3 ms·

Searching a car and catching a criminal always makes them look better than just searching a car. [1]And I’m not sure how your point, if you have one beyond maki

by SilasX 4y ago

Searching a car and catching a criminal always makes them look better than just searching a car. [1]And I’m not sure how your point, if you have one beyond making yourself look smart, relates to the broader issue of whether shotspotter was the only evidence, which was the focus of that comment. And if you’re economizing on time, I can assure that a better use of it would be to answer the challenge you kept dodging (or “misinterpreting” as a opportunity to show off irrelevant knowledge): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259971 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259971 At this point I’m just going to assume you have no idea if 7% is a good threshold or not, but still see so problem with shouting it because it sounds good. [1] In case you forgot, the only reason you were outraged was because the search did catch a criminal that it shouldn’t have. So obviously someone cares about catching a criminal!

shadowgovt 4y ago
Sorry, I'm not sure where you're picking up "outrage" from my comment. You were asserting "It would be really expensive and low-yield to pull over everyone in the vicinity of a gunshot" and I was asking 'for whom?' I don't see how incentives are aligned for that to be expensive at all for the person doing the pulling over, and I tend to evaluate people's behavior on the assumption that, all other things being equal, they'll do what they're most incentivized to in a given situation most of the time. It's expensive for the community, to be sure, but the cop's not incentivized immediately to care about that.
- SilasX 4y ago
  >Sorry, I'm not sure where you're picking up "outrage" from my comment. It wasn't in that comment, it was in the premise of all your previous posts that it is outrag^W^W^W^W^W suboptimal for someone to be pulled over and eventually arrested for DUI when the original instigating cause was a false positive for gunfire. IOW, the entire reason you're talking about this case, is because they did not pull over everyone in the vicinity but prioritized those that were more likely to be committing crime, based on other signals. That's how we got to this case to begin with! And yet, I'm having to remind you that you're arguing with yourself. Do you consider it too much to ask that you remember the context of what you're talking about? And for others not have to remind you? Also, thanks for the confirmation that you don't have a substantive answer to the substantive question, "what probability threshold is appropriate for police to enter in preparation for an active shooter" -- I had always assumed your comment was bad-faith to begin with. Especially when you deny that comments such as these are expressing something similar to outrage: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259925

by SilasX 4y ago

shadowgovt 4y ago

Sorry, I'm not sure where you're picking up "outrage" from my comment. You were asserting "It would be really expensive and low-yield to pull over everyone in the vicinity of a gunshot" and I was asking 'for whom?' I don't see how incentives are aligned for that to be expensive at all for the person doing the pulling over, and I tend to evaluate people's behavior on the assumption that, all other things being equal, they'll do what they're most incentivized to in a given situation most of the time. It's expensive for the community, to be sure, but the cop's not incentivized immediately to care about that.

SilasX 4y ago
>Sorry, I'm not sure where you're picking up "outrage" from my comment. It wasn't in that comment, it was in the premise of all your previous posts that it is outrag^W^W^W^W^W suboptimal for someone to be pulled over and eventually arrested for DUI when the original instigating cause was a false positive for gunfire. IOW, the entire reason you're talking about this case, is because they did not pull over everyone in the vicinity but prioritized those that were more likely to be committing crime, based on other signals. That's how we got to this case to begin with! And yet, I'm having to remind you that you're arguing with yourself. Do you consider it too much to ask that you remember the context of what you're talking about? And for others not have to remind you? Also, thanks for the confirmation that you don't have a substantive answer to the substantive question, "what probability threshold is appropriate for police to enter in preparation for an active shooter" -- I had always assumed your comment was bad-faith to begin with. Especially when you deny that comments such as these are expressing something similar to outrage: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32259925