twblalock
Who said that?
Again, people seem to be reacting to something that was not said by anyone in this thread.
What on earth are you talking about? Who the heck is the parent here? I am merely defending someone who is being dogpiled by trolls for the outrage of pointing out the fact that cycling in SF is dangerous. I am familiar with SF even though I don't live there, and I know that is the case.
That would obviously be an unfair and dumb rule because fault should always be determined on a case-by-case basis. We would also have a massive amount of fraud caused by cyclists intentionally hitting cars, just like the rash of pedestrians running in front of cars in Russia.
I ride bikes and I also drive cars, and I've seen a ton of dumb behavior from both cyclists and drivers. Nobody is immune to being a dumbass in this category. They just shouldn't mix.
The problem is infrastructure. In the places where cycling is safe and normally practiced by normal people, the bicycles and cars are mostly separated. US cycling advocates have been pushing for the wrong things for years, asking for rights on the road as though bikes are the same as cars, when in reality the only thing that works is separate roads.
Is it now also victim-blaming to tell people to wear seat belts, or to look both ways before crossing the street? Telling people about danger is not a form of blaming.
People seem to be reacting to something the OP didn't actually write. Stop ascribing beliefs and motivations to people you don't know based on a few sentences of written text.
Read what was written. No shaming is there.
You seem to be reacting to something you ascribe to the OP, but there is simply no logical path from statements in the OP's post that leads one to assume anyone is being shamed or blamed.
We don't live in should-land. We live in reality. Parents who live in reality need to protect their children from the dangers that exist in reality.
Parents who live in reality in the city of San Francisco know that it is a dangerous place to ride bikes. It is not ok to tell people to ignore those dangers because they should not exist, or to scold people for making those dangers known. It's also not ok to tell people that they are responsible for solving problems they did not create, and it is really not ok to equate warning people about danger with victim blaming.
sidfthec, you are right and you should not be getting this kind of response.
IMO the Wayback Machine has always been the primary product, and most valuable part, of the Internet Archive. If IA wanted to do other things they should have done them via a separate legal entity to protect the Wayback Machine.
Especially in the case of libel/defamation law, and especially in the UK and Australia, where even true statements can get you in trouble, putting up a disclaimer may not give you any protection at all.
They should have let someone else take the risk, and continued archiving the internet. That is all that most of their supporters expected of them, for good reason. Their attempt to pivot toward being a generic, universal library was bad scope creep and should have been stopped when it started.
It doesn't take much karma to vote or flag. Well under 100 points IIRC. Past that point, having more karma has no effect on what you can do on the site.
Proof of displacement requires demonstration that people left SF because they could not afford to live there anymore. It's really that simple.
Techies with six-figure incomes leaving town to move back in with their parents during the pandemic doesn't count as displacement.
After all, why stay in a city when everything is closed when you can get the same experience cheaper somewhere else?
Any time window that includes 2020 is going to include very strong pandemic-related effects.
This is all very handwavy. Why do you believe this narrative without concrete facts?
In fact it would be foolish to buy property in such a market unless you are rich or something limits tax increases.
Amazon is not running a charity or a public library. It's foolish to expect them to run a site like this forever. If the original owners wanted this to be preserved they should have sold it to someone who contractually agreed to preserve it, or donated it to the Internet Archive or something.
Besides, the old stuff should all be free from archive.org, right?
It's pretty obvious on the ground in SF that the homeless problem is fundamentally a problem of mental illness and drug abuse. A fairly large portion of the homeless there are not from SF but came there because SF tolerates behavior other cities do not. Even if there was an empty, free house offered to every homeless person in SF there would still be a massive problem because many of them would be unwilling to accept it.
We had affordable housing in California in the past without any pie-in-the-sky stuff like land-value taxes.