This is true and interesting but it's also incomplete. Men still dominate most STEM degrees, and unlike law or business it doesn't seem to be evening out over time. I'm not sure what conclusions we can draw from this.
When you get a gun pointed at your face, or your home violated, or your car stolen, you tend to rebalance your principles a little. The cameras are a symptom of bigger problems.
This is the main issue. People aren't going by what may be the best solution long term, they are going by what they feel and experience in the moment. Right now people feel unsafe and they feel these systems increase their safety and seem unphased by the privacy ramifications. I personally still am not sure how I feel as I do value my privacy, but at the same time I also understand how this can be a useful tool. Many tools the police have also invade my privacy as well to some degree.
It's so hard to draw a line of what is good or bad, and it seems like the majority are okay with this technology. Which I think means the conversation should shift from should we allow these cameras at all, to instead, how can we allow them to be implemented in a way that minimizes privacy risk as much as possible while still remaining a valuable tool to solve crimes.
It's a bit of a protection racket isn't it? The police extort me for money and claim it will be used to protect me from the situations your present. Yet they do none of those things, because they can't be there in that moment. The police are not the solution. Spying on me is not the solution.
I share the parent's internal conflict, but this is an interesting critique that I hadn't considered: The cameras don't actually work. Do we have any data on that? Seems like I hear about stolen cars (and their drivers) getting picked up fairly frequently due to these cameras. Is it marketing or is it true?
I think they are just being intentionally ignorant on the topic due to their dislike of the system overall and I don't think that is fair of them. There is lots of videos even of YouTube via bodycam videos with many police departments making good use of these cameras to aid in solving crimes. I'm sure there are many articles and maybe even research out there which would show this.
I think it's just a way to try and dismiss the cameras without trying to tackle the heart of the problem. When you have to contend with the fact that the cameras have a lot of useful purposes, it makes arguing against them much more challenging. If you can pretend they are not useful, it may be a way to try to stiffle any productive discussion around them.
I don't think you're advocating to have our personal conversations continuously monitored whenever outside, but in the context of this thread, that's what it sounds like.
No, in the context of the thread it sounds like they're illustrating myrmidon's point about how the selective enforcement of crimes that are easy to catch on camera means that the police have less time (and less inclination, training, norms) for addressing more serious crimes, like interpersonal violence.
More broadly, they're not saying that we should make the cameras better to catch more crime, they're saying that when you make cameras the main way you catch crime, you shift the social definition of what crime is to "what cameras can catch".
He was also a heretic, but what he was most certainly not, was an atheist. All I'm saying is that if some very smart people strongly believe that we're not just star dust that should at least make you question your own belief that there is no higher power.
Maybe put it to the test, even though you feel dumb for doing it, pray for something small that you would not otherwise expect to happen in the immediate future. see what happens
People who are otherwise smart often believe dumb things. History is littered with them. Which is why appeal to authority should always be regarded with skepticism.
This prayer example illustrates a series of fallacies and human biases. Confirmation bias, survivorship bias, apophenia, post-hoc reasoning... many ways we know our brains trick us.
Try this pre-registered, with large numbers and control groups.
Or just read the literature from people who did. Prayer does nothing.
Not only is this true, there are about 50 million people in the south who are incredibly grateful for US involvement. And about 26 million people in the north who are, on average, several inches shorter than the southerners due to the end of US involvement.
Except now the whole world is in a common meme pool. Thanks to the internet, Metcalfe’s Law applies to languages globally. China may stave it off for a while by firewalling its population... but the rest of the world won't care.
It's not going to change again. Not even if the US and UK both sank into the ocean.
There are large number of people in China learning English. While China might firewall some things, learning languages does not seem to be one of them.
> Not even if the US and UK both sank into the ocean.
I think its likely that list greatly undercounts the number of people who speak English as a first language because of difficulties around the data about things such people who are bilingual and (cultural, not necessarily on the part of the people conducting surveys) assumptions about ethnicity and language, sources of numbers etc.
I think this really depends on your expectations. Let the driveway go to gravel. Only mow near near the house. Hardscape instead of 12 irrigation zones.
If you expect the whole place to be manicured like a city lot, yeah, that's a huge amount of work.
We maintain the areas around our house. The rest is just oak woodlands. Looks like nature because it is nature.
What regulation? Be specific.
CloudFlare provides significant utility to me. I chose to use them. Explain why you think someone else needs to butt into this relationship.
reply