First reason is that during covid they tried shifting all business over to these pickup services. Well…without direct control of the services, you’re kind of at the mercy of the workforce that can’t get jobs that have a boss. You are not their boss. They are their boss. You’re allowing them to do your work without any oversight on your behalf. So why would Joe the delivery driver, whos 4 hours late picking up this order, give a shit about quality control?

It’s worse than that.

You’re looking at it as if the app-based delivery service has low standards. The reality is even worse. They use all kinds of surveillance and data analysis techniques to figure out which of their drivers is the most desperate, and will keep working for the lowest possible fees. Then, they give the most work to those drivers because they are the most profitable. The drivers know they’re getting screwed, but they are doing app-based deliveries because they can’t find anything better.

The apps are a middleman between the restaurant and the customer and they don’t just squeeze those two, they also squeeze their drivers.

If the World Cup has a lot of half empty stadia, I’d be happy.

It might be interesting if the Mexican and Canadian stadia were full though.

F1 races are also hotbeds of human trafficking.

According to some Russian propaganda conspiracy forum?

There may be some races, but ladies, that’s not why your husband is there.

Sure, nobody who goes to a race goes to see cars drive quickly…

I can’t think of any call where they need to go in guns blazing unless they can actually see that someone’s shooting, or in the process of being killed.

Anything else and there’s time to peek in windows, send a drone up to upper floor windows, and so-on.

Even if it is an actual situation where someone is in mortal danger, doing that will mean they’re not walking into a dangerous situation blind.

If they do that and can’t see anybody in any kind of distress or danger, then the logical thing is to calmly knock on the door and ask some questions.

If you don’t have someone authorized by the state to enforce laws, you’re still going to get people enforcing “laws”, it’s just going to be vigilantes, people with grudges, etc. Just look how frequently you see incidents of road rage. Cops basically exist to prevent people from taking revenge into their own hands.

Take all those incidents of people calling the cops on black men having a picnic or taking their dogs for a walk. If there were no cops, do you think these white “Karens” would just leave the black men alone? Or do you think they’d get together and lynch them?

I think the US needs to scale its policing way back. It needs mental health specialists to respond to certain kinds of calls. The person who responds to a report of a stolen bike probably shouldn’t have a gun. But, at some point you are going to need people who will use physical force to enforce the law. Those people should be heavily supervised by a truly independent body. But, they still need to exist in some form.

Why don’t the king’s guards attack the king?

The police know their job is to enforce the law, but they also know who gets a free pass… or at least who gets a lot more leeway than other people. At a minimum it changes “shoot first and ask questions later” into “ask questions then maybe shoot”.

It’s not up to the police to debate the veracity of a report

Why not?

and they respond with “sounds fake, not coming”.

Why wouldn’t they just respond with “we’ll have to verify this”.

It’s not that they’re idiots, though many cops are. It’s that they don’t get punished for falling for a SWATting attempt.

If you could lose your career if you fell for it, they’d try a lot harder not to fall for it. But, instead, they never face punishment for being overly aggressive, and might face punishment for not being aggressive enough in the case of a real emergency.

If they’ve been told that there are several dead in the street, and they get there, and there’s nobody dead in the street, it’s time to not go in going pow pow pow.

very difficulty

It’s good that they’re attacking them on the software side, but they should also go after them on the legal side.

No, no, trust me, it’s a mind control ray!

See, if advertising didn’t work, that would mean that companies like Google and Meta have their stock price based mostly on hype. And, that can’t be true, because, as we all know, the market is always fully rational. Now, excuse me while I go check out how much my NFTs have gone up in value since I last checked in 2021.

Or “Their product must be massively overpriced to pay for all this advertising”

According to astronomers there are 3 ‘elements’ in the universe: Hydrogen, Helium and Metal.

The JLTV apparently has a curb weight of 6.4 tonnes, that’s almost 4x the weight of the modern oversized F150 at 1.8 tonnes. Not ideal for a post-collapse world where energy is expensive.

Those Stadium Super Trucks though. Also impractical, but those sure are goofy fun to watch.

Jeeps were really innovative when they were created… in World War 2. That’s when they really were off-road vehicles. The pattern was repeated again with the Humvee, or HMMVW. It’s not just converted military vehicles either. It’s also race cars and rally cars. Some series have rules that to be legal a car also has to be a production model. Sometimes if you get that exact model you get a race-capable car. But, mostly the cars they sell are variants of the race design, which maintain the fast-looking design, but one which would handle terribly if you put it on an actual racetrack.

how many lives can be saved with 100k dollars

Is keeping someone alive enough to balance the books? Does the quality of their life matter? What if they’re alive but living in a refugee camp?

From a purely utilitarian perspective, you could even calculate the expectation value of lives saved / lost

I don’t think you can, not without making massive assumptions. Lives lost directly might be easy if the button is labelled “0.1% chance of killing someone”. But, what if you spend your $100k on driving a light truck which emits a lot of pollution, which in turn contributes a tiny amount to the deaths of a lot of people?

And, for lives saved, say you do it in a pretty easy to calculate way, donating food to people who would die without that food. Is that where the calculation ends? What if that person goes on to help other people? Or what if that person goes on to become a soldier and kill people.

I don’t think it’s at all realistic to try to calculate an expectation value of lives saved / lost with any accuracy except through the most direct effects.

the absurdity of utilitarianism when taken to the extreme

I guess that’s what I’m getting at.

such a low probability overall you probably up on the whole deal if you use that money to help other people.

Depends a lot on how you’re helping them and what you’re doing with the rest. If you’re spending like a typical American (or Canadian) you’re doing a lot of environmental damage with your day-to-day life so you’re killing people incrementally with that lifestyle.

Yeah, that would be an interesting twist. 100% chance that pushing the button kills someone, but it might happen in 2 years or it might happen in 30 years. But, even if someone lives a perfectly normal life for 30 years, their cause of death will be this button.

100% of people in a large population absolutely will die. I don’t know why you think some people are immortal. I also don’t know what that has to do with this meme.