vundercind

This is true—it's why rural towns and small cities are often really dangerous, while the overall state they're in might not have high violent crime stats, if a large proportion of the state's population isn't in towns or cities at all. Living far away from people is an effective way to avoid crime.

[EDIT] Assessing risk based on course crime stats, I mean. Of course individual context and situations matter a lot, too.

Yes, crime stats are a mess for a bunch of reasons. The most-reliable are murder stats, because they rarely go unreported or otherwise unnoticed, and are the hardest to "juke the stats" on, especially if you try to do it for more than a brief span of time. Those are better in scary ol' Manhattan than in much of "safe" small town, small city, and suburban America, and often way better.

The rhetorical trick here is the cut-off point. For one thing, you're limiting it to cities in the first place. For another, take a look to see where their cut-off for size of city under consideration is—the higher it is, the more it'll skew toward big names (duh) so they almost always set it pretty high, and the lower you make the cut-off, the farther (most) of those plummet down and off the list as small and mid-sized cities take over.

Their problems (not the problems of distributing video, but the problems of doing so as a centralized platform beholden to advertisers that also engages in automated promotion of videos) are a choice they made.

> Where I live now people truly do not lock their doors. Most garage doors in my neighborhood stay open 24/7.

Rich suburban and small towns—and I mean where the whole area's kinda rich, not just a few neighborhoods—are in fact the sort of safe that lots of people incorrectly assume all suburbs and small towns are. I know how it is, I (now) live in one of those too, so Manhattan is in-fact more dangerous than where I am (these days). :-)

Like, my kid's neurologist lives just up our street and there's a country club every half mile, it seems like. Yeah, this particular place is quite safe. Go figure, if there's vanishingly little poverty around there's also very little violent crime. But lots of US suburbs, rural towns, small suburban towns, and smaller cities are really, really poor and there doesn't (any more? Maybe ever?) seem to be some kind of aw-shucks folksiness of attitude that effectively counters the effects of that—they're just as crime-ridden and dangerous as you'd expect, from the poverty stats.

I know multiple people (and have myself experienced this) who've been greeted with warnings and concern from relatives when traveling to major cities... when those cities have violent crime rates far lower than the places they/we live. Like, a fifth as much or lower. It's still "common knowledge" that e.g. Manhattan is way more dangerous than a "safe" red state suburban/exurban county (LOL, very not necessarily true) and that the largest cities must be way more dangerous than small and mid-sized cities (also very not necessarily true).

Why wonder if someone would make the same comment in entirely different circumstances? Why does it matter?

There are lots of potential solutions to the problem, that aren't all very-expensive centralized services, but YouTube existing takes up all the oxygen in the room.

Of course they'd rather provide abusive service to hold on to user-share. That's a choice they're making and I'm saying that's a bad choice, socially speaking. Good business choice, I'm sure.

One way: dollars.

Another way: don't provide services you can't support.

The only way it's actually going to happen, and when it does we'll shockingly find it was always possible and companies just didn't feel like doing it: regulation (which will just result in a mix of the first two options)

We'll lift millions in the "global south" out of poverty by providing the tools to criminals and foreign adversaries that drive demand for cheaply-staffed high-rep social media account farms.

What a time to be alive. What frontiers we are exploring.

No, not really. They're useful but not revolutionary for actual productive work, and I'm being generous in dubbing some AI-based products themselves "productive" (I eagerly await the studies that I'm sure the companies building these things will not bother to do, proving that these are cost/benefit better than other approaches they're replacing—I definitely don't consider it certain that they are).

They shine when the fewest shits are given, which is mostly work that didn't need to be done in the first place, and... mass scams/astroturfing/spam. Hooray.

I don't really see this balance tipping much with the general approach the field's pursuing now.

The wood used matters, and the way it's finished matters a lot, with hardwood floors. You can get anything between amazingly-resilient and scratches-badly-if-you-look-at-it-funny, depending on how it's finished.

Lots of contractors cheap out on the finish, and pre-finished hardwood is pretty much always bad.

Does an article about regulation of a toxic chemical that would dead-certain already be far more heavily regulated if not for industry lobbying need to be political? Is that the question?

However technically correct from a certain point of view you may be, I was supporting home users for a small ISP in the very early 2000s and you’re wrong in any way that matters. In practice NAT on its own made remote attacks on home networked devices far harder.

The problem is that teaching is a small part of the job, and has been steadily shrinking for years. Almost every other part is terrible.

My spouse is no longer a teacher.

Maybe. But they’ll absolutely try to get you to pay the full price. They might also demand payment up front. In either case you might be able to pay less if you negotiate, but maybe not.

If you’re insured you’ll pay between $0 and the full price of the discounted insurance rate (which this may already be close to—it depends where the numbers come from) depending on the insurance plan you have and how exactly it’s already been used. If you’ve already spent a lot of money “out-of-pocket” this year, you may have hit a limit that triggers 100% from insurance until the year’s up, usually a calendar year (try not to split a pregnancy over two calendar years…)

Then there’s whether the hospital’s in-network for your insurance, and maybe separately whether the doctors are and whether any testing facilities used are—that is, whether the insurance will pay for service from these providers (which may sure look to you like just one provider-entity, but might not be) at all. Sometimes almost nothing is in-network once you’re more than a couple hundred miles from home (and plenty within that radius might not be either), depends on the plan.

[edit] oh and if you ask anyone involved what you are going to have to pay, they’ll treat you like a moron. If you persist, they’ll send you on a wild goose chase of paperwork and billing codes and talking to more people who act like you’re a moron for thinking that was a reasonable question. You probably won’t ever figure it out, just have to wait for the bill. And then the inexplicable second bill. Then three more bills scattered over the rest of the year, two for entities you can’t identify without some phone calls, usually without even specifying on the bill WTF they’re asking you to pay for.

TL;DR the Sixth's right to jury trial doesn't apply for criminal charges carrying less than sixth months maximum sentence—even if there are multiple such charges that may add up to more than that.

Gonna go out on a limb and guess that plenty of US jurisdictions don't voluntarily pay extra money to make those jury trials if they aren't forced to.

> (the p is progressive, vs i for interlaced)

> 4k, 2k refer to the number of columns of pixels

> 2560×1440 is both 2.5k and 1440p, and 3840×2160 is both 4k and 2160p.

These parts I did not misunderstand.

> and those terms come from cinema and visual effects (and originally means 4096 and 2048 pixels wide)

OK that part I didn't know, or at least had forgotten—which are effectively the same thing, either way.

> 1920×1080 is both 2k and 1080p

Wikipedia suggests that in this particular case (unlike with 4k) application of "2k" to resolutions other than the original cinema resolution (2048x1080) is unusual; moreover, I was responding to a commenter's usage of "2k" as synonymous with "1440p", which seemed especially odd to me.

Like, if it's not plainly an awful decision on its face (and god, it so very is) then the fact that just about every plausible application of it looks something like that, as far as who can and cannot be held responsible for their actions, should demonstrate that the decision is, in the highest ideal of what it means to be American, deeply un-American.

On the other hand, declaration of martial law or walking armed into parliament might well be a coup attempt.

Context and intent is everything.

For some reason, folks like to cite US foreign intervention failures as proof motivated locals with rifles can beat the US military, but that's not really the right thing to look at, as a bunch of things about those situations are materially different from a civil war (plus there is in every case a ton more to the resistance's armament and materiel than some guys taking their old AKs out of the closet, dusting them off, and digging into their prepper-crates of MREs)

The "reality" in this sentence here is pretty solidly not accurate. The majority opinion in Heller asserted truths about the past that aren't born out by the historical record. Probably lifted straight from interest-group amicus briefs that agreed with what the majority was inclined to decide to begin with.

[EDIT] Whoops. I mean, that the above is often true in cases that cite history, even legal history, means it might still be true, but I was actually thinking of Bruen, where this happened to a degree that'd be comical if it weren't, you know, the Supreme Court.