I kind of hate the dogma that Trump supporters are stupid. I really don't think they are. But I do think they have a very limited range of knowledge and experience.
One of the things we noticed when we lived in the US (2 decades ago) was that a huge number of Americans live in relatively small social communities. They get little or no contact with people outside their social circle at all. So if that social group has a meme that, for example, all crime is committed by immigrants then that gets reinforced over and over again.
It's confirmation bias ramped up to the max. They have an idea and never meet anyone who challenges that idea. Even worse than that they get exposed to outright falsehoods so often that the lies feel like truth to them.
And so when Trump comes along and repeats all those same lies it's obvious that they'll support him.
I don't think it's about hate as such, but rather a distrust of those outside their communities, which is a fairly normal human reaction.
Trump recognized the power of those groups with such strong confirmation bias and played to them. A lot of people were really surprised by just how many people have those biases but anyone who's spent time in those small communities will recognize them. Add them up and they become a really large scary voting block.
We need daily rail services between Hamilton and Auckland Central but our two do-nothing local Nat MPs have steadfastly opposed any talk of it.
Seriously? That’s daft. A more functional rail service to and from Auckland could only be good, surely?
I wonder whether the problem is that if you allow a passenger rail service from Hamilton to Auckland, with a stop in Huntly, then folks will use it ... A LOT.
That will create pressure to improve the service - make it faster, smoother, better carriages etc. And I'm not sure the actual rail infrastructure can be improved substantially without a complete overhaul which would be a huge investment in the future.
A really really good investment but as we know this government is does not care about the future beyond the next election.
No worries Moz. I do realise you can't do 38 km in an hour without going over 38 kph.
But I never said you'd be able to do it in an hour just that you'd be faster - unless you have a flat route with no low speed sections.
Balanced against that is the extra weight of the bike which will lower your top speed. Either way if you need to do it in an hour you are gonna be sweaty.
If I was going to spend more money I’d want something that goes faster instead.
Yes you don't get a faster top speed but you should still get there a lot faster because all the parts of your trip where your speed drops below say 20 kph you can use the assist to raise it closer to 30 kph. By using the assist to increase the low speed portions of your trip you should get a much better average speed.
Unless you have a flat commute.
And as a second question how reliable and robust are the e-bikes?
Part of the joy of a bike is it's so simple* that there just isn't that much that goes wrong - add the electric assist and that simplicity starts to decline.
*simple in the sense that most of the engineering is so well established and refined now that it feels simple
One of the advantages of a bike is that you can do most of the service and repairs yourself.
So one question I have is how much does the added complexity of the e-bike affect the basic repairs/servicing?
Bart, it’s highly debatable whether jailing people sends an effective deterrent message.
I agree. My point was he probably needs psychiatric care (if necessary enforced).
This is less about criminality than identifying someone who is behaving in a way that suggests his future actions could be even worse and treating that behaviour now.
And yes all the studies show punishments do not reduce criminality. The probability of being caught reduces criminality.
because it would have been materially less horrible if he’d hit a male police officer
No it would have been just as horrible. But as a measure of how distanced this boy is from social norms then assaulting a woman is less normal than assaulting a man (and I agree that shouldn't be the case). Neither should be acceptable and both are equally horrible. But the point is this boy is comfortable stepping way out side the normally acceptable behaviour.
While I agree that locking him up may not rehabilitate him I also think there are pretty strong warning signals here that indicate this boy needs significant mental health assistance. Not just an alcohol treatment program.
We do try to keep first-time 18 year-old defendants out of prison where possible.
Which I agree with entirely. The question I have is do the severity if the injuries and the inferred violence of the assault play any part in the sentencing.
Two things really concern me about this boy, first is he kept on hitting after the woman went down at that point the only intent is to cause real harm. To me that suggests psychological problems. The second is that the attack was on a woman, so not a test of strength between immature male animals but something much more horrible.