Most people don't care. And that's fine, they don't have a reason to. There's a lot of other things that are probably a higher priority for them.
Bigger question is if you're going to be doing things that are in any way considered shady or bad, why would you not take any precautions?
And? That doesn't really contradict what I said. There's a TON of shit that gets modeled and never ends up in the final design chosen when designing any infrastructure improvement.
At the time those decisions were made (months ago), I'm sure there were many factors used in weighing what option to go with. Things like:
I'd bet thousands that many of the people complaining now about the fact a simple and now clearly inadequate option is being installed, are the same ones that would complain (or did complain at the time, I don't live in the region, so I don't pay attention to their council meetings) about more expensive options that were likely being considered as well. What got approved is clearly one of the cheapest options available, just above having to put out and bring down mobile barricades every day. When the cheapest option is picked, it's usually because something better than the status quo is necessary but NIMBY-type dipshits were the ones in the council meetings complaining about cost over everything else and effectively controlled the conversation.
Perhaps the news should research and go back through those council meetings and see why this option specifically was chosen/approved. I'm willing to bet we'll see that exact scenario play out.
Well, they were only planning for a built-in, easy way to block off the road temporarily. They didn't have a reason, at the time, to need to plan against a terrorist ramming the crowd with a vehicle. Just something better than temporary mobile barricades needing to be moved in and out basically every night.
On the other hand, this entire scenario shows how ridiculously and needlessly large and dangerous modern trucks are, like the F150 used here. So naturally, that aspect will be completely ignored by the media and politicians.
Gotta love the down votes people give for pointing out that it doesn't matter whether it's the US government, a foreign government, or even just the company having an agenda, someone has control over the algorithm and thus what people see.
They seem to want to believe that ignoring the idea that a foreign government can control what we see on social media is somehow inherently better, and that it isn't a legitimate national security threat.
Does that mean it needs to be banned? That's debatable. But it is delusional to insist that it's not a national security issue to have a foreign government in control of the social media nearly 50% of the population interacts with (170m monthly US users in Jan 2024).
It used to be that every village has an idiot. And everyone in the village knew who that was. They'd talk about whatever they thought and everyone else would ignore them, because they were clearly an idiot. Then came the internet, and these idiots started to find each other. They formed a group of idiots, sharing their idiotic ideas. Everyone else ignored this group because it was clearly filled with idiots.
Then the villagers who weren't quite that stupid started to see this group of people talking. The group was large enough that they didn't notice their village idiot in the group. Of course there's a bunch of them in there, so they must know what they're talking about, right? So the next level of stupid up the chain joins, and this continues on up until you have a large enough group following these idiotic ideas with no basis in reality, and a faux belief in being right solely because they're in a large group and no one knows that it was started by the obvious idiots.
These groups merge and meld ideas, occasionally grabbing onto conspiracies that have legitimate roots, usually not. Sometimes they're right just by sheer chance.
Ah yes, pulling the logs from superchargers which already have to log usage to charge customers, and interacting with the same API every owner has access to via the Tesla app (a similar door unlock capability like OnStar had 20 years ago).
Yeah that's totally the same as a conspiracy theory requiring uploading one-off software variations to specific owner vehicles in the hope they die without anyone else that interacts with the software update system noticing. Totally the same. Not a batshit conspiracy theory at all because you don't like the CEO.
Do you ever actually read back what you post?
Post with a screenshot someone posted elsewhere in the thread. California sent the alert out in the shittiest way possible. It's not the system itself, it's how California is choosing to do it. I've never had any emergency alerts here in AZ be remotely this useless.
Someone elaenin the thread posted a screenshot. The Amber alert in CA basically just said it was an alert and a bit.ly link to Twitter for info.
Why the fuck doesn't California actually include the info on the alert itself like I've always gotten anywhere else? That's the actual question. Every alert I have received in AZ has had all relevant info for the alert in the alert itself, never just a link elsewhere.
It's crazy to me that's all the info I cluded in the Amber alert itself.
Every alert I've ever gotten here in Arizona had the relevant info on the alert, regardless of how large that might make it.
Why the fuck would California shorten the info in the first place?
Unfortunately I haven't received any since I got a new phone, so my history is empty.
You're pulling an article written by one member, not the whole union. Cherry picking at its best.
LOL It's an official press release from the union.
You may not like it but the union, officially, does as a group. If you're a union member and have a problem with that, take it up with them. If you're not a member, then your opinion means just as much as mine as a random citizen, absolutely nothing.
Every time any union shit comes up there's always people on both sides in the union. There's also a ton of union workers that want everything the union has negotiated but don't want to pay the dues for the union to operate. They're opinion means less than others far as I'm concerned, but articles aren't going to mention that of course, especially if it goes against the narrative they want to promote.
What a load of crap. The union was against the sale.
“The USW welcomes President Biden’s decision to block the U.S. Steel-Nippon deal. We have no doubt that it’s the right move for our members and our national security.
https://usw.org/news/media-center/releases/2024/usw-commends-biden-for-blocking-uss-nippon-sale
This is why many/most reviews are actually useless.
Many people use reviews to complain, about anything, especially if it has nothing to do with the product because it's the easiest way to try and get it out of their system.
Combined with fake reviews, astroturfed reviews from undisclosed free products, and the average user having no knowledge of a product or category to compare against, etc. and I'd even say most reviews are effectively useless.
On the bright side, seeing any of those types of phrases in the review means you can effectively ignore that review entirely.