4 ms·
This comment would be a lot better if it dropped the antagonism. They were just asking questions – questions I agreed with, for what it's worth. They didn't qu
by sillysaurusx 5y ago
This comment would be a lot better if it dropped the antagonism. They were just asking questions – questions I agreed with, for what it's worth.
They didn't quote from the article.
- masklinn 5y ago> They were just asking questions Yes they were JAQing off. > questions I agreed with, for what it's worth. You agreed with the question “what is the difference between 80% and 97%”?
- parineum 5y agoNot op but I had that question. In my case the actual question is what is an accurate reading?
- ashtonkem 5y agoThe good faith question isn’t “what’s the difference between 80% and 97%?” That’s a pointless question at best, a rhetorical trick excuse police and prosecutorial misconduct at worst. A better question would be along the lines of “how accurate would shot spotter have to be to justify both its use by police and courts, and the cost imposed on cities for its use?” Also “how much do we trust shotspotter’s assertion of their own accuracy?” is a good follow up too.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]