TempermentalAnomaly @ TempermentalAnomaly @lemmy.world

Posts

26

Comments

639

Joined

2 yr. ago

The visual style and language puzzles definitely were the thing to get me to buy it. Currently on the scientist level with my son. He's been in charge of exploring and I think he likes the different cultures associated with each level. And he's been super excited every time we crack a puzzle or complete a language. Been lots of fun and glad they put in some deep thought into it.

I agree with this in general, but it doesn't apply to this situation from what I can tell.

The American Compass isn't something I'm familiar with before this article, but the article says they are trying to leverage right wing populism to traditional conservatism which I read as social conservatism.

As such, both the liberal groups the article highlights donate because the American Compass is anti-corporate.

The Hewlett Foundation did not reply, either, though the group has explained its donations online, stating that American Compass is “working to restore an economic orthodoxy that emphasizes the importance of family, community, and industry,” eschewing “growth for its own sake” in favor of “widely shared economic development that sustains vital social institutions.”

The other liberal group cites their pro-worker stance

In a statement for the Omidyar Network Foundation, a spokesperson told The Daily Beast, “We would encourage you to reach out to American Compass directly for comment on the pro-worker elements they were able to advocate for related to Project 2025.” The spokesperson did not reply to follow-ups seeking specific comment on American Compass’ affiliation with anti-democratic groups and ideologies that appear at odds with Omidyar’s historical support for inclusive global development.

Now, I think their pro-worker stance is short sighted and self serving at best and disingenuous at worst, but, for reasons I can't seem to glean, these organizations weren't able to see that clearly. Or they could, but it doesn't make sense with their other donations.

HAL was dreamt up after the first generation of AI reseacher made audacious claims that AGI was really close. For example, He Simon said "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do."

The issue isn't that we can or can't do it, we aren't even sure what it is or how to test for it yet.

I'm no defending or critiquing Oregon's program. I am saying that you are misinformed and have confidently spread that misinformation. I don't care about what Oregon does or doesn't do in this conversation. I care about people spreading misinformation.

I hope we can end with that.

It's not a court. It's a commission made up of three people: A social worker, a psychiatrist, and an attorney. The mandatory part is to appear in front of the commission, not as you originally said, to engage in treatment. They can decide that they need treatment, but addicts don't need to go.

At heart, in my opinion, is trust in the commission to center the addicts needs.

I'm no defending or critiquing Oregon's program. I am saying that you are misinformed and have confidently spread that misinformation.

I don't disagree that there are a lot of problems with Measure 110 and there are a lot of differences between Oregon's roll out and Portugal's roll out. Additionally, the problems faced by both states are unique in many ways. This Oregonian article highlights some of the differences.

However, their solution doesn't, as you said, mandate treatment. I don't know where people got this idea, but it is spread uncritically as some sort of major failure in the Oregon system. If we are to mimic the Portugal system, mandatory treatment is not it.

Of course, this isn't what I read when I see people comparing Oregon to Portugal. What people what is to force treatment through some sort of threat like taking away a cab license. I don't think we are concerned with the cabbies who are using drugs. We care about the chronically houseless people who we have very little leverage over. We don't want our downtowns to have open drug users. We also, to some degree, to get the help they need. But that takes trust and building trust takes time.

Portugal does not require treatment.

Treatment isn't mandatory in Portugal. Rather, they expanded treatment services, increased point for positive intervention and interactions with healthcare provider and social workers, and focused on harm reduction.

Learn about the practices and not the misinformation. You can read more in the wikipedia entry under regulations.

[T]he suspect is interviewed by a "Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction" (Comissões para a Dissuasão da Toxicodependência – CDT). ... The committees have a broad range of sanctions available to them when ruling on the drug use offence. ... The committee cannot mandate compulsory treatment, although its orientation is to induce addicts to enter and remain in treatment.

Portugal doesn't require treatment. I don't know where this idea came from, but this isn't the first time I've seen this misinformation.