cerebellum42

There's a balance there - the court records need to be public so that the justice system can be held accountable by the public in some way, and records need to be available to inform precedent for future decisions. That needs to be weighed against what you mentioned, the impact of the availability of those records on the people they are about.

I don't think you have to be a criminal to be in some sort of police database. And even if it did mean that, it should make no difference as to how their privacy is treated. If anything, a police database should have higher bars to third party access on privacy grounds than almost any other kind of database. The only thing that should be public are court records.

>If the grass pasture is already there in cycle, it's not being used for anything else. Might as well put cattle on it.

This is true, technically speaking. Practically, you couldn't produce even a fraction of the amount of meat that the market wants using this way. If all meat was grass fed meat, it would be a luxury good. I don't think that would be too bad to be honest, it would lead to much less meat consumption overall.

Basically, "just eat grass fed meat" = "everyone must eat a lot less meat, unless they're rich I guess"

I don't think anyone in this whole thread was talking about your local fields here.

No they're not, at least they're not pasture. They're either already farmed fields or they're wild meadows. Putting meadows to intense use would destroy whole ecosystems that may look like "just grass" from afar, and farmed fields are obviously already in use.

Because that does not work on scale.

This discussion is about how producing meat requires tons and tons of land in the form of soy bean fields that feed the animals, which indirectly and directly contributes to deforestation. Now you come along and say, just eat meat produced using this other method which takes a lot MORE land for the same amount of meat production?

Just to be clear, I think it's within the responsibility of the government to pay for much of the hardship incurred by lockdowns to help get society and the economy as a whole through it halfway intact; but I do not think that applies to _everything_.

Two examples: If a Business is closed due to lockdown - there should be government assistance to compensate. Buying masks for employees and changing interior layouts to allow for safer interactions, to comply with new regulations - cost of doing business.

This alone:

>Because the government is the party deciding on the restrictions.

is not a valid reason to me. We don't (or at least I don't) expect the government to pay for every impact of new environmental legislation either even though they ultimately pass the legislation.

And why do you think this should be strictly a "government bill"? I think it's a lot more nuanced than that. One perspective would be to say this is a cost all of society needs to pay as a whole (in which case everyone simply pays it in taxes at the end) or you could say "we just require your business to behave in such a way that it doesn't end up killing people, you pay the cost for it". These are the extremes of course, but we need to figure out where we fall on that spectrum.

Have you read the link? This is not about dismissing the genuine plight of people affected by the lockdown. This is about actual, literal, disinformation being spread.

We need to weigh the consequences of restrictions against the consequences of not having those restrictions, and this kind of disinformation is simply trying to tip the scales by diluting the factual basis on which we all make that assessment with lies.

Kinda depends on the perspective - if you want to take up road riding as exercise somewhat seriously, it's the price point where the component quality levels off.

Above that price point, component quality goes up in terms of performance, weight, etc, below that price point it requires compromise you notice even when just riding for exercise (lower durability, bad shifts, sluggish ride feel and so on).

In the world of road bikes, I'd propose roughly these categories:

100-400: bad cheapo bikes. Will ride, but no fun and will break and give you headaches soon.

700-1000: Decent bikes, but you have to make some compromises. Fun can be had, will not randomly break because of bad quality components.

1000-1400: Good stuff, not extravagant. Won't have to compromise on much, you can be satisfied with this forever unless you want to be competitive, and even then it'll do fine.

1500-2500: "Premium", lighter weight, carbon stuff, really nice.

2500-4000: Same, but you can have cool carbon aero frames and stuff and lighter components.

5000+: Pro bike worthy.

Agreed, the prices are crazy.

Quick comparison: Peloton bike EUR 2145 + EUR 39/month - gets you courses and indoor riding

or: Canyon Endurace AL Disc 6.0 as an example of a very solid entry level road bike - EUR 1299

Kickr Core direct drive turbo trainer (good turbo trainer, there are cheaper ones if you go without direct drive) - EUR 799

Combined EUR 2098 + EUR 15/month for a Zwift membership or something comparable. Gets you excellent indoor training AND now you have a bike you can use when the weather gets better! Spend the rest of the up front money on a big fan for indoor training or clothing for outdoor riding.

Huh, never would have guessed, I suppose sarcasm really doesn't translate well in text form. There are just too many actual crazy viewpoints around to be sure which ones are actually just satirical/sarcastic.

> Either fix everything at once, or don't. There's zero point in making small incremental changes that do not benefit everyone

Have you ever had any look at how laws actually get passed in the US and pretty much any country with some sort of democratically legitimized government?

Your demand in any of these systems would simply lead to no laws getting passed at all, most of the time, total legislative gridlock. Legislature is an incremental process by nature, and especially so in systems of government where the interests of more than one side are represented, so compromises have to be made at every step of the way.

I mean, I've run into situations where GATs would have been a good solution before and had to find a clumsier workaround using boxing or other solutions until now.

So I don't really know what to say to your initial question, except "this feature is useful", and that the question (and especially your answer to it) may be a bit overly reductionist.