I can reasonably expect that government agents don't follow me every time I leave the house. Legal basis for that belief or not, that's what most people expect.

You lost me at "reestablishing order and peace"... what do you believe is happening in our cities? And how is tracking cars nationwide going to fix whatever problem you think exits?

The number of people killed and maimed while just walking around has never been higher.

Substantiate your claims or GTFO. Comments like this are just bait, you have been here long enough to know that.

I don't disagree with you, but this is obviously a misleading stat on its face because the number of people has simply never been higher.

Crime per capita could be completely static and this statement would always be true simply because there are more people.

Wrong.

https://counciloncj.org/homicide-trends-report/

My dude, we are not talking about homicides.

Oh, are we talking about natural disasters and animal attacks? Or is it some secret third thing so you can feel even more clever as vaguepost?

>The number of people killed and maimed while just walking around has never been higher.

Yes, we are. You brought it up.

But Feds aren’t the ones earning those big salaries. They make ok money, but an engineering manager in the DC suburbs earns more.

Asked and answered. We, collectively, elected Trump a second time and left a GOP majority in Congress.

"Free Speech" in the American legal sense (1st Amendment to the Constitution) applies to government prohibition on speech, with a particular emphasis on political speech.

It doesn't prevent one person from prohibiting speech... I can tell a pastor to stop preaching on my lawn. But, the government cannot tell a pastor not to preach in the publicly-owned town square (generally, there are exceptions).

There are arguments that certain online forums are effectively "town squares in the internet age" (Twitter in particular, at least pre-Musk). But, I always found that analogy to fall apart - twitter (or whatever online forum) is more like an op-ed section in a newspaper, IMO. And newspapers don't have to publish every op-ed that gets submitted.

Also, the 1st Amendment does not protect you from the consequences of your speech. I can call my boss an asshole to his face legally - and he can fire me (generally, there are labor protections and exceptions).

Probably depends on how one defines "blockbuster"...

Yes, the highest-grossing movies (Marvel, etc) tend to be mostly sexless (aside from tight-fitting costumes and dirty jokes).

But, there are always plenty of critically acclaimed Hollywood movies with lots of sex. Poor Things being a recent example.

> Probably depends on how one defines "blockbuster"..

Movies that everyone sees that penetrate the public consciousness

> there are always plenty of critically acclaimed Hollywood movies

Movies that only critics see or care about are not blockbusters

One possible reason. Nothing indicates that’s the only or primary reason for an escalation in shadow banning of these accounts.

There is no detail at all about what caused these accounts to get suspended. The Guardian just wants us to blindly trust this leftwing propaganda group when they say it was due to political censorship rather than a consistent application of Facebook policies.

Feels a lot more like the reporter already had a problem with Meta and chose the examples most favorable to their anti-Meta slant to report in the article. Of course on HN we're all just to happy to eat it up as it aligns neatly with our little bubble. Here's some still publically available posts from Sex Talk Arabic who they directly quote in the article complaining about these shadow bans. It makes it a lot harder to trust the reporting here when these examples were so easy to find.

[1] https://imginn.com/p/ClT7Cufrk0k/

[2] https://imginn.com/p/DCmnH4WPbXa/

[3] https://imginn.com/p/C-dBMzXRqnu/

Corporations aren't people, but in the end it's still people that are responsible for this crackdown on liberal content. It's someone at Facebook making these decisions, someone who is a person, we just don't know who the responsible person is.

Legally, they’re all motorcycle. Unless they’re mopeds (50cc, speed limited).

But colloquially, if it’s a step-through, it’s called a scooter. Most of which have a CVT transmission, where most motorcycles have a 6-speed manual (toe shift) transmission.

My Vespa Sprint 150 gets ~100mpg around town. It cost ~$5000, much of which is a brand premium. 150cc scooters from other brands (Genuine, etc) are much less.

right, EV city scooters are arguably already doable, modulo annoying charging, since in places where you'd feel compelled to ride a scooter you'd be less likely to have dedicating parking with charging for it. Motorcycles though require more range to be useful, it's pretty typical to fill up at least once on every ride.

How realistic timewise is plugging e-bikes into plain old wall power ? Is it any improvement over trying to charge a e-car from wall power (i.e. all-night plus) ?

Depends on the battery size (which depends on bike weight).

For a pedelec (actual e-bike meant to be pedaled), wall charging with a brick/wall-wart works fine. That's how they all work, at least any that I've seen. Some have removable batteries to make that easier, but the high-end models tend to have the battery wedged into the down tube and not removable (with complete disassembly of the bike).

For an e-scooter or light e-moto, wall charging should work fine, but it won't be fast. YOu're looking at 3+ hours to charge. Fine for most commuters and running errands, but not suitable for a delivery vehicle - they'd have to hot-swap batteries (or complete bikes).

Not sure about large electric motorcycles - there aren't that many out there right now. I'd guess similar to e-scooters, just with an even longer 10-80 or 0-100 charge period.

Ebikes from wall power works well. Also at ebike size, batteries are swappable, so you just get two and charge one while you're using the other one.