garrettgarcia

How often does it happen? 0.1% of cases? 0.01%?

> The is the biggest indictment of Cleveland PD and the justice system in the entire story - you could choose to call emergency services or you could choose to risk bleeding out because of their reputation. He chose to die.

Oh come on, this sounds absurd. No one is going to commit suicide because the city's EMS has a bad reputation. He was probably in shock and had just had his phone stolen so couldn't call anyone.

> "Might not get a conviction" is a negligible deterrent against police overreach.

But it isn't just that. It's a possible perjury charge for lying to a judge. It's the strong likelihood of ending the detective's career or at least limiting it significantly. It's the political fallout from articles like this one. It's the potential civil rights lawsuit bankrupting against the department and detective. It's the personal shame and guilt that the detective feels for knowing that it's their corner-cutting that let a murder escape justice. Imagine having to face the victim's family if this guy is acquitted...

These are big deterrents.

He doesn't seem smart at all... He took off his mask in front of a camera to flirt with a receptionist. He left a long extensive trail of evidence. He manifesto sounds like it was written by a 14 year old. It only took him four days to get caught. Like most criminals, he is not smart.

He says in the manifesto that they won't take him alive. He planned to go out shooting, then wimped out.

He could have asked for charity, or asked hi multi-millionaire grandfather or fabulously wealthy family for help, or sued the insurance company, or taken out loans, or made a ton of money of his own and paid cash and negotiated directly with the providers, or mortgage the family mansion, sell everything he owns. There are millions of things he could have done.

"Nothing you can do about it" is just a lie people tell themselves to justify violence.

Does anyone know which and how many foreign medical schools qualify?

Harry Potter-style moving pictures are now a reality.

The fact that your first thought was how you could use this amazing tech to remember a lost family member who you love, and OP's first thought was that it could be used for evil so it shouldn't exist says a ton about each of you.

Sprites and similar phenomena have been reported for many years by pilots and others, but scientists didn't believe them until recently because it didn't fit their flawed models. It's similar how scientists didn't believe centuries of stories about rogue waves from mariners until one was recorded with a buoy in 1995.

Pecos Hank, the best storm chaser on Youtube, has recorded beautiful video of sprites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGPQ5kzJ9Tg

Andrew Hall has hypothesized that plasma flow has a large part to play in thunderstorm formation and tornados. These surprising gamma rays mentioned in the article would seem to support Hall's hypothesis.

Hall's theories are well outside of the mainstream and I don't know his credentials, if any, and cannot speak to his hypothesis's veracity. I'm not a scientist. Would any actual scientists care to comment?

Here is a video where he explains his theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU706V0bltc

The solution is to not violate the first amendment.

Wow. Wait until he hears about dogs, cats, chickens, bees, sheep, ligers, corn, potatoes, strawberries, etc. etc. etc.

I really hope this guy wins his appeal, or at least gets his sentence commuted. What a farce.

I thought his incentive was to defend the idea of miracles/faith/angels/God.

In this situation, a parenting book will be more effective than a python script.

Yep. They used to require a physical button press to connect, but that was a pain when speakers were mounted up high. The simple solution is to not run Sonos on an unsecured network.

I worked on the TruePlay product. It won't help in this case. Even though most streaming services do loudness normalization to keep tracks at around the same volume as each other, some are still louder than others.

It does look a bit like an owl

def m2k(n): return n*1.609344

There, did it in O(1)

> Sounds a bit like "new thing scary" unless you show why having select in front actually avoids problems

This isn't really fair. BeefWellington gave a reason why SQL is how it is (and how it has been for ~50 years). It's reasonable to ask for a compelling reason to change the clause order. Simon's post says it "has always been confusing", but doesn't really explain why except by linking to a blog post that says that the SQL engine (sort of but not really) executes the clauses in a different order.

I think the onus of proof that SQL clauses are in the wrong order is on the people who claim they're in the wrong order.

> It is the principle behind all government.

It's certainly the principle behind most governments. But not all. The one shining exception is the United States of America. That government was founded on an entirely different principle, the principle of individual rights. This principle says that man, due to his nature, has rights that no one else, not even his government, is allowed to violate. These rights are not granted and revoked by government, but protected by it. And if the government violates those rights in a significant way, it is a person's duty to overthrow that government. This was a truly radical position in 1776. Unfortunately, it is still radical today, and little understood.

If you'd like to learn more about this, google the "Declaration of Independence" or "The Rights of Man" by the philosopher John Locke.

> But in real life we can choose what we ban. Everything is a trade-off; we can choose to ban something if the harm it creates is considered to outweigh its benefit to society.

This is the principle behind, and popularize by, Nazism and Soviet-style communism. In short, it is the arbitrary use of force against whichever targets the ruling bureaucrats deem to be "socially harmful". This principle leads inevitably to mass murder and war, as history has shown repeatedly and without exception.

You seem to fantasize that you'll be in the in-group who gets to decide who is harmful. But then one day it will be you who is considered harmful. And the state will sacrifice your life for the "benefit of society".

Yes, you are wrong. Let me explain. GP laid out his principle above: "If your app is known to be uses heavily by criminals ranging from Pedo's to drug dealers. You are liable."

He doesn't say that doing "jack shit" (not exactly a fleshed out legal term) will remove that liability, as you are suggesting.

Why stop there? By your logic, the owners of every ISP that provides a pathway for those criminal bits also should be in jail. Every single organization in that pathway would be liable from the registrars to the developers of web libraries or other app services. The governments themselves would be liable in many cases where the government has nationalized internet services.

There is a principle in the free world that one is not criminally liable for the speech of others. This is the principle that allows ISP's, newspapers, web forums, Google, etc. etc. to exist. You demand that the principle be violated and the Internet be destroyed. I disagree.

Because it's the sheriff's job to enforce the law...

It's not releasing them that is the issue. It's that the charges are dropped.

Wing slap! Baby, wing slap! (sung to the tune of "Glove Slap", which is sung to the tune of "Love Shack")

All I'm seeing is "Loading Focal..." blinking forever.

As an alternative, I've been using https://pomofocus.io/ and like it.

How on earth is speaking to the media about their own analysis of what happened going to "contaminate the neutrality of the investigation and prosecution"?

Are the NTSB and DOJ so easily swayed that Boeing's words will negate their ability to tell fact from fiction? And if so, why should we listen to them at all?

Protecting a government narrative is NOT a valid reason to suppress speech. That is the path to despotism.

This isn't a "conservative win". It's a win for America. Our Constitution guarantees that individual rights are protected, including trial-by-jury (7th amendment). The SEC (part of the executive branch) violates this right by acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

The fact that WaPo and other mainstream outlets are trying to spin this as a political win for the right should make everyone seriously question their motives and aims.