An initial investigation revealed that the truck and the bicycle were traveling in the same direction on Mount Auburn Street and the truck was turning onto DeWolf Street at the time of the crash.
And from the posted article:
On Friday, Nguyen and the truck driver were both traveling in the same direction along Hampshire Street when the driver made a right turn onto Portland Street, striking Nguyen at the intersection, according to the Middlesex district attorney’s office.
Yes bike lanes, ideally separated so nobody can park on them. I wish police would ticket for turning without signaling. Dream works is transit designed around bikes and trains; adding bike areas to a car centered design will always produce hazards.
I'd rather government subsidized over corporate owned. While both aren't ideal, corporate owned will never act in the best interest of the people,.only the shareholders. Government isn't great but at least there is some semblance of accountability with elections
good. It's not hard to use a reusable. Mine is indestructible, holds all I need, and I can tuck some reusable veggie bags in there and still stuff it in a pocket before i head in.
I need someone to force me to use them, because I always forget. Hopefully if the only option is to buy reusable ones each time, I will eventually remember.
You have to put it somewhere where it will interrupt your normal thought patterns when you go shopping. It will take some time before you begin to remember but eventually it will become part of your thought pattern... ["Wallet, keys, phone, bag..."]
That's pretty much how it goes. For the first few months you find yourself in line without a bag, so you pay an extra couple bucks. Now I've got enough reusable bags in my car it's not a big deal anymore
I mean, if not enrolling is a form of protest, this makes sense.
Really though, they probably have record high profits, the president of the school is getting a big payout, and still, something about headwinds and coming out more focused on the other side, etc etc.
I think this is a little doom and gloom for what is a very well intentioned project with an independent oversight board. Is the theory here that a paper receiving this funding would hesitate to expose corruption or be critical of local projects? To be honest, it's just not enough money. $100,000 a year being split among several local news orgs is a nice donation that pays part of someone's salary.
I wonder if corporate funding is the only way to get professional news or not.
That's definitely not what the author is implying. Direct corporate funding has all the same potential problems but with less oversight, more money, and with way more things to hide.
Thank you, I felt the premise of the article was too black and white. I think independent journalism is critical to a functioning society as is government. Therefore, government needs to encourage independent journalism somehow. It's easy to find examples of state sponsored media that is obviously propaganda, but there has to be an middle ground. If public funded journalism was the ideal balancer, for example, maybe government could have a system of helping news outlets setup public funding infrastructure? I just hate the idea of saying "government bad".
From where I stand, the major problem with the far right is that they're constantly being handled with kid gloves.
This was just bigotry and hatred on display and it escalates to this point because no one is ever putting a firm stop to it.
I don't think it's sufficient to allow someone who is willing to let children die in order to satiate their bigotry and hatred of queer people get off with some cleaning trash off the side of the road.
This very easily could have been manslaughter.
Honestly, 30 days is too low from where I'm standing.
While incarcerated, I'm fine with regular therapy and anything else to improve her as a person, but she shouldn't be walking free in 30 days. She may not call any more bomb threats, but she's hardly done making life hell for minorities.
Yeah, I agree more than 30 days to repay society is needed. Plus therapy is a great idea to try to prevent her from causing this kind of harm in the future.
I don’t think confinement itself will heal what she’s done nor get her on a better track in life.
It will prevent her from actively harming the rest of society. I'm fine with prison reform and I'm generally about restorative justice, let's make the best of a bad situation.
But she demonstrated a callous disregard for the health, safety, and lives of children. I do not trust her to be a part of polite society at this time.
Yeah, I’m all for protecting society by restricting her movement. If that’s being called “punishment” then I’m just disagreeing with the term being used. The point of the restriction shouldn’t be to cause her harm.
Ah, then there were agree. I'm never okay with justice that's looking for its pound of flesh.
There can and should be consequences for breaking the social contract, but only to make the best of a bad situation, not to arbitrarily worsen the situation of another.
Can we talk about RCV just one fucking time without someone mentioning “it has a ton of problems”, as if that makes it worse than FPTP? Because I honestly struggle to think of a single thing FPTP is better at than RCV.
Don’t let perfection be the enemy of good (or more accurately, meaningful incremental improvement).
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it's worse than Plurality, as it's not. But if we're going to change voting systems then it's only ever going to happen once. If we fuck it up it ain't happening again, and we've already fucked up IRV/RCV in several locales in the US. We need to switch to something that has almost 0 problems, like 3-2-1 or STAR voting. You're going to have to explain it to the populace anyway. Better to get something that's almost perfect rather than something that people will hate because it's change and because it spoils elections. See this article on how IRV does that. https://electionscience.org/library/irv-degrades-to-plurality/
Notably, that Center for Election Science is the one that has shown that 3-2-1 or STAR are technically the best, but they actually advocate for Approval Voting, rather than those two. https://electionscience.org/approval-voting-faqs/
I think what is hard to explain is how you determine who wins. Most people understand that in "old school" voting the one with the most votes wins. With ranked choice, how does it handle multiple people with very different rankings. Its easy to say "the one that most people preferred" or "instant runoff" but explaining how that is calculated is not easy. I am very much for ranked choice, and I was devastated when it lost the vote, but it's biggest hurdle is comprehension, and that is something for FUD'lers to prey on.
While the concept of ranking choices is straightforward, the confusion and complexity often lies in understanding the counting process and how votes are redistributed in multiple rounds.
Inb4 someone gaslights me about the traffic that I sit in every single day because the mayor decided to close down 2/3 of all lanes because some policy “wonk” decided that it’s better to punish people rather than do something to address the traffic problem.
Inb4 someone pipes in with, “well actually, statistics say that there’s less traffic than there was before, sweaty.”
Boston, MA
Hot