sean_anandale

5 ms·

1.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
Not everyone exhibits basic competency and planning ability, but that doesn't magically make other people responsible for setting up surrogates for them.
2.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
Are you kidding? Twitter, for example, made ~400 million dollars last year selling data. Several federal agencies have firehose access via contractors. Any of those companies would love the contract to correlate the information provided
3.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
Now do "white couple", or "american inventors".
4.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
Jeff Bezos' blog is hardly neutral and it does not appear they did the original research, but regardless, thanks for laundering the analysis through legacy media.
5.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
Relatedly, 1/4 of Democratic candidates this cycle are affiliates of the national security state. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/07/dems-m07.html
6.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
Fortunately, it's taken care of for them. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/29/obamaphone-...
7.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
"<1K in savings" often applies to people with substantial and ongoing access to funds explicitly supporting what would otherwise be out of pocket expenses, like rent, food for one's children, utilities, cell phone service,
8.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
Contradiction by mere statement. Explain why you would want to at a minimum intentionally create ambiguity as to whether one is a police officer, one's name, and what organization one works for - keeping them a "secret", if
9.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
This is what happens when you have "plainclothes detectives", aka secret police.
10.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
So in sum: "analyzing data from Broward County, we find that optimizing for public safety yields stark racial disparities; conversely, satisfying past fairness definitions means releasing more high-risk defendants, adversely affecting
11.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
You might have noticed if you observe them that nobody is in command of a group of cops. The notion of an officer in charge who is responsible for the actions of his subordinates is completely contrary to the attitudes of US police.
12.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
That is bullshit. The police do not have a "job duty" of killing someone. They are entitled to employ lethal force in self defense when their lives are in danger, which is exactly the same legal standard as for civilians.
13.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
"Juries are told not to focus on the shooting, but to think if the officer believed his life was in danger" The way that plays out in practice is, "that's my secret. I always think I'm in danger."
14.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
That's not true. Guns are expensive. By far most of the guns are owned by people for whom they are a relatively expensive hobby, and the more guns you own the less likely you are to commit a crime. Note that concealed weapons licens
15.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
Compare & contrast to "fellow white people".
16.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
That is insane. Traders make money during periods of high volatility and volume. Defined circuit breakers can be planned for, but unpredictable "lol unavailable gtfo" is unacceptable for serious usage.
17.
by sean_anandale 9y ago
Declining to allow trades during high volatility times is definitionally market manipulation - you're capping the volatility of the market, unpredictably. Volatility is traditionally where many styles of traders actually make money.