Drivers licenses in most if not all of the U.S. are a joke, and people will still drive with suspended licenses, especially if they have to for work. Driving on a suspended license should allow the state to impound your car, though, then it would be respected.
Jail time should also be considered too, for repeat offenders.
Cars are a weird sort of thing, where they both are the justification for a surveillance state and lots of monitoring, but we also have extremely lenient penalties. It's difficult for me to understand how the US arrived at our current set of laws.
Naw, they'll be replaced with national citizen IDs or simply nothing and you must apply for a federal ID to see or get benefits.
Regarding such an ID, I bet it would not be technically required unless you want to receive some sort of federal benefit or participate in a federal election. They might not even call it a federal ID, something like "National Citizen Verification" (NCV)
I'm sure that incentives would strongly align for you to have one (or start more expensively starting to get one) if you participate in federal court, get arrested by a federal officer, or go to a federal prison. Also joining the military would likely result in you and your spouse getting a free one. If the draft is reintroduced at some point in the future, then it'll become common quickly.
Of course they'll still have the SSN format because of existing legacy misuse of the SSN as a national identifier. But maybe not. Every bank I've done business with wants my state driver's license number, of which a birth certificate is a requirement. Maybe it's someone's idea to simply give banks access to those databases.
I know. And it makes me sad. All things being equal, it’s still important to reply and contextualize. It’s not enough to follow the old advice of “Don’t feed the trolls “ because the trolls won the last war and now they’re in power. Now we must keep the torch lit and the banner of facts flying.
Click on the timestamp of the post and then click the "flag" link. A few members in good standing flagging a bad comment will kill it. That's the most expedient way to prevent a troll post from spawning a big off-topic thread that detracts from the content of the submission.
It's also good practice to downvote a post like this before flagging it. They are separate actions, and once an account's cumulative karma drops to -12 (IIRC), all of its posts become dead-by-default.
You aren't supposed to be manually assigning addresses except in very small networks. You should have that centrally managed by DNS or any number of other things. No one should have to speak their address to you. You don't know what you're doing.
If you have a child, but don't have a house, you'll probably stay with your parents. They probably would rather you have your own house so they can have privacy and such.
A lot of the "multiple generations of families under one roof" type thinking are only practical if you have a large property, which was more common and much cheaper before the industrial revolution, tract housing, high rise apartments, and $2000/mo. rent for 500 square feet. Even if you think it's OK for 3 generations and 20 children to live in a 500 square foot apartment, most others don't want that.
When you have people with more money than they could possibly spend in their entire lives who wouldn't have to work a day in their life if they didn't want to, telling you that people need to start having babies and oh, also they need to work 80 hours a week and "sacrifice" to pay for them as well, lol no thanks.
I had my first child at 24 on a shoestring budget in a 700 sq. ft. apartment and it has been completely manageable. Children are way less expensive than you might think (definitely cheaper than an adult) and if you’re creative you can find good quality, full-time daycare or childcare for $10-15k/yr.
Does this add extra work? Oh yes, absolutely it does. But while having children means you sacrifice certain things, they are an incredible gift and more than make up for the trouble they cause.
It’s appalling to me how heavily we gatekeep parenthood and building a family. There is an unbroken evolutionary thread of more than 4 billion years from the very first organism to you. Your ancestors all managed to do it and they were no smarter, more gifted, or more affluent than you are. Chances are they were younger than you when they started and in a far more perilous situation to boot.
I think one problem is that it's difficult to share with non-parents that the sacrifice is worth it. It's easier to understand the pain of losing opportunities, losing freedom, losing hobbies, losing sleep, or downsizing living space.
How do you explain that you miss your newborn so much, that when the baby is asleep all you do is look through pictures of him/her? i almost cried the first time my toddler ran up to me and gave me a hug. i cried when i picked him up after the first day of daycare and he said "i missed you" - i didn't even know he knew that phrase!
My (immigrant) parents never explained to me how awesome it is to be a parent. Also they are a 100 times more affectionate as grandparents than as parents.
I hope to teach my son that being a parent is the best luckiest blessed thing ever.
That’s completely true. But you can still be creative.
I know a couple who both earn in that range and work around each other’s schedules to do it and take care of their two kids at the same time. Yes it’s a lot to juggle, but it is absolutely worth it.
Sexual escapades are only senseless if you rigidly believe sex is only for specific things, and adopt a model where human beings are property and can be owned. While sex does have a biological purpose, that in itself doesn't mean it has to be limited to that purpose.
Sex is fun and most sex doesn't lead to procreation, nor is intended to. The last 50 times I've had sex, me and partner(s) involved have had no intention of making a baby, and that's fine. Nature/God agrees with me, because the number of children most families have are typically far less than the number of times the parents have had sex.
There's a lot of times people want sex and don't want it to be some big life changing event. I won't marry someone like that.
> This creates a mindset not unlike that of a drug user who is obsessed with getting another hit
Everyone wants pleasurable things with a minimum of bad or unwanted consequences. This is called being smart and using your God-given brain and free will. This doesn't make anyone a drug user. This puritanical war on pleasure can only serve authoritarian and anti-human ends, which is often an explicit or implicit base of forms of slavery/indenture, and is the main reason why I strongly advocate against it.
> The psychophysical reality of sexual intercourse is much more than some passing physical pleasure.
Anything that feels really good will beget attachment because you want more of it. When it's attached to a person, you're going to want to be around that person more. And of course, human beings are naked apes with courtship and bonding instincts and all that good stuff. But people bond over things other than sex, and any good relationship or marriage will have many bonds other than the sexual one. Indeed, marriages where sex is the only reason they got together are as hollow as this drug user strawman you trotted out.
> Masturbation is even worse.
People who become overly dependent on parasocial relationships with fictional anything, whether that's a harem, video game, movie star, person mentioned in a religious book, etc. need help. I masturbate from time to time and it does not give me any problems, but I'm not addicted to it. But I would rather lonely people masturbate themselves into a coma than sexually assault others simply because of people who will say masturbation is wrong but at the same time won't consider other things like legalizing prostitution.
> they don't want to make the cultural changes necessary to restore normalcy.
I don't. The old way sucked. Robots and AI should be doing all our menial work, and the possibilities for pleasure are endless. The people who just can't exist without an employer giving them meaning because they never got enough approval from their daddies need to move to another planet.
- At least one local bank website I've gone to today has a banner saying it is closed and uses the word "Juneteenth."
This seems to be reasonable enough to consider it a real word.
Additionally, the term "Emancipation Day" is inaccurate (and therefore obfuscatory) because slavery is still legal and constitutional if you are convicted of a crime. Emancipation doesn't accurately describe the current state unless this is no longer true. I'm going by this dictionary definition of "emancipation": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emancipation
Here's an article, the power relationship was exercised by denying parole that would have otherwise been granted without a profit motive:
https://archive.ph/0gVie
"Since 2018, about 575 companies and more than 100 public agencies in Alabama have used incarcerated people as landscapers, janitors, drivers, metal fabricators and fast-food workers, the lawsuit states, reaping an annual benefit of $450 million."
You know in movies and cartoons and stuff when you'd see like, a whole bunch of prisoners in striped pajamas, chained together breaking rocks or digging ditches or whatever? Those are depictions of an enslaved workforce.
Forced labor for criminals isn't the same as being a slave. They are not owned by the state.
We have a similar sounding exception clause in Germany, and nobody would call the prisoners slaves.
That being said, I don't doubt that the american prison systems has severe problems, for example the one raised in the other answer to my previous comment.
The text of the 13th amendment makes a direct equivalence between the chattel slavery it outlawed and the incarcerated forced labor that it left unaffected:
> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted*, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction
The plain reading of that text is that slavery remains a permitted punishment in the US.
I’m not an American or a constitutional expert but my plain reading of that text is that the exception is for “involuntary servitude”. You could read it both ways but that’s how I’d understand it.
1. slavery became illegal, except as punishment for a crime
2. a ton of vague laws sprung up, like "malicious mischief". Look up "Jim Crow" or "black codes" to get a sense of these.
3. States started "convict-leasing" out prisoners as a source of income, often right back to the plantations that slaves were liberated from before. The convicted were not paid for this labor.
Additional context: Virginia Supreme Court rules that inmates are slaves to the state in 1871: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/slaves-s... Virginia held the capitol of the Confederacy - the states that tried to leave the USA to retain their slaves.
I forget why the crime exception was added to the 13th amendment, but I assume it was to make it more palatable to the states that still wanted slaves
We Americans don't like doing that either, because it makes us uncomfortable.
>Forced labor for criminals isn't the same as being a slave. They are not owned by the state.
I'm having trouble understanding how it's different. They are held by the state, forced to work, are not free to leave, and we have a bit of a history...
So we've come to the difference of opinions, which is that your definition of slavery excludes those convicted of a crime, while others' doesn't. Not a very interesting point to debate on.
Yes, I think there is a difference between being kidnapped from your home, shipped across the ocean and sold into a life of servitude (with any children you have being born into the same condition, or yourself being born into such a situation) vs. doing labor as part of a sentence for a crime of which you have been duly convicted (and will someday be released from). That is my opinion.
Would your opinion change if the legal system that permitted people to be kidnapped, shipped, and sold, was the same system that decided if you're a criminal fit to be kidnapped, shipped, and sold?
No. The system that allowed the former was changed. I reject the premise that convicted criminals were or are "kidnapped, shipped, and sold" in any way that is comparable to chattel slavery. Were there some abuses? Probably. We live in an imperfect world.
How are they to distinguish between what are internals and what is the public interface if the internals aren't locked behind something like 'private'? Naming convention? [0] Code comments, or other documentation? A thorough reading of the codebase?
[0] Good luck with enforcing the One True Naming Convention.
That's why I suggested it should be an annotation at most, so you can convey the intent without limiting the users.
It can still be using keywords like public, protected, private. Just make them non-binding. In similar manner how TypeScript types are non-binding. You can ignore them in any program that uses TS lib.
> ...so you can convey the intent without limiting the users. It can still be using keywords like public, protected, private. Just make them non-binding.
Yeah, the users aren't likely to be really limited these days.
1) A huge number of widely-used languages have reflection, so you can get at internal members if you really try.
2) For those languages that don't, just remove the keyword and recompile. Someone who's willing to take on the maintenance burden of directly using parts of the software marked by their author as "internal only do not use" is clearly willing to maintain such a minor fork.
You should determine your own value if you don't want to be controlled by anyone else.
If you don't want to determine your own value, you're probably no worse off letting an AI do that than anything else. Religion is probably more comfortable, but I'm sure AI and religion will mix before too long.
