this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
917 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59596 readers
3235 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 214 points 3 months ago (4 children)

This is fucking bullshit.

I review science proposals for the government that come from private companies responding to an announcement about grants for specific kinds of technology.

I have to submit a financial form every year disclosing stock that I own to make sure there are no conflicts of interest.

The fact that is guy is allowed to shrug and say “nah” and just keep going blows my mind.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago (3 children)

We should've let them secede.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 79 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Right wingers in the US have decided to collectively do whatever the hell they want.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

Papa Clarence would be proud

[–] [email protected] 324 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Day 30 of being fucking bewildered that I, a non-voting member of my city's bicycle commission, have stricter ethical laws binding me than those for judges and politicians.

[–] [email protected] 108 points 3 months ago

It's because the politicians make the laws. And they want their judges on the bench to rule in their favor. Laws forcing judges to recuse don't help the politicians ignore the laws they find inconvenient.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you can get the street sweeper to get the bike lane near my house I'll give you a half a can of chamois butt'r

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I'm trying to secure wholly separate bike lanes, or at least flexi-posts, anything but a sharrow or a line of paint. Tbh, I dunno how that'll work with a street sweeper.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Can you get narrower car lanes? Trying to cross an 8 lane stroad that has 12ft wide lanes in the middle of town is hellish.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I don't know if I can; it's not, well, in my lane as a bicycle/pedestrian committee member. I still show up and advocate for lane narrowing and traffic calming at the city council meetings.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

There are little sidewalk sweepers about the size of golf carts that get used by colleges, it would work perfectly for a bidirectional bike lane.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They need the small ones, that's for sure. I would work that into my plan if I were you.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Edit: disregard. I thought you meant lanes, you clearly mean sweepers

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 138 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Gotta love that Conservative mantra:

  • I get to do what I want.
  • You have to do what I say.

The judge doesn't have to recuse himself, because <insert specious reasoning> and fuck you. Also, he's the big, bad judge, and he's going to chide the plaintiff's attorneys in a show of dominance.

Texas is basically a Conservative rubber stamp, at this point. I hope we get Kamala/Walz, because we desperately need judicial reform.

[–] [email protected] 74 points 3 months ago

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›