sorry being very late to reply, been busy with life and flu. well, non objectively speaking, i dislike cars, so i am happy, less parking more housing, but from a existing car owners pov, it is bad (as other comments say). i think we should leave it as is for now. majority of fedi folks also dislike cars so they upvoted

I do not know why there were downvotes. seems to be a fine article. also good for the city, they actually had reduction in crime.

one of my guesses would be that platinum catalysis is expensive as usual, but recovery of the catalyst from living being would be much worse than equivalent lab seetup, so the cost would not justify.

thanks for making this post.

it can be personal news, but not something too personal. for example, you got a pet - you are happy - you feel like posting here - but we barely know you - we still upvote because we find you happy - but this news barely affects anyone. if it effects more than 1 tiny (4-5 people) group, that works. for example, a minority group got better rights in so and so region. be it very small, it is not really that personal, and we get happy.

it is uplifting in the sense that it is changing for better. It this does not feel uplifting with this wording though. It is “brutally” honest. I am iffy on removing this one

I do not know how to respond to that.

or maybe i do not listen to stuff in that language, or live in regions where they are famous

I do not know who they are either.

pardon me, but why is this a uplifting news? i vaguely know about zohran, so i guess part of reason is that you are hopeful in him, but this is not really a news, or particularly uplifting (i am guessing the person is happier making stuff), but that is in a media kind of sense. I am not deleting this post, maybe there is stuff i do not know, but prima facie, this is not.

I do get your perspective, but one of the things that we (as the community) decided was that if something bad happening to bad folks will not be considered uplifting. There were many posts about a month ago, of similar nature to this, and then someone from community just made a rant post, to which we opened voting for. And since then, we have “discouraged” such posts.

Mods?

still unsure on this one. it borders on schadenfreude, but for this one, the actions are being taken in a legal way, which is better.

it is not a very uplifting news. I would leave the vote to general public before taking any action though.

I was partially sceptic, but the idea does seem nice, and he was fairly honest. Lets hope he can reach a million views.

Is low value a better wording?

why is the last paragraph weird? I genuinely want to know. This rule is mostly to keep in theory. For example, somebody posts some place is very happy, but it is a fake news (for example, they recently got some tragedy) and the person was either trolling, then we should have some rule to delete this news. And most of the time, mods do not flag this, but the people commenting do. Similar is for low effort (read ai generated bullshit).

they can be posted. as i said - everything is politics, and we can not ban politics. for more details (there were similar queries before) please read other comments. (or just search politics)

that is why i left it. i hope spirit of law is clear enough

rule was enacted after this was published and i said i am not going to enact retroactively. i am from the side not wanting these posts, but maybe not as strongly worded

well this depends on definition of party. if my group wants to ban cars in certain regions of city, and we somehow win, then this was some party winning. I am still not sure what is the best wording for this.