shot and killed - they haven't even been charged, let alone arraigned for murder yet (they would definitely get not guilty for that - manslaughter at worst given the cirumstances).
they can be charged with anything, but there's no way this guy is convicted of murder.
anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention to the hundreds of analogous situations that have been happening to blacks.
literally just look it up, the exact scenario has already played out before. cop gets off. and I mean literally exact scenario - with two cops, one in front, one to the side, driver (black) tries to drive off, front cop shoots and kills the black guy, is convicted, and acquitted. seriously, look it up.
George Zimmerman stalked Treyvon Martin, shot and killed him and was still acquitted. you think this guy is going to be convicted really?
? the chauvin case wasn't the same at all. he choked flyod needlessly for 10 minutes. completely unnecessary and good that chauvin was convicted. I follow these cases since I'm part of a police justice group - I've never seen a case similar to what happened here where the officer was convicted. there's just too much precedent that if a car is going towards you the officer is justified in shooting
if you have an example of a similar situation where the cop is convicted I am very very interested.
Trying to stop a moving vehicle by standing in front of it is a) dumb, b) not what law enforcement is trained to do. It will be argued that it's not the case the officer had no better choice.
Yes, our justice system is outright broken since the Supreme Council handed obscene amounts of power to a wannabe dictator, putting him and his Stasi above the law. But that doesn't mean We The People cannot call it like it is - murder.
There was a time when police were banned from putting a tracker on people's cars without a court order.
The argument was, yes it's legal to put a tail on a person when they're out in public because that's just a cop observing a person of interest out in public. But electronic trackers are something quantifiable different due to the ease of tracking many people without having to use manpower to do it. It's the thin-edge of mass, casual surveillance of the population.
In other words, putting a tail on someone should be manpower intensive because that's a check on police power, they have to really want to track someone to invest potentially several officers' time to it full time, whereas sticking a bug on a car is something they can do to dozens of cars per day per officer.
Of course now they don't even have to do that because our police state has normalized centralized cctv camera databases, license plate trackers that continuously track the movement of every vehicle in a city into a database. Now they're doing the same with facial recognition.
Now it's even a felony in Florida to do anything to block license plate trackers from tagging your vehicle (so you can't obscure your plate in a way that leaves it readable to humans but not to the automatic tracking software). No doubt we'll have such laws for facial recognition software soon as well.
In general I agree, but thinking of counter-arguments -- criminals are not playing by the same rules and use every manpower-reducing technologies. So if police to keep to their traditional methods, then criminals will have upper hand, and more so with technological advances.
If "criminals" are now are the mass population then we need to think about how we're defining "criminal."
Police were always allowed to bug a vehicle with a court order. They weren't allowed to just casually bug random people's cars because that's mass-surveillance. Now mass-surveillance is completely normalized. Every citizen is treated as a potential criminal and surveilled into a database.
You could say the same thing about all those pesky rules police have to follow around probable cause, evidence collection, letting people have lawyers, etc. Criminals don’t have to do any of that.
You probably meant the other way around, no? You can legally fight back against cops, but criminals be criminals, you cannot "fight back" against someone stealing your car forever.
A good friend of mine who also works on tech is utterly disconnected from current events. Whenever I offer a discussion or say “hey did you hear about X?” his response is always skepticism that such a thing could occur. He has a newborn and now he’s even more disconnected (somewhat more understandable given the child).
It seems like a lot of people in tech are like that, or increasingly like that. I have a diverse stable of publications, journalists, subject matter current events podcasters, and other sources in my feed readers and my circle. Sitting between these things, it seems like there is a widening gulf.
by that logic it is perfectly legal for AMZN to openly publish the whole vast-vast trove of Ring videos. I do think it is legal, just wondering what would government do it if AMZN actually does it. I also think the governments at all levels should publish all the license plate readers data because it was collected/bought on the public dime and thus a public property.
lets suppose you collect those feeds and do image recognition and integration of data across those multiple feeds, add cross-referencing with other public data of photos, names, addresses, etc. - would it be legal? would it be legal to publish the results in the open?
there are already sites where again you can put it anyone's name and it will show you where they live, where they lived, people they've lived with, and no I will not link them because they're already too widespread and I don't want more to know about them, but someone on here can trivially find one
If an insight led you or a family member to being misdiagnosed and crippled would you just say it’s their or your own fault? If it were a doctor would you have the same opinion?
> But I don’t know if I should be denied access because of those people.
That's the majority of people though, if you really think that I assume you wouldn't have a problem with needing to be licenced to have this kind of access, right?
Depends. If you're talking about a free online test I can take to prove I have basic critical thinking skills, maybe, but that's still a slippery slope. As a legal adult with the right to consent to all sorts of things, I shouldn't have to prove my competence to someone else's satisfaction before I'm allowed autonomy to make my own personal decisions.
If what you're suggesting is a license that would cost money and/or a non-trivial amount of time to obtain, it's a nonstarter. That's how you create an unregulated black market and cause more harm than leaving the situation alone would have. See: the wars on drugs, prostitutes, and alcohol.
People are very good at ignoring warnings, I see it all the time.
There's no way to design it to minimise misinformation, the "ground truth" problem of LLM alignment is still unsolved.
The only system we currently have to allow people to verify they know what they are doing is through licencing: you go to training, you are tested that you understand the training, and you are allowed to do the dangerous thing. Are you ok with needing this to be able to access a potentially dangerous tool for the untrained?
There is no way to stop this at this point. Local and/or open models are capable enough that there is just a short window before attempts at restricting this kind of thing will just lead to a proliferation of services outside the reach of whichever jurisdiction decides to regulate this.
If you want working regulation for this, it will need to focus on warnings and damage mitigation, not denying access.
They should go all out and nationalize zoning. Let it be challenged all the way to Supreme Court. Trumps developer buddies get paid, the grift continues and the housing crisis is eliminated.
Look, we could spend a fraction of what we do, but then there would be people who get things for free or even fraudulently. You can see just how bad that would be from an American mindset.
A share of Microsoft costs an American 16% more today than a year ago, whereas from the perspective of a German a share of Microsoft cost slightly less than a year ago. That's one way to look at it, anyway.
Because some of the things they buy are imported, or depend on imports.
Unless an American’s income went up by the same amount, they lost purchasing power. The greater the proportion of non-USD assets they have, the greater purchasing power retained (i.e. the wealthy that depend less on selling their labor).
America has never been affordable. The real mirage is thinking it was - and no, that time it was affordable for white people because the blacks were in chains and the women couldn’t work and the rest of the world was in shambles doesn’t count.
And even then "keeping up with the Joneses" was a 1200 square foot house with 2+ kids per bedroom, eating out less than once a month, a single car and a single TV. Vacations were a drive to the beach; never out of state let alone out of country. You had a single set of "Sunday" clothes and the rest were hand mended.
They thought it was awesome because the 1930's were still in living memory and were way worse.
If you want that lifestyle today you can still have it on a single median income.
The biggest difference was health care. Back then a small majority had health insurance, but those who didn't weren't bankrupted by health emergencies -- you just died or suffered instead.
Now that women can work, ratcheting effects of dual-income households being able to spend more mean that generally two incomes are required to keep up the same standard of living, so now women must work. This does not seem like an improvement to me. Before, women who wanted to work could not, now women who want to stay at home with their kids can not.
