Zuckerberg-Backed Data Trove Exposes the Injustices of Criminal Justice
wired.com
wired.com
Basically, it can look like spending on something has gone way up even if in reality it has gone down.
Doing the conversion is an elementary school thing. And not even that: just type "1000 dollars in 1947" to Google, and you'll get a number of links that do the conversion.
Sometimes it's the deceptive conversions that are a problem, so keeping in nominal sums helps with data integrity.
Firstly, they don't clearly explain that the figures aren't inflation-adjusted. You have to surmise that. And we're talking about line graphs. I think you are seriously overestimating the number of people who will think to do the conversion and follow through, rather than just looking at the general direction of the chart and a few figures.
I am not sure what you mean when you say that "sometimes deceptive conversions are the problem," but in my view there isn't much reason to produce a line graph for something like average salary over time or average social spending over time as a line graph without inflation-adjusted figures unless you either are ignorant of the issues with such data or intend to mislead people (and indeed such graphs are quite misleading since the numbers go up but not apace with inflation). I can't see much legitimate interest in such a graph.
I mean conversions where the index for conversion is chosen deceptively. The general inflation index is almost always at least tolerable, but occasionally the conversions use some other price index that produces more dramatic and politically desired results.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13286085
Punishment is always counter-productive to correct the behavior of people who are "drowning": addicts, members of the under-class, children who've yet to fully mature (brain is still developing until 25 years), etc.
Careful, "developing" is very much a weasel word in these contexts. Brains are "developing" until death. That's very much their purpose: to change as a function of input.
Also, "punishment" is a bit of a weasel word in this context. It's quite clear that some form of punishment is instrumental in the proper development of the brain, especially with regards to social norm. This holds even with people in the depths of despair.
The issue is about whether we're actually punishing in a constructive way, and whether we're simultaneously extending a helping hand.
In case I wasn't clear: I think any sensible policy has to include punitive measures, along with adequate support.
Like the OP who claims that all punishment is problematic?
>how is this anything other than empty?
As you so astutely observed, I have nothing of substance to add to that part of the discussion.
Where I do have something of substance to add is with respect to an oft-repeated factual error about brain development, and a broader misconception about the problems involved in punitive measurements.
For someone worried about pedantry, you sure seem to be splitting hairs.
What sort of punitive measure is appropriate to use on someone whose doctor turned her into an alcoholic? What sort of punitive measures are appropriate for use on depressed people?
"Sensible policy" would acknowledge that prison usually makes people's actual behavioral problems worse.
Indeed.
Prison is not the only form of punishment, and indeed it is not the most effective (in a large, if not overwhelming, majority of cases).
I think if you stopped and caught your breath, you'd realize we're mostly in agreement.
just sitting here thinking about him, im kinda torn. my first thought is that he is too young, and has too narrow a breadth of experience. it will be interesting to see how macron fares in france, maybe useful as a point of comparison. zuckerberg is utterly uncharismatic, which i think is a plus- it helps refocus things on issues and ideas and not personality. he is also competent, and not a criminal, or criminally intentioned as far as i can tell. i havent paid very close attention to him though, does it seem like he gives alot of thought to morality and justice? and, of course, it also seems very dangerous to give someone the presidency who controls so much of the media.
i will say that the prospect of having a president with an intimate understanding of software dev would be great for modernizing lots of the agencies, which would really help i think.
what do you guys think? i hadn't really thought about it too hard till now, but its obviously going to happen, so better to opine before the spin machines get going.
edit: the replies here are totally kneejerk and thoughtless. it reminds me of how people seem react to anything new. i dont really give a shit about the guy but given that its a real possibility, its worth talking about, unless you think our current political state is good and we dont need to do anything.
He can push any agenda he wants and have it delivered in just the right way to get the public to agree. You want a dude with that power to also be given executive control of the country?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-attempts-to-block-of...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/10/eric-trump-nepoti...
If so, I can see why you wouldn't want him as president.
I think Zuckerburg probably has a lot more decency than Trump. Even so, I'm not worried about Zuckerburg as a political candidate, it'll take him succeeding at it for me to believe it is possible.
Zuckerburg is not really that well known and as you say, not very charismatic.
I certainly agree that dark horse candidates can come out of nowhere, I just don't think that Zuckerburg is one of them.
also, its occasionally a valuable reference when talking politics, for instance: comey was fired and lots of people tried to say this was normal and expected, but there was a market that had being fbi director on 6/30 at 95%. pretty much throws cold water on that theory. not that it was anything other than an obvious deflection to begin with, but still kind of interesting.
i encourage you to follow the political futures markets, its a worthwhile endeavor. predictit.com is the standard now that intrade died. my apologies if you are actually speaking from some greater experience though.
What is it you think I'm doing?
I didn't really think Trump would get the R nomination, that's true. I don't see how that informs the comparison to Zuckerburg.
I also wonder why you think that a President understanding software would be especially important in reforming an agency; the actual day to day of implementing reform via software seems pretty delegable.
a president understanding software would make things like the botched heathcare.gov rollout less likely, and would help set the agenda for which things to work on. it also means that when you delegate, you are better able to decide who to delegate to. there are so many shitty contracting companies that you wouldn't know to avoid unless you understood the industry i think.
Of course, he was reviled for doing so.
No, not from what I can see.
I don't think we should be giving people credit for PR "philanthropy".
One of the many funding organizations happens to be funded by Mark Zuckerberg which makes for interest catching headlines but they're certainly not alone in funding the project.
https://www.measuresforjustice.org/about/overview/
>Bach’s work has attracted the attention of the tech industry’s increasingly activist leadership. Earlier this year, Google.org awarded Measures for Justice a $1.5 million grant. Today, Mark Zuckerberg’s Chan Zuckerberg Initiative announced it is giving $6.5 million to the non-profit to help it expand into California.
(Each of us are vast, and contain multitudes. We do not need to be self-consistent.)
You are such a poser mom.
My belief is a strong "no" to both of those questions. (I don't even think that I understand my own motivations very well, and am much more hesitant to ascribe behavior to what 'motivates' other people.)
When something happens, you look for the causes and motivations. If you just focus on the event itself, you have a much narrower understanding of how to anticipate or prevent such an event in the future
to summarize our times the simple comic on this page illustrates how the system can threaten everyone https://www.cato.org/blog/when-our-rights-become-crimes
even reason.com is good for much. still it comes down to reading all sides and you will see a common theme even they are coming at it from different directions. the thing to remember is government segregate us more than anyone else and politicians play off the fears of one group versus another to perpetuate the system.
Favorite site for police issue and how preposterous the system is. https://www.policemisconduct.net/
Most libertarian sites and writers, though, just offer anti-government claptrap on top of some shallow tropes of rugged individualism. If you want to find out how serious a libertarian is, make them tell you how they'd deal with the problem of crime, using real-world examples of vulnerable people and populations.
I'm in favor of governance that maximises liberty, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. People who say they want to abolish government are either living in a fantasy world or aim to set up an autocratic government of their own, sometimes both.
The Digital Regime of Truth: From the Algorithmic Governmentality to a New Rule of Law
On the other hand, in Massachusetts, progressive in so many ways, the clerks treat court databases as proprietary and unavailable to be copied. And the data on the criminal side, practically under lock and key. It's a big impediment even to getting started examining the nuts and bolts of the justice system as this project has done.
i'm torn; it smacks of getting your name associated with something good after it gets off the ground but it is allowing something good to continue. reminds me of VC funding mentality...