Ironically, having that neutral evidence has led to weird situations like Progressive cities stonewalling body cameras (citing budgets, storage concerns, makes the criminal look bad etc) despite equally Progressive Police Chiefs begging for them. https://www.wkow.com/news/madison-police-chief-pushes-for-bo... Even activist organization admit body cameras turned out mostly to the benefit of police https://prismreports.org/2024/07/16/complex-troubling-histor... so they demand police lose control of the cameras.
I think it'll be a few years before media outlets can ratify the real & sampled reality that tens-of-millions have already seen on Youtube
Your link shows that the progressives were in favor of the cameras, but the moderates voted it down because a study showed no change in police behavior so it wasn't a critical need when they were facing a budget shortfall.
It’s a flattering phrase, not a thoughtful one. It gives the illusion of higher level thinking that’s beyond our actual ability. The phrase also justifies writing without thinking, i.e. most internet comments.
The best thinkers I know mostly use writing for refinement, distillation— as a tool. The worst thinkers I know are owned by writing; they require its fixation & stimulation upfront to compensate for limited attention spans.
I mean this more generally, beyond that team. Oracle have used their ownership of Java as a thumping great cudgel before, and my own feeling is that the Google lawsuit basically ended Java’s appeal as a language on which others would risk any kind of innovation. A more nuanced approach might have preserved its relevance.
A few years ago, I was itching to either brush up on Java (which I hadn't used since around v1.8) or learn a new one. (eg Golang, Rust, etc) In light of Oracle owning Java, I suspected it would face a long, slow decline and would eventually fade into Perl-like obscurity and decided to spend my time elsewhere. Also, I didn't want their nagging runtime updater on my system anymore.
Haven't regretted that decision at all and it seems to be playing out about how I expected. (Except LLMs make rewrites into other languages more tractable so the slow decline of Java may accelerate)
Reads a bit like an elevated resentment fantasy. A mostly ethical narrator narrating his friend’s morally deserved doom that keeps the narrator’s own hands mostly clean. And with the narrator holding a medal at the end.
That’s cathartic for some. For me, the narrator rather resembles one of the local tech millionaires, envious of the billionaires. The story doesn’t seem to know the narrator’s dishonesty.
I think the narrator is the murderer and is lying about the man in the gray tracksuit. The repeated criticism of Aaron's moral character is a sort of rationalization for having killed him, with the underlying motive actually being a combination of greed and envy. Remember that the funds used to kick-start the trading platform came from a hackathon win that Aaron "stole".
On a meta level, this thread shows how rejecting boring leads to bickering.
Our natural default as engineers is to choose exciting tech that invites debate. At scale, across many choices, those debates become drama. For some people, that drama is fun. For most people, that drama is the worst kind of boring. Most people would want to limit that drama by setting a sensible, sane default.
As I see it, the objection to boring-as-default reflects a tolerance for drama that uses "technical" arguments to override business priority. It's a signal that we engineers can't manage our own impulses, let alone our complexity budget, so management has to step in to baby us.
My friend on Bluesky openly said he wanted Twitter gone and he’s been hoping it would die. He’s also a big fan of reporting people on the app.
I’m not put off by his desires but I’m mildly surprised you’re denying him and others existence. Ironically, it feeds into the GP’s “silence” narrative
Anyone can pick a single example of an extreme user. I could pick a virulent antisemite, racist X user and say it represents X as a whole, would you agree with that? I suspect not.
Since 2016, 2 out of 3 US officers supported body cameras. That percentage increases after uptake https://ircommons.uwf.edu/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Pol... with even skeptical Police unions & advocacy orgs gradually speaking up in favor of cameras https://fop.net/letter/abc-act-hr-3248/ https://www.policeforum.org/trending6jan24 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLE/comments/1uf0d3a/did_the_dema...
Ironically, having that neutral evidence has led to weird situations like Progressive cities stonewalling body cameras (citing budgets, storage concerns, makes the criminal look bad etc) despite equally Progressive Police Chiefs begging for them. https://www.wkow.com/news/madison-police-chief-pushes-for-bo... Even activist organization admit body cameras turned out mostly to the benefit of police https://prismreports.org/2024/07/16/complex-troubling-histor... so they demand police lose control of the cameras.
I think it'll be a few years before media outlets can ratify the real & sampled reality that tens-of-millions have already seen on Youtube
reply