No, because you are asking the data broker to do something with your data that they possess. It is not possible for them to delete your data without knowing which are your data.
The only alternative is fully banning this kind of data collection. Which would be nice, but isn't happening anytime soon.
Big "How much can a banana cost, $10?" energy here.
We're talking about one of the cheapest brands of commodity pasta here. Think about how much effort you are implying the company put into this versus what 8g of major wholesale flour costs -- the only cost they'd really be saving in this conspiracy.
Even at consumer retail prices that's, what, $0.012 per box? And I bet wholesale prices are at least an order of magnitude less than that. Is the maybe tenth of a percent of cost savings worth a potential class action lawsuit and the horrific pain of Discovery that comes with it? And does that maybe tenth a percent of cost savings even come close to covering all the additional production costs involved in having that machinery calibrated so much more precisely? The juice is not worth the squeeze, my friend.
You think you're arguing that they would do evil for profit's sake, but you're actually arguing they would do evil for evil's sake even at the expense of profit.
I don't. We got the biggest and most important climate bill ever, likely in the entire world, by getting to ostensibly package it as an anti-inflation bill.
Politics is a game of negotiation and compromise. The same impulse as "nothing should ever be logrolled" is saying we should be entirely uncompromising on everything always.
If Ukraine and Israel aid were not bundlable, guess what? We'd get Israel and not Ukraine aid. The more deserving recipient wouldn't get the aid.
And it would probably be more expensive to get precision-calibrated equipment to get you at the bottom end of the tolerance to save product cost than what it would cost to just aim for the correct value with less precise equipment.
This one is a conspiracy theory I struggle to get behind. It seems like the conspiracy would be less profitable than the "proper" behavior here.
It dates back to the Soviets sending in the tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution and later Prague Revolution, though I think most people using it today are intending to invoke Tienanmen Square imagery, which is still totally on-the-nose.
By definition, fediverse mods only have power over their own instances, so their power grows with their own userbase and shrinks any time another user/instance refuses to do business with them. Admins have vanishingly little power except where admins are ALSO mods of major instances.
And if you still want all the same content with even less lemmy touch, kbin (or kbin-based instances) are an option -- the one I use for that very reason. Interoperability HUGELY hardens a platform against toxic personalities. Plus ernest seems to be very fucking low-key and chill.
She told her class they would spend the next few days listening to a recording of the book, while each student took notes. After that, they would conduct independent research to develop their own arguments. They could agree with Coates, disagree with him or land in the middle.
...
Both teachers believed the book, a Pulitzer Prize finalist, is superbly written: a master class in the deployment of rhetorical devices. There was no better way to teach children how to formulate their own arguments, they thought.
“It teaches kids a different perspective, [it] teaches kids how to write well,” Wood said in an interview.
You're just wrong about what kinds of works a good AP Lang class should be teaching. You're wrong about what the class is, how it works, and what it intends. You're wrong about the science of education going into this. You're wrong about the cross-disciplinary nature of the lessons. You're wrong about the purpose of this book being assigned. And in that wrongness you are advocating for a world where education does a worse job teaching kinds how to navigate and be resilient in a world full of people that are going to constantly be trying to convince them to believe certain things and act certain ways.
A social studies teacher is not the right person to be analyzing and teaching modern persuasive writing styles. That material belongs in an English class and if you teach it in social studies you have philological fucked up.
I have no idea what the specific requirements for vehicle registration are. I doubt this article is even true, frankly.
But electrifying smaller vehicles is much, much easier than electrifying large vehicles. The biggest cost center in an EV is the battery, and smaller vehicles need proportionally way less battery compared to large vehicles. An ebike that can go 20-30mph runs off of something not substantially different from a cordless tool battery -- a pack of cheap, commodity 18650s -- and otherwise functions off of totally standard, mechanically simple parts.
155k registered motor vehicles in Ethiopia for a population of about 130 million. Is it really so unimaginable to you that a country may not be car-dependent?
I don't get it. They don't really care about any kind of factual reality, so why not pass the deal and declare it as a big win where they forced the dems to heel? That it was their deal and the feckless progressives couldn't stop it from happening? Their cultists will believe whatever nonsense Newsmax feeds them, won't they?
It's not JUST that they wanted the political win. It's that they wanted the win AND to hurt people.
I haven't really spoken to the problems. I agree, they're profound.
It's going to take a massive and meaningful logistical build-out just to process and transport these people in a remotely equitable way (meaning spreading out the burden so it does not all fall on just a few specific cities). We already cannot process the numbers coming -- so of course we cannot handle larger numbers.
But also, there's no choice but to do it. We aren't going to stop people from coming through domestic policy changes other than guards in gun towers shooting everyone who comes near. We do not control the domestic policies of the countries they are fleeing, but clearly things in those countries must be pretty fucking bad because people do not uproot and abandon their entire life and history lightly. We couldn't shut it down even if we wanted to, and every attempt is just another expensive human rights disaster.
It doesn't take that much to explain a 20% increase in numbers. I know you tried to frame it like it was some ABSURDLY huge increase, but I don't consider an extra person for every five to be such a mind-blowing spike.
The same economic stagflation/recession happening everywhere else, including here. The states being emigrated from are continuing to decline and populations continue to grow. There's going to be YOY increases. Probably not 20% YOY increases, but there will definitely be increases.
To be clear, I basically agree with you that it is more than we can handle. I've posted as much elsewhere in this thread. And I agree that we already are failing to take care of our own people, and having extra mouths is going to stretch our failing social welfare programs even more taught.
To be clear though, even just regular birthrates in the US are around 12 per capita -- that is 4M new people per year that we can "handle" already. And just as before, I don't consider 1 extra person for every 5 to be a mind-blowing figure.
None of this is the reason we're failing to get the "crisis" deflated. We're not processing these immigrants because we both hate them and have weaponized our incompetence against them. Basically the same bad faith and weaponized incompetence that have brought us into our own domestic crises -- housing, healthcare, labor rights, and all that.
I suspect everyone is hauling ass to American ahead of a possible Trump win. Wouldn’t you?
I strongly suspect, and think any history would confirm, that most immigrants don't think much at all about internal US politics/policies when making the decisions to abandon their entire lives and flee to this country.
Maybe once faced with the brutality at the border they'll start to get interested, but on the whole? No way, I just don't buy it. We do not control the conditions that cause people to want to flee their homes, but they are not making that decision so lightly.
Crisis is a pretty flimsy term to begin with. I think it meets "crisis" definition just based on the pictures of the camps on the other side of the checkpoints. Based on the ridiculous appointment/app system. The backlog.
I think it's a crisis. The ridiculous idea is that this is a crisis caused by immigration. It's not. It's a crisis caused by cruelty and incompetence on OUR part. The immigrants have, by and large, done nothing wrong.
Our own unwillingness to invest in the bureaucracy of legal immigration (which includes nearly all southern border immigration -- refugee is a legitimate immigration status and refugees are not "illegals" even if you care about that kind of thing) has caused it. We just can't manage the number of people coming in. And that unwillingness and inability to process the immigrants has CAUSED the crisis.
We could handle it. We could send reservists and national guard to get down there and process paperwork. Organize the logistics of bussing and all that. And longer-term, we could also invest in that bureaucracy. We know -- and should fucking pray -- that immigration will not stop any time soon. We know this is a service the government is going to need to provide for the long haul. We can't keep pretending the border is a thing we can shut down -- not to even mention how ridiculously good for the economy population growth through immigration is. How massive the ROI is for these kinds of services.
We could also set up single payer healthcare, sweepingly reform housing policy, pass a new and updated NLRA, and so many things that would ultimately make this a stronger, better country and improve things for everyone. But the right-wingers prefer suffering and cruelty to progress, and the progressives we have are too busy fighting among themselves and trying to compromise with uncompromising psychopaths to get anything done.
No, because you are asking the data broker to do something with your data that they possess. It is not possible for them to delete your data without knowing which are your data.
The only alternative is fully banning this kind of data collection. Which would be nice, but isn't happening anytime soon.