I doubt Trump was thinking that far ahead. It’s far more likely that he did it simply because big Ag was backing him and they don’t need the subsidies to survive like small farmers do.

That’s why I said that being considered smart out and among the masses isn’t really an indicator of your intelligence. I remember at my college orientation they asked the crowd to stand up first if they were first in their grade, then second, then top 10, and then top 15%. By the end almost everyone was standing. I’ll go on to say that that university has an 85% graduation rate. So right there we established that those that graduate, barring some non-educational issue or those who are intelligent enough but unable to attend, are likely in the top 10-20% when it comes to educational comparison.

Even then, these are poor metrics for being “smart.” There are a lot of ways to be smart, you can be book smart, you can be emotionally intelligent, you can be wise, and you can have common sense. If it’s not uncommon for people to say you are smart as part of conversation then you likely are subjectively, but objectively that says more about the people around you than it says about your objective intelligence. Something like 20% of American adults are functionally illiterate.

Reading your listed accomplishments I would say that you are smart, and having the intellectual maturity to recognize your strengths and weaknesses is another measure of intelligence.

With the barriers to entry that Lemmy has it’s not that unlikely. It’s like an incel going onto 8chan and saying, we can’t all be the most edgy people we know.

According to this website there are only around 40-70k daily active users (monthly vs semiannual). If you look at total users we’re sitting on about 1.3 million with 11 million posts per day and 23 million comments per day.

So 0.015% of the world population on an obscure site which is not mainstream accessible.

EDIT: Just because you were one of the smartest people in your class doesn’t mean you are “smart.” I would argue that it says more about the other kids in your class than it does you, most people are fucking stupid.

“I only work on carbureted engines.”

OK, so you need to reach a threshold of 5% of the population before you’re allowed to have rights, got it.

You’re just attacking me, not my argument

If if was just a matter of a handful of business owners being racists, then those racist businesses would be out-competed by non-racist businesses that appeal to everyone

You skipped the whole counter argument (comparing to scabs and unions) that this lacks the social structure to support that behavior. If you tried to open a business that wasn’t racist then the racist people would come and threaten you, this isn’t happening with the Uber situation.

Because it isn’t! The scenario you described is literally the exact sort of thing the Civil Rights Act exists to stop! You are literally advocating for allowing denial of service based on protected classes!

The thing is that Uber is not performing any discrimination, they are enabling other people to discriminate against each other and attempting to still provide service through it. Claiming that Uber is discriminating is functionally not true.

You’re being pedantic, they don’t care as it pertains to whether they will provide you with service. They do care so that they can match yours and other people’s requests.

The difference in what I am saying and what you are saying is scale and you are completely ignoring the rest of my argument. The scale at which you would have to be a minority for this to impact you significantly is somewhere in the 1-5% range (as in your minority is only this percentage of the local population) with the assumption that the other 95-99% are opposed to you. This is why Uber providing this as an option is different from the cases which the Civil Rights Act was based around. Hell, this is why scabs are effective against unions as well.

A diner not serving black people is impactful because a handful of people are the business owners and are effectively gating you out. Uber allowing those people to select only a specific preference means that anyone who doesn’t set restrictions will break that system and actually benefit from it (more business).

This also goes both ways and is potentially international, Japanese could choose not to serve non-Japanese, a black person could choose not to serve white people for comfort or security.

You’re fundamentally not understanding why Uber allowing people to make this decision is not the same as 1960’s segregation.

But that’s not how Uber works, Uber pairs drivers with riders and has no guarantee for service even now. If I open my app and there are not drivers available then no service will be provided, this isn’t Uber discriminating.

Uber doesn’t care what your race, gender, or political leaning is, they want to provide you the service you want. So long as the option goes both ways this only hurts the people who opt into the program, not everyone else. The only way this could hurt others would be if those who choose to opt in (as in they only want a certain thing) get priority in the scheduling or if you live somewhere where you are the overwhelming minority.

In the first example, if you say you only want female riders so the system sends you every woman that comes into the system instead of putting you in the same queue as everyone else but skipping you if the next client doesn’t match your preference. In this case you are being skipped in the allocation of riders and actually missing opportunities due to your preference.

In the second example, if you are still living in a sun down town then getting Uber rides is probably not your biggest problem.

Even now, Uber drivers are independent contractors and can cancel service whenever they want. If the driver pulls up and thinks you’re sketchy they can cancel the ride, there is no obligation.

I mean, as a company whose business is pairing riders with drivers, it begs the question why this isn’t already an option so long as drivers can also choose not to drive for people flagged as a certain way. If a MAGA person only wants white people driving for them then that will reduce the effectiveness of the app for them, provides service for someone who otherwise would be difficult as a customer, and it prevents them from harassing or bothering potential victims.

If I want to, as a driver or rider, I think I should be able to choose not to be driven or ride with someone who has been flagged by others as overly visible. That might mean someone who won’t shut up about MAGA while I or they drive, it might be someone who has 15 bumper stickers about their beliefs, or it might be someone who has their car wrapped with Hatsune Miku. The consequence of this decision might mean that I have to wait an extra 15 min for a ride or it might mean that because of my actions people no longer wish to ride with me.

Yes, I think that’s a good idea.

I don’t think it’s technically discrimination. Uber is a middle man business which pairs independent contractors with paying customers. If the customers or contractors have a preference then all it’s doing are matching those preferences.

More likely than not this will actually lead to those who use this option to have substandard service (either slower response or less available rides) than those who do not.

Men would only choose their riders gender for bigotry reasons

That’s not necessarily true though. Many men also feel more comfortable with another man in a variety of situations. Prostate exam, counseling, and barber are all good examples. Some guys are just super awkward with women and might not want to feel awkward while paying for a ride. Hell with the severity an accusation of wrong doing can have some men might not want to ride solo with a woman they don’t know.

The same goes for women, not all women choosing this setting are doing so for safety, sometimes people have a preference. Uber is organizing willing independent contractors to the preference of paying customers. If the customer states they want a specific gender as their driver I don’t see why that would be a problem so long as both parties are fine with that.

First of all, it’s NY State, not NYC, and Article 35.10 of the Penal Code says you are allowed to use physical force for self-defense or in the defense of others, but the very next clause is 35.15 which says that you have a duty to retreat unless there is immediate danger.

In a NY court of law you could argue that you were acting in the defense of others, but you would not be able to prove that there was imminent danger.

In no court in the world would you be able to say you were acting in self-defense while acting from 6000 km away.

You’re too hung up on the terminology. My point is that they need to put someone up now and begin pushing them, by the time we get to the primary that person should be such a forgone conclusion that the primary is barely necessary. This probably means the DNC would pick someone and it’ll probably be a shit choice for leftists, but the alternative is that we get to the election and they are tripping over their own feet like the last couple primaries.

I’m not fond of Newsome either, but I would much rather have him than Vance or somehow Trump. The last thing I want is for the Democrats to fumble the next election because they weren’t organized and tried to decide who to support 7 months before the general election.

It’s tough to do this in the modern day because for them to have enough worthwhile experience they almost have to be in their late 40s. There are a few generally accepted routes to the presidency and legitimacy in them puts you at a fairly old person. You can go the executive route, someone who was a governor or military leader, or you can go the legislative route, Senator or Representative, or the third path of being generally unqualified.

Obama is a good example, he had a career (law degree, became an attorney, taught at the University of Chicago Law School, got married, had kids) before he then ran for the state legislature at 35. After being in the Illinois Senate for 8 years he ran for the US Senate and held that position for 4 years before being elected president at 47.

Agreed

I hate to say it, but 2008, 2016, and 2024 have left me unconvinced that Americans are ready for even a potential woman President. It’s wrong, it’s prejudiced, but there hasn’t been sufficient evidence that American’s will support a woman for president. Republican’s predominantly seem opposed while Democrats are either unconvinced or insufficiently motivated. I think AOC could win her own state primary, but I’m not convinced she would beat Newsome or any male candidate in the conservative state primaries.

Thanks for the feedback, I’ll look into him!

Oh cool, I’ll look into him. We need informed voters to start talking about candidates now rather than in 2027.