6 ms·

It wasn't suggested, it was explicitly stated in the meetings and in the proposed authorized use language, both of which you will conveniently find quoted in th

It wasn't suggested, it was explicitly stated in the meetings and in the proposed authorized use language, both of which you will conveniently find quoted in the article.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
No? I'm seeing at most: ' Lt. Joseph Turner' 'urged the commission to allow such a killer robot in case of “exigencies.”' He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views. The official spokesperson appears to be: 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz, who represented the department in discussions over the authorized robot use policy' His claim that “Yes, we are looking into that and doing more research at this time.” is even farther. There's also: 'According to Daza-Quiroz, the department is still looking toward the future. “We will not be arming robots with lethal rounds anytime soon, and if, and when that time comes each event will be assessed prior to such deployment,” he said.' Even the closest of his claims: 'When asked if there were other situations beyond a Dallas-style sniper in which police might wish to kill with a robot, Daza-Quiroz added: “Absolutely there are many more scenarios.”' Seems like expressing the fact that there imaginable scenarios where such a system is desirable. Not that the Oakland PD wants to do so.
- samfbiddle 4y ago
  I encourage you to look up the word "exigency"
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    > He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views. The article itself claims that someone else, a 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz' is the official spokesperson. Since you apparently are the author, this attempted deflection seems not credible at all.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > I encourage you to look up the word "exigency" In your haste to snark, you missed the parent's point, which was that the officer doesn't speak on behalf of the department contra the claim.
    - tanseydavid 4y ago
      There's no snark in that comment. It is proper and appropriate.
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        Michael's use was congruent with exigency's meaning--there was no reason for samfbiddle to suggest Michael didn't understand the word, particularly while ignoring Michael's actual point (that Officer Turner wasn't the department's spokesperson). samfbiddle's comment was neither proper nor appropriate. Note also that samfbiddle similarly accused another commenter upthread of not reading his article (without evidence) despite that the commenter's criticism was congruent with a reading of the article (i.e., there was no reason for samfbiddle to assume that the critic hadn't read his article, and anyway voicing as much violates the site guidelines).
        justin66 4y ago
        This is an old, well established pattern, but it is embarrassing that this kind of irrelevant idiocy is so often destined to greet authors and subject matter experts when they visit a message board discussing their work.
        throwaway894345 4y ago
        > This is an old, well established pattern, but it is embarrassing that this kind of irrelevant idiocy is so often destined to greet authors and subject matter experts when they visit a message board discussing their work. Yes, this sort of bikeshedding is the cost of clickbait titles--seems like this could all go away if authors/editors stopped using clickbait titles; not sure why we should sneer at the community for highlighting the misleading headline. Moreover, such sneering violates the site guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. (emphasis mine)

It wasn't suggested, it was explicitly stated in the meetings and in the proposed authorized use language, both of which you will conveniently find quoted in the article.

MichaelZuo 4y ago

No? I'm seeing at most: ' Lt. Joseph Turner' 'urged the commission to allow such a killer robot in case of “exigencies.”' He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views. The official spokesperson appears to be: 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz, who represented the department in discussions over the authorized robot use policy' His claim that “Yes, we are looking into that and doing more research at this time.” is even farther. There's also: 'According to Daza-Quiroz, the department is still looking toward the future. “We will not be arming robots with lethal rounds anytime soon, and if, and when that time comes each event will be assessed prior to such deployment,” he said.' Even the closest of his claims: 'When asked if there were other situations beyond a Dallas-style sniper in which police might wish to kill with a robot, Daza-Quiroz added: “Absolutely there are many more scenarios.”' Seems like expressing the fact that there imaginable scenarios where such a system is desirable. Not that the Oakland PD wants to do so.

samfbiddle 4y ago
I encourage you to look up the word "exigency"
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  > He does not appear to speak on behalf of the Oakland PD but on behalf of his own private views. The article itself claims that someone else, a 'Lt. Omar Daza-Quiroz' is the official spokesperson. Since you apparently are the author, this attempted deflection seems not credible at all.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > I encourage you to look up the word "exigency" In your haste to snark, you missed the parent's point, which was that the officer doesn't speak on behalf of the department contra the claim.
  - tanseydavid 4y ago
    There's no snark in that comment. It is proper and appropriate.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      Michael's use was congruent with exigency's meaning--there was no reason for samfbiddle to suggest Michael didn't understand the word, particularly while ignoring Michael's actual point (that Officer Turner wasn't the department's spokesperson). samfbiddle's comment was neither proper nor appropriate. Note also that samfbiddle similarly accused another commenter upthread of not reading his article (without evidence) despite that the commenter's criticism was congruent with a reading of the article (i.e., there was no reason for samfbiddle to assume that the critic hadn't read his article, and anyway voicing as much violates the site guidelines).
      - justin66 4y ago
        This is an old, well established pattern, but it is embarrassing that this kind of irrelevant idiocy is so often destined to greet authors and subject matter experts when they visit a message board discussing their work.
        throwaway894345 4y ago
        > This is an old, well established pattern, but it is embarrassing that this kind of irrelevant idiocy is so often destined to greet authors and subject matter experts when they visit a message board discussing their work. Yes, this sort of bikeshedding is the cost of clickbait titles--seems like this could all go away if authors/editors stopped using clickbait titles; not sure why we should sneer at the community for highlighting the misleading headline. Moreover, such sneering violates the site guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. (emphasis mine)