paisawalla

Have you considered examining why you feel the need to project false moral superiority onto, obliquely insult, and psychoanalyze strangers? Do you think this suggests a sober self-awareness and firm grounding of your principles -- qualities I'm sure you feel you possess and believe you're projecting?

The underlying motivation in these sorts of exchanges is rarely a desire for a global increase of genuine self-examination, but more often to exploit an opportunity for ostentatious preening. We know this because your logic can be trivially inverted to point the mirror in the reverse direction. So, reflection being what it is, if self-examination were the true goal, one imagines that those advocating it would at least show first that they had done it themselves.

Can you name the app?

> I have never been accused of being a racist transphobe whatever, if that’s your number one issue with the site maybe some inward reflection is in order

Perhaps you simply haven't encountered the kind of person who, at the vaguest sense of an opportunity to claim the title of Most Moral Person, will leap up to condescend you based on the most uncharitable and motivated reading of your words.

> Nothing obvious or even true about it. Using the word obvious just hides the fact it isn’t.

If you don't believe in the existence of incentives then unfortunately there's not enough shared reality for us to have a discussion.

That is not my understanding.

If your understanding of the scientific evidence is that it supports "dry shelters are harmful and their existence exacerbates heroin addiction," then I think that's a good argument in favor of the inclusion of anecdotes on this topic.

> Dry shelters are arguably a massive part of the problem.

As someone who has housed and lived close to addicts, to put it plainly: this is a naive, academic view. Dry shelter are "a massive part of the problem"? Absolutely incorrect, and harmfully ignorant if implemented at societal scale.

As someone who provided food and shelter to an addict in my own home, guaranteeing these things does nothing to increase the willingness to quit heroin. Material deprivation may cause you to seek drugs, but remedying deprivation does not lead to recovery. In fact, I honestly believe offering it unconditionally hampers it.

Data which is

1) based on self-reported status

2) fails to distinguish between temporary hardship homelessness and that resulting of addiction/illness

Should not be relied upon. For the first, there is an obvious incentive towards exaggerating one's stay in state, and no counter-incentive whatsoever. For the latter, these are two separate problems which need drastically different solutions.

This is tedious. It's a time-worn strategy of all politicians and activists to justify their preferred policies pretextually. If you have something to say about the actual policy he's discussing -- industry protectionism -- you should make that comment instead.

But if your comment is just "one time someone from the other team said the quiet part aloud" that's rather naive and unremarkable.

Scroll down TFA to the section called "terms that became real". When trolls or adversaries can use citogenesis to boostrap facts into the mainstream from a cold start, what does "98% factual accuracy" mean? At some point, you'll have to include the "formerly known as BS" facts.

I don't know how I can be more clear. Maybe you can explain what you don't understand.

I'm going to steer this conversation back on track, and not chase down these non-facts you're asserting.

The question is: why aren't police making as many arrests (commits). And the answer I'm proposing is: because DAs are reverting their work.

They are not reverting their work only in the cases of supposed police misconduct, so your counterpoint about bad commits is a diversion from the point. The DAs are not doing their job because they believe, frankly, that criminal justice as constructed cannot work. They don't believe a lot of crimes should be prosecuted even. For example, in DC something like 60% of gun possession cases are dropped. In Chicago and Philly it's higher than 90%. That has nothing to do with police brutality (bad commits) [0]

(And btw, these are the same people who think guns should be banned flat out)

What that means is the PM (district attorney) has the developers working on a product they have no intention of shipping (actual justice). Police are people too, and nobody is going to do purposeless work. You wouldn't at your job, and neither would they at their much more dangerous and stressful job. Nor is anyone in a great rush to sign up for this job, despite offered salaries being very high right now.

Police misconduct is a distraction from this point, unless you think 90% of gun possession charges were generated abusively -- which would be a completely innumerate claim.

0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/03/29/us-attorn...

... putting their own life at risk, even towards no end. Even if the stated purpose of that risk is subsequently undermined.

> Frankly, if your commits were being loudly criticized as harming/killing people then you have no right

No, my commits are perfectly fine, as are the vast majority of my peers' code. Only an extremely small number of complaints are generated, across a number of commits many magnitudes larger -- and not all of those complaints are of equal merit.

> If you felt that way, quit so someone who is willing to do the work can get hired.

Unfortunately, recruiting is down across most (maybe all) major cities. Maybe the would-be recruits see it differently than you -- with nothing to stake -- do?

1. The average person doesn't have your grasp of probabilities.

2. You're still asking him to take a small chance with his life.

"A cop should risk his life to effect an arrest, even if that act will be immediately undermined by the prosecutor and will have no measurable difference on society."

Are you saying they shouldn't value their own lives, but instead behave as instruction-following robots.

As a developer, I would get pretty upset and demoralized if someone came and periodically reverted all my commits. Imagine if I actually had to risk my life to make those "commits"?

It's not hard to see why they stay in the car and keep driving if the arrests don't even lead to prosections.

That's quite some stretching you're doing.

1. I'm pointing out that poverty and racial factors often confound each other. The comment I was replying to made it seem like racial effects disappear when you control for income. If you care about racial equality, then I would think it's in your favor to argue against someone who says racial effects don't exist.

2. It's not racist to point out that certain outcomes correlate with race.

I can't read the article, but does it control for race within poverty? A lot of poverty conclusions are confounded by race, yet even within poor cohorts you will find significant disparities by race. For example,

> Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean SAT score of 993. This is 130 points higher than the national mean for all blacks.

https://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html

This chart visualizes that point: SAT scores of whites in the poorest segment exceed those of blacks from all but the richest segment, and Asians exceed them no matter their income:

https://resources.corwin.com/sites/default/files/singleton_2...

In 2020 this poll found 32% of Americans report owning a gun, and 44% live in a household with one. So not "most", but not insubstantial either.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own...

Revisionism is the logical end of the modern, expansive concept of psychological harm, and the safety regime it necessarily implies.

1. It's easier to connect to the wifi from across the street, without setting foot on the premises or showing your face on camera.

2. I'm not claiming that all attacks will be mitigated, but that this is an easy win from a cost:benefit analysis.

If a hotel could spend a few hours and definitively prevent misuse of the fire emergency button, they would do that.

There are certainly people out there who are motivated to trigger false alarms in hotels: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/01/22/police-appr...

Hotels are reasonably protected to such an attack. There are almost always cameras in the elevator, and the electronics are typically, to some extent, tamper-resistant.

> Would you protect against someone running down the corridor shouting the same thing?

...yes?

Do you think hotels aren't protected, to some extent, against any random person putting on a blazer and announcing an emergency?

Personally, even the remotest possibility of someone broadcasting "evacuate your rooms, there is a fire/active shooter in the building" seems worth spending a few hours protecting against.

I've been using distinct FF profiles to separate work browsing from personal browsing on the same machine. I give each profile a differently colored theme to visually separate the two and discourage accidentally using one profile for another's purpose.

Would multi-account containers be better for that workflow?

This is an interesting, if terse, analysis. Can you spend a few more words elaborating your thoughts please?