn't notice it.

  • Apparently I'm not allowed to do that. Do I have to cancel my existing donation first? I don't see a way to do that through Open Collective, I'm guessing I just cancel the direct debit through my bank?

  • I donate one euro a month to lemmy.world. It's not a lot but I'm not rolling in cash and I feel like the service is worth paying something for, even if I can only contribute a nominal amount. But I feel like they should have an option to take an entire year's worth of donations at once would be more efficient than a monthly withdrawal.

    As it currently stands, a monthly bank transfer of 1 € is taken from my account and I feel like a significant portion of that is going to be taken by bank fees, whereas if they took a single annual transfer of 12 €, they would keep a much larger percentage of the money.

  • Yet another irreplaceable natural landmark destroyed by idiot hooliganism. There is nothing the courts can do that will ever bring that tree back.

    Edit: Apparently the tree sprouted from its stump.

  • "Classmates warn Heimrich Himmler he risks enabling descent 'into fascism'"

  • Yes, every US state sells vanity plates. In California it actually was a programme started by a certain actor who was governor at the time and later became one of the most well-known US presidents of the 20th century (Ronald Reagan).

  • Can't say I agree. This is anecdotal but the council installed some camera-like devices on one of the main roads in my city and people got scared of them and slowed down as a result. I don't think the cameras are actually turned on and issuing fines as I don't know any people who have gotten a fine from them, but their presence scares people into safer driving.

    Automated law enforcement in fields where guilt can be obviously and objectively determined (resist the urge to make a fallacious slippery slope argument) is, on average, a good thing. People's tendency to bad behaviour is strictly because they think they won't get caught. Telling people there's a $500 fine for speeding means nothing because they know the chance of getting caught is in the neighbourhood of 1 in 10,000. Most people speed every day on every road they drive on but they get maybe 1 ticket every other year. But if they know that speeding on one particular road will result in a 90% chance of getting a $50 fine, they're not going to speed on that road. That's why the cameras are usually painted bright orange or white—to get people to see them and think "oh shit, I don't want a ticket; I'd better slow down".

    As long as we have democratic control over our own local governments and strong privacy laws regarding how that data can be used, I do not view misuse of automated number plate recognition systems as a serious threat. In fact, I think it's probably a net bonus. There's a show called Police Interceptors which follows British police and it's absolutely shocking how many stolen cars they recover because someone drove it past an automated number plate recognition camera and it got flagged.

  • Random number plates are still likely to reduce the number of possibilities to just a few, likely visually distinct, cars.

  • That issue is not really the problem of the camera though. That's like saying you don't like running water because people have drowned in water before. If the cameras are being misused then that is a political issue.

    In my city, the police department operates the cameras and they will send at least one warning before you get a fine unless the violation is very egregious (e.g. double the speed limit in a school zone)

  • The current system does not issue plates with I or O.

  • Say what you will about electronic plate readers but they do make speed and red light enforcement and toll collection much easier. And be honest, most people only dislike them because they make it harder to get away with bad driving habits that people previously took for granted that they could get away with.

  • I think you're grossly exaggerating the difficult of memorising alphanumeric number plates:

    • GL7KKUQ
    • THUP701
    • 23WD2C1
    • WWQG21A
    • P92BTQY

    These were randomly generated and really not that bad to remember. Especially if the system is designed so that you only need to remember the first/last four or five digits. Compare to these (found at random on the Internet) number plates under a mix of the two current schemes:

    • 752EPS4
    • 7WMT513
    • 9AYE877
    • 648GDG6

    Edit: What I really mean to say here, is that random number plates makes memorising the entire number plate unnecessary. You can get away with just remembering the first four digits and the car's make, model, and colour. As long as fewer than 1 million (32^4) cars of the same model and colour are registered, this system guarantees that a car is uniquely identified by its colour, model, and first four of its number plate (i.e. "I was hit by a red Tesla Model X whose plate starts with EL0N")

  • I guess that's true but number plates are typically read by cameras anyway. They are primarily used by speed/red light cameras, toll collection systems, and law enforcement.

    If you assign random numbers to cars, it's pretty likely that the last four or five digits plus the make and model of the car will uniquely identify a vehicle or at least narrow it down to just a few possibilities. If the assignment software is smart it could probably even guarantee this uniqueness.

  • It doesn't matter if there are number plates that already have those letters, but the idea is to stop issuing new ones with them.

  • I wonder what the practical reason is for not just allowing full alphanumeric number plates. Each digit would then have 32 possibilities (I, O, Z, and S should be avoided to prevent confusion with 1, 0, 2, and 5). This gives 34.36 billion possible number plates which seems sufficient for at least the next couple years.

  • Ever since the untimely death of CentOS I feel like Debian and its spin-off Ubuntu have been pulling double their weight in server applications.

  • AD 30 was the beginning of the papacy of Peter the Apostle, which according to the Catholic Church, was its first pope. Catholic teachings state that Peter's successors form an unbroken line of Church leaders from AD 30 to the present day, though historic evidence is somewhat incomplete. This is the canonical start date of the Catholic Church as an organisation. "Christianity", broadly speaking, is just a label affixed to anyone who identifies themselves as a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

    The Catholic Church names Jesus Christ as its founder. If you accept this claim, then you could definitely say that it was a political organisation as well as a religious one from the beginning, as Jesus was notoriously put to death by the Roman state for political reasons. The Jewish Sanhedrin which had condemned Jesus for claiming to be the Messiah had no legal authority in Roman Judea; legally speaking, Jesus was put to death on the orders of Pontius Pilate (prefect of Judea) for sedition and for being "King of the Jews". The legal veracity of this charge is questionable, of course, and Jesus famously preached for his followers to "render unto [the Emperor] the things that are [the Emperor's]", i.e. to respect the state and the laws, but the Roman Empire wasn't known for being an egalitarian state with strong rule of law.

  • In my experience, Catholics tend to be pretty moderate, since the Catholic Church is strictly hierarchical and all dogma originates from the Vatican. The size of the Church, it seems, has a moderating effect on its dogma since they have to appeal to such a large group of followers, and the views of its members tend to average out with a bias towards conservatism (because the Church is so unbelievably old that the inertia of 15th or 10th century doctrine still holds sway).

    Protestants, meanwhile, span the whole political spectrum since the label is pretty broad in general. There are plenty of Protestant churches in my area that espouse very liberal and accepting social views, and probably at least a dozen will even marry same-sex couples, something notoriously disapproved of by the Catholic Church and many other denominations. But there are also many, much louder, Protestant churches that are basically full MAGA.

  • The Catholic Church has been a political institution for almost its entire existence. It is probably the *oldest * political institution in Europe, having existed since AD 30 according to its own history (though as you get further back in time, history starts turning into legend and mythology; it's really not clear where that line is).

    During the Middle Ages, you could very well be burnt at the stake for heresy or be sent to die in the Crusades, upon the orders of the pope. And for over a millennium, the Church directly ruled over a pretty sizeable piece of territory in central Italy.