497
Cleveland Voted to Kill Its Flock Camera Network. They Have REMAINED ON, With Police Still Using Them
(www.gadgetreview.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2026
497 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
85998 readers
4040 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There was a hypothesis proposed a number of years ago that a mono-polar world is inherently unstable. A second great power keeps the other "honest" to a degree and limits the scope of corruption. It doesn't stop it entirely mind you, but it has to at least maintain the appearance of integrity or expose its vulnerability. Any world where only one great power exists, must eventually collapse under the weight of internal corruption.
Looks like the hypothesis had some merit.
I don't much like hypotheses that require certain size groups of people.
But I guess that's just the instability of the dictator applied to the entire world.
If you crack open a history book you'll find that a multi-polar world has a lot more war. Napoleonic wars, World Wars, etc. Even in the Cold War when nuclear weapons made it too insane for super powers to fight each other directly, they found ways to have massive proxy wars, like the Korean War and Vietnam War. These wars left over a million people dead each. Then there were all of the various civil wars that the superpowers were involved like the Angolan civil war, that one was about a half million people dead. These conflicts were happening all over the world.
People today shit themselves over Gaza, but that's less than a tenth of casualties compared to the wars that happened in the Cold War and less than 0.2% of WW2. Would you consider wars happening in multiple parts of the world with 10 to 500 times the casualties we've seen in Gaza to be a "stable world"?
The Spanish flu killed more people than all the human wars in the last thousand years. How many genocides still occured under "Pax Americana." Taking the whole world into account, 90% of humanity would be under just as much threat of violence if the US vanished tomorrow. There hasn't been an era of broad peace among most of the globe in 6000 years. You act like it's been sunshine and roses under the monopolar system. Ask the people of Libya, Syria, and Iraq how they feel about that? Ask the Cubans, and the Guatemalans and the Haitians if they feel protected.
You are equating the genocide of Palestinians, something that has been going on for decades, to proxy wars between super powers.
The Concert of Europe kept the continent relatively peaceful for a century, mainly by ensuring that one nation didn't become another Napoleonic France.
Post World War II was also relatively peaceful compared to the interwar years, mainly because of the two interventionist powers trying to compete with each other. There was a lot of genocide after World War I.
So if it's only millions of non-white people dying that means the world is "stable"?
I use stable as a relative term, but it isn't like the number of non-white people dying goes down during periods of instability.