smsm42

28 ms·

481.
by smsm42 2y ago
> this example of wanton and indiscriminate police brutality was the police response to protests against wanton and indiscriminate police brutality. Actually probably not. Judging from them holding their hands up, their protest are proba
482.
by smsm42 2y ago
There's no point in splitting hairs, I'm not talking about somebody walking on the red light or spitting on the pavement once during the protest. We witnessed plenty "mostly peaceful" protests that resulted in billions o
483.
by smsm42 2y ago
Can somebody convince Musk to start making planes now? Flying on Boeings is kinda getting scary now, and Airbus standing alone is not healthy.
484.
by smsm42 2y ago
Why is it strange? I do not see why there would be an expectation that details of company's investor relationships would be known to people that have nothing to do with company's business. "Pretty interesting" doesn&#x27
485.
by smsm42 2y ago
> That would mean the government can outlaw protests by simply committing a single act of violence during one (or falsely claiming there was violence), declaring it a riot, and calling all the protestors, rioters. Obviously illegal. That
486.
by smsm42 2y ago
Riot is not "peaceful display of dissent", despite the efforts of the "mostly peaceful" press to muddle the waters. There's a peaceful protest and there's a violent riot, and they are very different, by the pr
487.
by smsm42 2y ago
Riots definitely aren't "expression of speech", that's nonsense.
488.
by smsm42 2y ago
If it's outside democratic bounds, what is being preserved is not a democracy anymore. Why preserve it then? So it serves autocrats better? "We must become fascists so other fascists don't take over" is not a very convin
489.
by smsm42 2y ago
That is an excellent illustration to Goodhart's law. We're going to have this avesome status page, but since if we update it the clients would notice the system is down, we're going to put a lot of barriers to putting the act
490.
by smsm42 2y ago
They don't have physical barriers on the door? Or they intend to break it if you don't answer?
491.
by smsm42 2y ago
You don't need anything special - most of them can be easily disassembled, with most components fitting a purse, not even suitcase. The barrel probably would be the biggest one - it has to be 16 inches long AFAIK or the law is going to
492.
by smsm42 2y ago
A rifle can be disassembled in relatively small components, and re-assembled in minutes. You'd have to do a pretty invasive and thorough search to detect it - and still, the criminal could just keep it in their car, which is not checke
493.
by smsm42 2y ago
Likely, if there were another terrorist (which is not very likely, they usually don't repeat the same thing over and over) the housekeeping would report something weird, and then somebody would file it somewhere, and would sit on it fo
494.
by smsm42 2y ago
So why would anybody use patreon as app at all? Normal website still works, doesn't it?
495.
by smsm42 2y ago
Some are, sure. And if you prefer Ali because it's cheaper, sure, why not. But if you plan to make a grand stance about how you're making a moral choice against Amazon, Ali, owned by the CCP member, does not exactly fit the mold o
496.
by smsm42 2y ago
If they have to reach for idpol at the start to make their case, my immediate suspicion is the case is not that strong.
497.
by smsm42 2y ago
> You can file a Motion to Dismiss before discovery, but the bar is fairly high on those, and they're rarely granted I don't think this is true. Cases - especially frivolous ones - are dismissed all the time, and usually on Mot
498.
by smsm42 2y ago
Makes sense. We despise Amazon for their abusing people, so instead we choose to buy from... The Chinese Communist Party!
499.
by smsm42 2y ago
> they are horrendously incompetent. US government being horrendously incompetent is like the least surprising revelation this case could make. I mean we just witnessed the head of the service which was created to protect the President f
500.
by smsm42 2y ago
Well, it should. Of course, the existing twitter "outrage first, thinking never" culture doesn't really allow for that, but there's a better way.
501.
by smsm42 2y ago
> Such a conflict of interest doesn't represent a crime I have no idea. US Criminal code is literally thousands of pages long, and I have no idea whether any of the specifics of what Nelson did fits any of those pages. What I do kno
502.
by smsm42 2y ago
All praise to the wife fighting for her husband, but it doesn't exactly make her claims more trustworthy, rather the contrary, it makes one wonder what other claims there we must consider to be "sarcastic" or performative exa
503.
by smsm42 2y ago
Hard to understand the details from that description, but it certainly looks like Carl Nelson (the husband) took money ("referral fees"?) from RE developers who were doing business with Amazon, while also being employed by Amazon.
504.
by smsm42 2y ago
Note though the reduction didn't come from anything getting in fact more efficient, but from "two companies donated materials and installation" - probably to quell the bad press. And it looks like $1.7m is still going to get
505.
by smsm42 2y ago
Nepotism is as much "hire people for who they are" as DEI is. It's just that nepotism is ages old and DEI is a relatively recent fad.
506.
by smsm42 2y ago
No it does not literally say that. It would if the crime were be allocated by a random uniform lottery to every person living in the city. That's not how the crime works.
507.
by smsm42 2y ago
> was that people on that street were now 50% less-likely to be killed in a shooting. If shootings were randomly distributed by a mechanical process with uniform distribution among everybody who has the address registered on this street,
508.
by smsm42 2y ago
Which small cities, in your opinion, are more dangerous than, say, Albuquerque? How many chances, say, a high-tech professional has to regularly find oneself in such a city because his company offices are located there and they have no choi
509.
by smsm42 2y ago
Crime is not random lottery. It is concentrated and specific to certain places and circumstances. Thus, pretending that it is a stochastic process that is well characterized by per capita number over the whole city, and that if more people
510.
by smsm42 2y ago
The correct claim is not that per capita does not matter but that it alone does not provide you with adequate picture. Imagine a street where 100 people live, and there's a shoot-out there every day. Now imagine a mayor made an order,

More ›