MFogleman

This article echos the common complaint I've seen from people hesitant to adopt TS.

"I always used to get some compilation errors which were hard to understand initially, and I scratched my head trying to figure out the problem. "

Which is like saying, "I got rid of my carbon monoxide detector because it kept beeping at me"

The data wasn't to prove a point. The data was there as an example that you can construe different results from the same data. Given that data, you can make claims of "safety" quoting a lower murder rate, disregarding other factors such as improvements in emergency medical services and treatment of major wounds.

I'm not asserting whether things are safer or not. Im asserting that judging "safer" cannot be accurately done with metrics such as "murder rate".

If Adam shoots Bill with the intent to kill him, leaves the scene, and paramedics rush Bill to the hospital, and he lives, Bill is not murdered. Bill was the victim of an aggravated assault

I can't vouch for the reliability of this source[1], but it will serve for my example here. The murder rate in the US was 5 and 5.1 in 1960 and 2019 respectively. The aggravated assault rate was shot from 86 to 250.

Life didn't get safer, we just got better at saving lives.

Then again, this looks like its probably based on UCR data, which is sent to the FBI from local/state law enforcement. I imagine there are certain demographics, especially in 1960s America, that didn't get crimes against them reported with full accuracy.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Especially regarding crime. "Gun violence" can include suicide in some reporting systems, and not in others. Some will put a shooting at a bank robbery in with the same category as a single mother shooting an intruder in her home, and some wont.

My point is that the subject of safety is far more complicated than "See, less people are dead, it's safer". Imagine a special forces team of 20 conducts 100 hostage rescues in a year, gets in a firefight in every one, takes multiple injuries, but no one dies. Now imagine the logistics unit of 20 that performs maintenance, paperwork, administrative functions, etc, at a forward operating base has one of their members crushed by a vending machine.

1 in 20 people in logistics died, 0 in 20 in the special ops team died. Most people would not reasonably argue that the logistics team was more dangerous.

[1]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Just wanna make sure I got this right. "ASS", automatic instant suspension with 0 human review.

"King's Throne: Game of Lust.", with advertised gameplay content such as "I, [the King], shall interrogate this female prisoner privately in my bed chambers", is one of the top advertised games on google play.

Got it.

I dont have citations on hand, but my understanding is that this claim is largely attributed to a single/small amount of studies of dubious validity funded by US Beef industry, and that when you look at populations that have much higher soy intake, their estrogen levels are not elevated/are lower than similar US populations.

Grain of salt and all that, just offering a lead for those curious of the counter argument

Readers may also find the Copiale cipher[1] interesting. It has been around since the 1700s, unsolved, until 2011 when a team figured out (with the help of a computer or 2) it was a homophonic german cipher, and decoded the whole thing.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copiale_cipher [2]https://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-the-manuscript/

There are a few. I am using VSCodeVim[1] with the default settings (besides the typical `jj` command)

I love it, and using anything else feels weird. I remember having some problems with it before as well, but I haven't bothered looking at the settings or anything for months. I had to go back just now to see if I had any weird configs set up, (I don't)

[1]https://github.com/VSCodeVim/Vim.git

I'm not from Europe, but if I saw "BBC converts night images to perfect daylight in ~1 second", I would assume it meant the British Broadcasting Corporation. CNN is just as big of a name. His point is absolutely relevant.

Said differently: The percentage of people who are not from the US - but are aware of CNN as the Cable News Network, is higher than the percentage of people who are not machine learning experts - but are aware of CNN as a Convolutional Neural Network

I 100% believe every anecdote you just presented. I'm sorry that those things happened, especially when unpunished. As you said, cops are just people. Most people are okay. Some are heros, some are monsters. Weeding out the monsters is notoriously difficult, especially when a profession like law enforcement has definite appeal to them. It also appeals to the heros.

I can give anecdotes about friends who are cops that risked their lives to save strangers, even the bad guys. I know more than 1 cop who arrested a guy, and had the suspects family thank them for how they saved their life in the process.

I can also bring up anecdotes about how people who were so passionate about security were also criminals hiding criminal deeds. I could assume, and assert, that since I've personally seen people use their phones' security to hide evidence of murder, and infant rape, that all people who care about their phones' security are the same.

But that'd be a disservice. It'd be a disservice to those who legitimately care about security for legitimate reasons, because freedom is important, and fragile. It'd be a disservice to others who aren't sold on either side of the discussion. And it'd be a disservice to myself in that it makes me seem very narrow minded and narrow viewed. Its letting fear overcome observation.

There are 700,000 cops in America alone. Undoubtedly some are unqualified garbage. Some are malicious monsters. Some are believe the ends justify the means. Some are paragons of truth and justice. Some aren't malicious, or dumb, but only care about their careers and are shortsighted with all else. We can't make sweeping statements either way, it does nothing to help.

There have undoubtedly been cases of cops using rubber hose decryption. There have been warrants falsified intentionally and unintentionally.

But cops wanting to be able to execute search warrants on phones isn't as simple as "We want more power, more control". There are countless legitimate cases of human trafficking, murder, and sadly worse. We, as a society, have to figure this stuff out. We have to find the balance between "Give us all your secrets" and "Do whatever you want without question".

But we can't have this conversation to find the balance, until we admit that we are on a scale.

Do you have a citation that police are as _equally willing_ to beat a password out of someone as they are to use existing tool to image a phone in compliance with a lawfully obtained and executed search warrant?

I was a cellebrite certified operator/analyst. The answer is a combination of "The iPhone is that secure" and "Androids usually aren't".

The tools that Cellebrite sells will handle all but the most recent iPhones and maybe the most recent Androids. The newer the iPhone, the less likely a law enforcement officer is gonna have the tools to get into it. Cellebrite offers a service where you can ship them the phone and let their techs go at it. Whether it is because of legitimate limitations in their technology, or purely a marketing/commercial limitation, is unknown.

In general, any non-i{hone is Android. Most Androids are garbage phones that are sold by the dozen in the bottom of a bin at a gas station. Security isn't something its creator or buyer is really concerned about.

I have been out of the field for a few years, so things may have changed slightly in either direction, but I imagine its the same general concept. Newer is harder to break into, brand new iPhone model is probably impossible for now.

CSGO just broke their record # of players at one time, at around 900,000[1].

Steam alone regularly has over 10,000,000 people logged in at a time [2].

I think saying "Adults dont want a tower PC" is a pretty wide sweeping statement. I agree about Alyx. If they release a full length game that has the same level of quality that Half-life 2 had, with the same level of mod and customization support, that is going to be the tipping point. If VR is still a sub-niche in gaming/PCs, we won't see it takeoff for another 20+ years. But we may see it become the new standard.

[1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/808630/csgo-number-playe....

[2]https://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Oh man, I'm glad i'm not the only one. Please let me know if you have a solution. It is really difficult to, in a kind way, tell my generous friends and family, "Please don't buy my kids anything. We have more clothes than we need, more toys than we need. They are just going to play with it today then throw it in front of the already overflowing toy box because we literally have no place to put it"

The closest solution we've gotten is to not do that, but instead use it as an opportunity to talk to the pre-schooler about charity and sharing with the less fortunate, eventually leading him to the "lets give our extra toys we don't play with very much to other kids" thought.

While googling for "combinators birds", I received an Angelfire.com page[1] as the #1 search result in google, which I thought was fairly impressive.

[1] http://www.angelfire.com/tx4/cus/combinator/birds.html

Proton is pretty great, but there are hardware limitations. Im running a pretty old video card. I can run games like Deep Rock Galactic on Windows, but it wont work on Linux as Proton needs newer linux drivers, which don't support my card, in order to run that game.

Rocket League's creator, Psyonix, was bought by Epic last year. The is concern/belief that this move is a precursor to making Rocket League an Epic Store exclusive, as the Epic store is Windows only.

Psyonix stated that they would offer refunds for Linux/ macOS users. In the first few days post announcement, everyones' refund was being denied. It appears that this has since been resolved. I received my refund yesterday.

For anyone looking at picking up Ramda, the docs at ramdajs.com are great API docs, but don't tell you a thing about how to actually use lenses, transducers, and point free data last functions with pipes. Randy Coulman has a great list of guides on how to actually use Ramda on his blog[1]. Start at the bottom with the introduction and work your way up.

https://randycoulman.com/blog/categories/thinking-in-ramda/

I mean, I think one of the big arguments against a pipeline operator is that you can easily roll your own with

  const pipe = (...fxs) => x => fxs.reduce((v, f) => f(v), x);

If you're going to pull in ramda for example, they have their own pipe, and a map function that takes (predicate, array) as curried arguments, to aid with composition import { map, pipe, range, sum } from 'ramda';

    pipe(
      range,
      map(i => i * i),
      sum
    )(0, 6)

I haven't messed with HN formatting before, so I hope that turns out right. My team uses Ramda and pipes regularly in our Node code, and its absolutely wonderful

50% write their passwords down in a notebook or sticky note near their computer[1]

1% use a password manager[1]

[1]%100 of these stats are assumed

Im a big fan of a cli program called tldr[1].

Usually when the internet says "Run these commands", they either don't tell you what they do, or tell you to just check `man`. The problem is that man pages can be super long, can have a somewhat intimidating syntax, and 1,000 flags that arent your flag. Running `tldr program_name` gives you a way simpler manual with common flags and actual examples.

[1]https://github.com/tldr-pages/tldr

They weren't trying to imprison him, they were trying to gather evidence of who murdered Jane, which would result in imprisoning that person.

Jane's killer was in a strange circumstance. So was Jane, what with being murdered and all. The unconventional means of getting a confession were not immoral or unethical at all, IMO, and the courts certainly agreed they were admissible.

Retired cop here - listen to this dude. My job was to sit down in a room, read a person their rights, make sure they understand it, have them initial 4 places, sign, and date that they understand it, make it clear to them in no uncertain terms that everything they say will be against their benefit, and they have nothing to gain by talking to me.

Then they'd talk to me. Many cases started with a great suspect who had motive, opportunity, corroborating evidence, but there was still reasonable doubt. Then the suspect would tell me all sorts of stuff that I didn't know, which really helped out.

Further, the cops don't assume your arrest, or statements, are invalid due to a lack of Miranda warning. Statements made by the suspect who hasnt been advised of their rights are only inadmissible if the suspect is in some sort of custody, and under some form of interrogation.

If you are sitting on your couch in your home talking to a single cop who hasn't arrested you or anything, you aren't in custody, so the cop can ask you questions all day, and its fair game.

If you get arrested and the cop asks "Are you feeling okay", and you go on and on about the crime you committed, you are making spontaneous statements that aren't the subject of an interrogation, so these are likely admissible as well.

There are gray areas. If you are in the back of the cop car, and 2 cops up front are having a conversation about the case, hoping to guilt you into giving up information, those statements may be inadmissible unless you were advised of the miranda warning.

There was a homicide case where the cops had a suspect, but couldn't prove it. It was the victim's boyfriend. Detectives spoke to him, and asked if they could take him to breakfast on Saturday. The guy cautiously obliged, because free breakfast. He drove his own car, met them there, and they had a nice breakfast. Talked about sports, TV, life, etc. No mention of the case. The cops asked if they wanted to meet them for breakfast again next week. He did. They did this for over a month.

One morning, between bites of pancakes, the Detective asks, "So why'd you kill Jane". The suspect, not missing a beat, replies, "Man, she just pissed me off".

In hindsight, if you didn't commit a crime, follow the advice of the parent post. If you did commit the crime, always talk to the cops; you're smarter than them, you can convince them you're innocent.

I think that is painting with a fairly broad brush. Head into Target, and somewhere near the centerish of the store, diagonal to the greeting cards and cosmetics, is aisles and aisles of stuff.

Not sheets, or plates, just stuff. Decorations to go on an end table, whos likely purpose is only to hold the decoration. Knick Knacks to go on that one wall with too much empty space.

But lets go back to sheets and plates. How many sets of sheets do you own per bed? Is there a reason for that number? For years, the answer was "More than 4" for my bed. There was "The good sheets", "The warm sheets" and the rest were sheets that I used because the good sheets were in laundry pile and I havent done laundry yet. Even then, why have the other pair of sheets?

Minimalism isn't necessarily "Dont own a drill you dont need it", but more of "Dont buy stuff to put on shelves that you bought for the sole purpose of putting stuff on but you had more shelf than space so you bought more stuff but now its too much and you need another shelf"

The 4th amendment guarantees protection against unreasonable search and seizure by the government.

Wiretaps can (depending on state) takes hundreds of pages of paperwork, and months of documentation and review, before they get approved. But if you work for a company, and they tell you that they are monitoring phone calls made from company phones, you just have to deal with it.

I understand the 'cosmetic' argument, and would like to offer my personal experiences as a counter.

I was 20/200 overall vision, and wore glasses since I was 11. At age 27, before going into law enforcement, I underwent the Lasik operation, and it was definitely a life changer.

Living near swamps, in the south, it wasnt uncommon to walk outside from an air conditioned building, and have your glasses instantly fog. My skin gets incredibly oily and the glasses would slide down my face. It was hard to find frames that didn't leave huge uncovered and distracting gaps in my peripheral vision from being too small.

In the academy, I saw plenty of guys have to deal with glasses falling off of their faces while doing pushups/working out. They'd have to evaluate "Do I want to see or do I want to not break my glasses" during defensive tactics training.

Post graduation, I can only imagine how negatively glasses would've impacted my job. Water getting on the lenses in the rain, splatter getting on them while tracking people through the woods. Sweat and condensation blocking your vision. This assumes they stay on.

Having to wrestle around with someone to get them into handcuffs is difficult enough, and its incredibly easy to get tunnel vision. Staying aware of your surroundings is important, and there would be a significant amount of due stress if you couldn't see what you were doing because your glasses got knocked into a ditch.

An ad to prop up big pharma by suggesting that people cut their opioid use by 75%?

Lets assume that this is an ad to prop up big pharma. Something between 1 of the 2 following extremes happens.

1. Every opioid user takes up meditation, and is able to reduce their opioid use by 75%. This would generally be considered a very good thing, even though it would cost big pharma 75% of their opioid profits.

2. The woman in the article is the only person in the world with this reported success, nothing changes.

Are you suggesting that forces at play are hoping that the second happens, yet all the lawsuits and criminal investigations against opioid manufacturers and distributors will go away, in part due to articles like this, despite the lack of change in numbers?

Retail videos are garbage 99% of the time.

You aren't going to get reliable or useable prints from the scene of a retail store.

Even if you did, you have to have a match in AFIS for them to be useful.

Even if you do, congrats, you know the guy exists, his name, and social. Now you just have to find him before he robs someone else at gunpoint, and/or ends up killing someone.

Every non-tiny police department has a pursuit policy. It tends to be some form of one of the following:

1. Only pursue if the danger of the pursuit is less than the danger of this guy to society. Consider the crime, how easily we can find this guy, current traffic conditions, weather, etc. Guy robber a liquor store and is going 100mph on a well lit, perfectly straight 5 lane highway at 1am on a Wednesday with no other traffic? Get em. Same guy is going 100mph through a residential as the school busses are about to drop off kids? Terminate pursuit. Sadly, it is never that cut and dry

2. Don't pursue unless it was a murder/attempted murder, and the conditions are safe for it.

3. Don't pursue.

#3 Works amazing for about 5 years. Somewhere 5-10 years later, the local gangs and career criminals learn that if they just drive fast enough to endanger lives, the cops will leave them alone. State police departments, which usually spend more time on highways, tend to have a policy closer to #1. Because of this, they will often assist local agencies that have a policy of #2 or #3, when they are doing stuff that they expect a vehicle pursuit may ensue.

Someone usually brings up "Oh, well if you have the license plate why not just arrest them later." Because it doesn't work that way. You see a masked guy rob a store, jump in a car, and peel out of there at 1am, and don't pursue? If you run the tag, go to the registered house at 1:30am, find the warm vehicle in the driveway, knock on the door, registered owner can answer, and will tell you that a lot of people have keys to his car, he doesn't know anything, he was home asleep.

And theres not a thing you can do about it. The only way you can prove it was him was if you saw the driver and are 100% sure its that guy, or you convince him to talk himself into getting caught in a lie, or give up his cellphone, or some other dumb decision.

I agree the city should pay.

The 40mm grenades ARE the tear gas, or baton rounds (for breaching windows/doors). If they were dropping HE/Frag in those windows, the story would be WAY different.

The shaped charges are used for breaching. Assault favors the defender. A gunman in a room knows the cops are coming in through the door or the window. He just has to wait to see, and shoot. The entry team likely does not know what room the bad guy is in, and if they dont, they dont know where in the room, and if they do, they still have to go through the tiny door way, get eyes on him, assess the threat, determine if they need to shoot, and handle whatever threat exists.

Even if you know exactly where he is, flash bangs aren't magic, and that entry is still a gamble of life. The best thing you can do to increase your odds is to make a new door.

Or maybe some redneck decided he already pulled out his detcord and didnt want to put it back up. IDK.

Pretty big fallacy bro. Its not in the top 10 most deadly jobs in America. "Danger" is a relative term. If a squad of 20 soldiers get in a gunfight every day over 3 months, and none of them die, was their job less dangerous than the 20 guys who work in an office, where Jerry was killed by a vending machine tipping over?

The FBI tracks Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA)[1]. There are around 540,000 police officers in the US, and about 58,000 recorded assault. Now, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Some of those assaults are undoubtedly some Kelly Thomas type BS where the cops beat the crap out of a guy and got blood on their uniforms and counted it as assault. There are also likely assaults that don't get listed/reported. E.g. a man who just murdered someone is running from the cops, car chase ensues. 10+ cop cars behind the suspect, who starts shooting at officers. This did not get recorded as 10 assaults, though 10 cops were shot at.

Also keep in mind that these statistics are of all reporting agencies. Every Mayberry town with 100 citizens, 1 sheriff, and 1 deputy. Every command staff and supervisor who are effectively just managers with a badge. The cops who do entirely admin work and don't wear their vest anymore. The High Tech Crimes guys who don't respond to calls, but do computer forensic analysis in pedophile cases. These are all less likely to be assaulted than the cop doing a solo patrol, responding to calls.

_____ [1]1https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka

A lot of people are missing some key points here, and getting angry at the wrong aspects. Let me start by saying that I do believe the family should be compensated by some means. They shouldn't become the de facto victim of the crime.

The police did not "Blow up a home" over "some belts". They spent 19 hours of negotiation, de-escalation, and sound tactics, to apprehend an armed gunman who shot at police on at least one occasion, maybe two, during the stand off.

People are admonishing the use of "Grenades and APCs". The grenades were tear gas. They used tear gas to attempt to get the suspect to leave a home. The APCS are literally just armored cars. You can go and buy one right now. They serve 2 purposes. They move people, and they help stop bullets. I have friends who are alive because of their APCs.

Human beings die in stand offs like this. Some are saying "Why not just wait him out". Its a great idea in theory, but you know what they say about the differences in practice and theory.

Being on the perimeter of a barricaded suspect is dangerous. He has the most cover, and concealment. He can be anywhere in the house, and he can have anything. The police in this situation know he has at least 1 gun. He may have others they don't know about, he may have others in the home that the home owners didn't tell the police about. He may be in there constructing nail bombs. These scenarios are unlikely, but possible, and one should err on the side of caution and preserving human life, when lives are on the line.

Most entry teams run around 10-20 guys. Plus a perimeter team to keep the threat contained and not lose ground. Add in supervisors / command staff, logistical support, medical personnel, negotiators, etc, and you have a lot of resources tied up on this call.

For 19 hours.

"Just wait longer, cut off water, there is no rush".

This is correct. There isn't a rush, until there is. Until there is another barricaded suspect, or a hostage situation, or an active shooter, or just regular patrols that need to be covered. My parents are perpetually stocked up for hurricanes. I could probably live in their house without electricity or water for close to a month before I needed to start worrying about logistics.

Staying on perimeter for an extended period of time is a weird sensation. You are essentially just standing behind a car or a porch for an extended period of time. You have to keep in mind that at literally any second, you may be in a life or death gun fight. You aren't in immediate danger, but that may change without any notice at any moment.

After 19 hours, the police took in an armed gunman who invaded a home, and shot at them, without injuring him or anyone else. That is amazing, and should be commended. The fact that people are outraged at this is sincerely confusing to me. The top comment says that if they just waited outside the house for a few days, it would've saved a lot money that was spent on "tear gas, robots, and negotiations"

The negotiations are generally done by officers, so there is no increased cost. This is the year 2019. Most people in my office own a robot that flies. Any department in a city with more than 1 stop light should have a multi use bot for surveillance/bomb investigation/scouting. Tear gas grenades run less than $50 each.

So what is the outrage over the tactical response of the police? They used equipment they had to stack odds in their favor against a guy that shot at them, and arrested him without injury.

I completely understand being outraged over the lack of compensation to the homeowners. Between insurance companies, victim compensation funds, and the government itself, they should absolutely be compensated for the damage to their home. It appears that such victims tend to be reimbursed, which is bittersweet. It's good that it happens, but it makes it that more infuriating that it didn't.

In summary: Yeah, be mad that the people got screwed over by the government, but it wasn't because of the SWAT team. They did their job right.