Tell them how to use it for good. The law skews towards evil by the nature of what the law exists to do and the historic inequity inherent in it's application. If jury nullification was used at random it would be used for good more often than not. In the past it was used both in the south to legitimize lynching and in the north to ignore fugitive slave laws ("Some commonly cited historical examples of jury nullification involve jurors refusing to convict persons accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act by assisting runaway slaves or being fugitive slaves themselves, and refusal of American colonial juries to convict a defendant under English law." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#:~:text=Some%20commonly%20cited%20historical%20examples,a%20defendant%20under%20English%20law.)
If you talk about it's history, then you absolutely end up talking about how to use it to nullify illegitimate laws. I said to tell people how to use it for good, not "ensure that every human who knows about this only uses it for good." I didn't say the later because that would be an absurd thing to day that's just obviously impossible to achieve.
The same way we spread any information: by talking to people about it, making memes about it, posting flyers up, whatever you do, do it. I bring up jury nullification whenever I'm in a conversation about the legal system, and it turns out I hate the legal system so that happens a lot.
Just do exactly what you would do for anything else that you care about and want to make people aware of. I'm not suggesting we levitate the Pentagon with concentration and acid or saying we should end world hunger. Literally just talk about this to people. Upvote. Share this with people. Talk to people and tell them about the case. Tell people about jury nullification. Post a TIL if you just learned about the concept.
IMHO, It makes sense though. Piracy and open source are two approaches to attacking the enclosure of public (intellectual) space. Roads for cars are literally an enclosure of public space. The subscription model just extends from this logic.
Edit: These are also things that make sense because the car has to have cell service via a provider.
They aren't two completely different problems, they're in direct opposition. Making cars more tolerable increases demand for cars. Improving mass transit and bike infrastructure decreases demand. One is sustainable, the other is not.
If you are stuck in a place that actually requires a car then this makes sense. Between the two you'll save a ton of money.
In the long term though vehicle to vehicle communication will be required for all cars on the road. You will have (probably property) computer in your car controlling it. Unless you go back to like the 80's or something you'll still have a proprietary computer in your car that will need to be replaced.
But even getting a bike for occasional trips prepares you for gas prices spiking or your car breaking down.
If people used bikes or ebikes in the overwhelming majority of cases where it's possible, it would make it a lot easier to fix the small number of situations where it's not.
Don't you think it's interesting that even though the vast majority of car trips are a single person going less than a mile, every time someone brings up bikes the rebuttal is always "what if I need to move my family of 16 and their refrigerator 800 miles in freezing rain!?"
The US was built on rail. The infrastructure could be fixed. It's a choice not to fix it. It would be better to put in energy to fixing this than creating an open source way to access a proprietary transit system. Infrastructure is the problem, car vendors are just exploiting it.
Yeah, I have two kids. We used an eBike in the US. The Dutch would find your comment absolutely hilarious. We do not own a car and haven't needed one since we moved to the Netherlands. The problem is that you have a proprietary transit infrastructure that forces you to use property cars. Infrastructure is your vendor lock in.
The majority of car trips are under one mile and have one passenger. In the vast majority of cases you can replace a car with an eBike.
This just reminds me of someone else saying something like every time you suggest a car replacement suddenly everyone needs to carry a couch 300 miles in the snow.
It is not possible to be free while you have a car. But yeah, some times your forced in to that by the complete failure of American infrastructure. Cars continue to be your worst option, even if you're forced to use them.
Edit: Correction, over 60% are under 5 miles, 28% are under a mile. Only 2% are over 50 miles. 69% of the total annual vehicle miles traveled in the U.S. occur in urban areas. In 2019, average car occupancy was 1.5 persons per vehicle.
If you can, get an eBike. Cars need a ton of expensive resources. No matter what car you get, you're basically renting it for $10k/yr anyway. Bikes can be fixed with a small set of tools in a living room without thousands of dollars of diagnostic equipment.
If you can't do a bike because of distance, consider a motorcycle. That's at least a little more free than a car. Cars are the worst.
I lived in rural California and Oregon for a while and there was just nothing. You had a car or you couldn't live. Wanna get groceries? Drive, because it's too far to bike and even if you did you'd probably get killed by a car. Wanna get your mail? Drive to the post office. Don't bike because you'll get hit by a semi. Wanna go see a movie in a theatre? Yeah, drive for at least half an hour to get to the closest one. But both of the towns I spent the most time in burned to the ground in wildfires so... Yeah...
But it's good to hear not all of the US is hopeless and some of it is almost functional. I hope at least some parts survive, because there's a whole lot that just can't exist without cars and cars can't exist forever.
Ebikes will get you a good chunk of the way there in a lot of places. Other than that, if you live in a city then vote like hell and go to city council meeting as often as possible to demand bike lanes. Local voting actually matters and can change (some) things.
If you live in the country... Eh... Start sabotaging gas stations I guess? I don't even know where to begin with a constructive answer. Rural folks are basically forced in to cars and there isn't much to do about it without massive changes. In the Netherlands even small towns get train stations, but in the US and Canada and even a lot of Europe rural folks are just screwed.
Capitalism is garbage and produce garbage jobs because it's based in the religious concept that people should work. Within the context of capitalism, this makes sense. Putting away your cart doesn't challenge capitalism, so "job security" makes sense as an objective unless you're challenging the capitalist system.
Oh no! This will definitely negatively impact my CSAT! Lol, cool.
Edit: To be clear, I don't actually think that you can be replaced with a small script (although, password reset is automated where I work). I think there are unquantifiable things, and I think you're actually selling yourself short when you imagine your work can he represented with pure metrics.
Tell them how to use it for good. The law skews towards evil by the nature of what the law exists to do and the historic inequity inherent in it's application. If jury nullification was used at random it would be used for good more often than not. In the past it was used both in the south to legitimize lynching and in the north to ignore fugitive slave laws ("Some commonly cited historical examples of jury nullification involve jurors refusing to convict persons accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act by assisting runaway slaves or being fugitive slaves themselves, and refusal of American colonial juries to convict a defendant under English law." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#:~:text=Some%20commonly%20cited%20historical%20examples,a%20defendant%20under%20English%20law.)
If you talk about it's history, then you absolutely end up talking about how to use it to nullify illegitimate laws. I said to tell people how to use it for good, not "ensure that every human who knows about this only uses it for good." I didn't say the later because that would be an absurd thing to day that's just obviously impossible to achieve.