Blacks are convicted of crimes more often, certainly. Does that mean they're more violent, or that they get caught more? Or that they live in worse situations than whites?
It means that the first 10 times Johnny White gets caught stealing gum, he gets a warning by the shopkeeper, the next 5 times the shopkeeper calls the cops and he's taken home by the cops, then the 16th time, he's formally warned, having that be the first time there's any formal record of his misdeeds. Tyrone Brown gets charged the first time, and gets 10 years "to make an example of him".
That's why the conviction rate isn't a good statistic, the data shows that the entire system has biases.
No, it won't. The data indicates that Blacks offend less than Whites. When you correct for recidivism, Blacks are very law abiding. The problem is that innocent Blacks are convicted more than any other race, and once in the convicted group, recidivism becomes the dominating factor.
The data fed into the system has a race bias, so the output necessarily does as well. None of this is a surprise. Other than the indications sometimes that it's the AI programmer's bias, not the data's bias.
Anybody, anytime can just bluff any autonomous car and take the lane.
Technically assault with a deadly weapon, but only ever prosecuted when done against police. If that became a thing, they'd probably start enforcing the laws against it.
Automatics became more fuel efficient when they could engage lockup torque converters in every gear. Before that, you were always wasting too much energy heating up your transmission. the number of gears didn't have that much to do with it. Note, often when increasing the numbers of gears, economy goes down. There aren't any 3/4 choices out there anymore, but there were still some 5/6 choices I saw last I looked, and the 6 generally use more fuel than 5 gears (often because they are performance tuned, not that 6 is worse than 5).
CVT will always beat an "automatic" with gears too. Where's that on your list?
Automatics are good for towing. You don't have to slip the clutch to start out. You let the transmission "slip", the way an automatic is supposed to. It allows handling greater power and easier start from a stop.
The big trucks have manuals for cost reasons, not performance reasons. An automatic built to those specifications would be just fine, other than when there is a problem, it's harder to limp through the last delivery to get it back to the shop, and the bill at the shop once you get there.
You need to read history books not written in England. The Battle of Britain was not "won" by Britain. The Germans lost interest, and the night bombings continued long after the Britain "victory". Britain was saved by the Royal Navy/Air Force in so much as those were supplied by the US.
Yet the bombings continued after it was "won". Had the US not intervened more strongly, Hitler could have taken England. It just may have taken more time. The English held out long enough for the US to mass a counter-attack using it as a staging ground.
However this "you would be speaking German if not for us" nonsense is just as valid for America - America would be surrounded by a German/Japanese empire if it weren't for the UK and it's commonwealth members, the Free French, the free Poles, and the Soviet Union.
Had the US not intervened, there's no clear path to an Allied victory. Had the US not intervened, there's no clear path to a Nazi invasion of the US. Your opinion seems unsupported by fact. "surrounded by" is far from "invaded by".
Soviet-backed North Korean forces stormed into the South like Germany into Poland.
On paper, in the US and in Russia, Korea was a single country. It just had two governments who didn't agree on who was running it. Hard to compare an invasion by one recognized country to another recognized country to a unified country with internal struggles. Unification was one of the stated goals when the US sold North Korea to the Russians, without consent or negotiations with Korea.
They didn't support the Chinese Communists?
That's east, not west, and the "Chinese Communists" were supported by Russia because the Soviets were the only ones on the mainland fighting the Japanese. The US simply abandoned China to the Japanese in WWII. Chinese resistance won the land war, and when the Soviets went in to help mop up, the only ones fighting with them were the communists. It was the US that explicitly requested that of the USSR.
The US requested the treaty that "gave" Asia to the Soviets, then the US complained when their actions bit them, and blamed everyone but themselves. Korea was divided at the request of the US. China rebels (communists) were aided by the Soviets at the request of the US.
This is also entirely ignoring the pacific theater.
When you include that, Russia still did their part. Why do we have a divided Korea now? Because it was the Russians who pushed out the Japanese, and the Americans rushed in after, dividing Korea like Germany. Russia didn't fight the naval battles, but fought on the Pacific rim. One of the reasons China allied with Russia after is that the US abandoned the Pacific Theater, when it suited them. Oh sure, the Phillipines gets attention, a strong US supporter, but the US had no ground troops to spare for large-scale invasions, so ignored anything inland, like China.
Most of what Japan did in WWII was take parts of China, and take islands to help them hold China. The US history books portray a Japan bent on world-domination. Instead, Japan was bent on Chinese domination, with the battles elsewhere to help them hold it. The US gave some aid, when convenient, but didn't stage a ground war in Asia, like Russia did. The US policy of going for Tokyo looked to be abandoning China, and help set up the unfriendly attitude in the region for decades to come. And even helped the communists take China. If that were our goal, we couldn't have orchistrated it any better than we did.
Then after that threat finally ended, little shits like you come back here and say that we didn't do anything at all and that the "red scare" was really never actually threat, much like holocaust deniers.
Go McCarthy! You preach it. Black list them all!
The red scare was false. The USSR never planned a large scale invasion of the US. The USSR was interested in the US so far as not wanting to get invaded, or toppled with propaganda. The US showed its tolerance for democracy by invading Vietnam to block a democratic election, Eisenhower afraid of what the popular vote might elect. And the US started a civil war in Vietnam, with that act. But no, tell us how it was the USSR, backing the VC *after* the invasion by the US that started that war. I've heard that many times, but the dates don't agree with that scenario. The first US troops (called "non-combat" troops) landed under Eisenhower, before the first Soviet troops. And, obviously, the "non-combat" troops faced combat, and the first coffins came home under Eisenhower.
But, given your slant so far, I'm sure you'll set it up as the war that JFK started, and LBJ escalated, and Nixon ended. That's the Republican party line, even if it doesn't agree with reality. Eisenhower started it, and no other president wanted to be known as the president who lost a war to communism. If Nixon weren't being impeached, we'd still be there. But Watergate freed a president to "do the right thing", since political suicide had already happened, so losing a war wasn't a big deal. We'd already lost under Eisenhower. We just took a while to admit it.
The proofs against it proved most of the opinions stated as fact to be true. And there were others that found similar things. When bees die, they take with them many plants, and with them, the food for many animals.
Silent Spring, and other ecological works have posited that the destruction wrought will cascade. The Earth will continue to spin, but we could do something like kill off all large mammals, or something like that. It'd be nearly impossible to kill all the fish or insects, but we could give it a try. Maybe if we make grey goo, then we could wipe out everything and prevent anything from living ever again.
Depends on the local taxi company. Some could be worse than Uber. Maybe not all, but some would have to be, statistically speaking. Especially knowing that some Taxis are linked to mob operations.
On the one hand, sure, I can see how that's an advantage to you. One company. One app. Same UI everywhere.
If the cab companies weren't idiots, they'd make a single WTA (world taxi association) app. Though putting multiple taxis in the same area under the same app would cause problems. But if I can't get one UI for all, then the taxis will always be at a disadvantage, one of their own making.
I'd rather the local taxi driver / taxi company keep the money in the local economy.
They work really hard to keep me from giving them the money. They petition to stop transparent pricing. They refuse to form a unified app I can use across different companies/areas. And the times I call ahead to reserve a cab, they don't show at the appointed time. I try. They just don't want money.
Dealing with a shitty abusive company in exchange for a bit more convenience? I'm willing to make the effort not to.
Wait, which shitty abusive company are we talking about? The taxis that sue the government every time the government tries to increase the number of taxis on the road to match population growth?
Actually the local cab companies all have apps now, automatic dispatch systems, sms notifcations [SIC] when your cab is close etc.
Not where I've tried. And to use that, a frequent traveler would need hundreds of apps. Maybe a few do it in the top 3 cities, but in the medium size places, there are piles of Ubers, middle class folk trying to earn a few $$$ in their spare time, but no taxi apps.
The same taxi service that has a "broken credit card machine" and only accepts cash...
You've never walked away without paying? If the service advertises "takes credit cards" and you confirm that when ordering, when you offer to pay with a card, and they don't take it, it's no longer a "sale", it's a debt. "Bill me" and walk away. You tried to pay, they refused. Your ability to change payment methods doesn't change their consumer requirements.
The laws are the same as if a restaurant charged you $1M for a hamburger marked at $10 on the menu. They broke the law. You are now in their debt, and they can pursue that in a civil court, but it isn't theft of a service, and you aren't required to pay for it.
The same cab service that takes some obscure routes to bill you more if they detect you're from out of town?
They don't do that anymore. It's too well known. And too many non-locals know the routes. Many follow the route on their GPS, if they can't see the cab's GPS.
AKMLS. I've never worked with Zillow. I'm trying to see where they get their data from. I've heard people here assert that they are scraping "public" sites, in contravention of the Terms of Use. While others are saying that Zillow has permission. Zillow indicates it uses "public records", and there are lots of entries in Zillow that are obviously court records (foreclosures and the like), as well as wording that matches MLS wording, but not the wording used on the agent's public listing (i.e., the wording matches the MLS, but not the Re/Max or Century 21 listing wording).
I'm asking how, and you are more focused on my credentials to ask that question.
Either it came from the MLS, or the person that listed it with MLS, also listed it with Zillow...
... or Zillow scraped it from the site of a Realtor or brokerage who pays for the privilege of displaying the data publicly.
So the realtor pays to list with secret MLS. Then the realtor pays to list it on a public MLS-like service. Then Zillow, without permission, scrapes the public site and sells it? Or the agent pays Zillow to list it?
The estimates are the one thing I see everyone going nuts over, but they seem like nothing, compared to the other data given.
A real estimate is both trivial and impossible. The neighborhood numbers are good, as they are real records from real listings/sales, and consistent across time, for properties compared. But yes, you'll never get a good estimate from data. That's why bids come with inspections and the like. The value is not knowable even for the agents in the area. It's all a guess based on comperables.
I know Zillow doesn't: most MLS providers won't offer that data to anyone other than a licensed and practicing Realtor or brokerage.
I just checked the MLS and Zillow for a house (more than one, but they were all the same result), and Zillow uses the same wording as the MLS. Either it came from the MLS, or the person that listed it with MLS, also listed it with Zillow. How would you explain that?
Slashdot Mirror
Blacks are convicted of crimes more often, certainly. Does that mean they're more violent, or that they get caught more? Or that they live in worse situations than whites?
It means that the first 10 times Johnny White gets caught stealing gum, he gets a warning by the shopkeeper, the next 5 times the shopkeeper calls the cops and he's taken home by the cops, then the 16th time, he's formally warned, having that be the first time there's any formal record of his misdeeds. Tyrone Brown gets charged the first time, and gets 10 years "to make an example of him".
That's why the conviction rate isn't a good statistic, the data shows that the entire system has biases.
This will likely lead to more crimes,
No, it won't. The data indicates that Blacks offend less than Whites. When you correct for recidivism, Blacks are very law abiding. The problem is that innocent Blacks are convicted more than any other race, and once in the convicted group, recidivism becomes the dominating factor.
The data fed into the system has a race bias, so the output necessarily does as well. None of this is a surprise. Other than the indications sometimes that it's the AI programmer's bias, not the data's bias.
Anybody, anytime can just bluff any autonomous car and take the lane.
Technically assault with a deadly weapon, but only ever prosecuted when done against police. If that became a thing, they'd probably start enforcing the laws against it.
Automatics became more fuel efficient when they could engage lockup torque converters in every gear. Before that, you were always wasting too much energy heating up your transmission. the number of gears didn't have that much to do with it. Note, often when increasing the numbers of gears, economy goes down. There aren't any 3/4 choices out there anymore, but there were still some 5/6 choices I saw last I looked, and the 6 generally use more fuel than 5 gears (often because they are performance tuned, not that 6 is worse than 5).
CVT will always beat an "automatic" with gears too. Where's that on your list?
Automatics are good for towing. You don't have to slip the clutch to start out. You let the transmission "slip", the way an automatic is supposed to. It allows handling greater power and easier start from a stop.
The big trucks have manuals for cost reasons, not performance reasons. An automatic built to those specifications would be just fine, other than when there is a problem, it's harder to limp through the last delivery to get it back to the shop, and the bill at the shop once you get there.
You need to read history books not written in England. The Battle of Britain was not "won" by Britain. The Germans lost interest, and the night bombings continued long after the Britain "victory". Britain was saved by the Royal Navy/Air Force in so much as those were supplied by the US.
The Battle of Britain was won in 1940
Yet the bombings continued after it was "won". Had the US not intervened more strongly, Hitler could have taken England. It just may have taken more time. The English held out long enough for the US to mass a counter-attack using it as a staging ground.
However this "you would be speaking German if not for us" nonsense is just as valid for America - America would be surrounded by a German/Japanese empire if it weren't for the UK and it's commonwealth members, the Free French, the free Poles, and the Soviet Union.
Had the US not intervened, there's no clear path to an Allied victory. Had the US not intervened, there's no clear path to a Nazi invasion of the US. Your opinion seems unsupported by fact. "surrounded by" is far from "invaded by".
Soviet-backed North Korean forces stormed into the South like Germany into Poland.
On paper, in the US and in Russia, Korea was a single country. It just had two governments who didn't agree on who was running it. Hard to compare an invasion by one recognized country to another recognized country to a unified country with internal struggles. Unification was one of the stated goals when the US sold North Korea to the Russians, without consent or negotiations with Korea.
They didn't support the Chinese Communists?
That's east, not west, and the "Chinese Communists" were supported by Russia because the Soviets were the only ones on the mainland fighting the Japanese. The US simply abandoned China to the Japanese in WWII. Chinese resistance won the land war, and when the Soviets went in to help mop up, the only ones fighting with them were the communists. It was the US that explicitly requested that of the USSR.
The US requested the treaty that "gave" Asia to the Soviets, then the US complained when their actions bit them, and blamed everyone but themselves. Korea was divided at the request of the US. China rebels (communists) were aided by the Soviets at the request of the US.
That's not a sign of Soviet aggression.
This is also entirely ignoring the pacific theater.
When you include that, Russia still did their part. Why do we have a divided Korea now? Because it was the Russians who pushed out the Japanese, and the Americans rushed in after, dividing Korea like Germany. Russia didn't fight the naval battles, but fought on the Pacific rim. One of the reasons China allied with Russia after is that the US abandoned the Pacific Theater, when it suited them. Oh sure, the Phillipines gets attention, a strong US supporter, but the US had no ground troops to spare for large-scale invasions, so ignored anything inland, like China.
Most of what Japan did in WWII was take parts of China, and take islands to help them hold China. The US history books portray a Japan bent on world-domination. Instead, Japan was bent on Chinese domination, with the battles elsewhere to help them hold it. The US gave some aid, when convenient, but didn't stage a ground war in Asia, like Russia did. The US policy of going for Tokyo looked to be abandoning China, and help set up the unfriendly attitude in the region for decades to come. And even helped the communists take China. If that were our goal, we couldn't have orchistrated it any better than we did.
Then after that threat finally ended, little shits like you come back here and say that we didn't do anything at all and that the "red scare" was really never actually threat, much like holocaust deniers.
Go McCarthy! You preach it. Black list them all!
The red scare was false. The USSR never planned a large scale invasion of the US. The USSR was interested in the US so far as not wanting to get invaded, or toppled with propaganda. The US showed its tolerance for democracy by invading Vietnam to block a democratic election, Eisenhower afraid of what the popular vote might elect. And the US started a civil war in Vietnam, with that act. But no, tell us how it was the USSR, backing the VC *after* the invasion by the US that started that war. I've heard that many times, but the dates don't agree with that scenario. The first US troops (called "non-combat" troops) landed under Eisenhower, before the first Soviet troops. And, obviously, the "non-combat" troops faced combat, and the first coffins came home under Eisenhower.
But, given your slant so far, I'm sure you'll set it up as the war that JFK started, and LBJ escalated, and Nixon ended. That's the Republican party line, even if it doesn't agree with reality. Eisenhower started it, and no other president wanted to be known as the president who lost a war to communism. If Nixon weren't being impeached, we'd still be there. But Watergate freed a president to "do the right thing", since political suicide had already happened, so losing a war wasn't a big deal. We'd already lost under Eisenhower. We just took a while to admit it.
The proofs against it proved most of the opinions stated as fact to be true. And there were others that found similar things. When bees die, they take with them many plants, and with them, the food for many animals.
Silent Spring, and other ecological works have posited that the destruction wrought will cascade. The Earth will continue to spin, but we could do something like kill off all large mammals, or something like that. It'd be nearly impossible to kill all the fish or insects, but we could give it a try. Maybe if we make grey goo, then we could wipe out everything and prevent anything from living ever again.
Depends on the local taxi company. Some could be worse than Uber. Maybe not all, but some would have to be, statistically speaking. Especially knowing that some Taxis are linked to mob operations.
White drug abuse is a "habit" or a "health issue". Minority drug abuse is a "criminal problem".
On the one hand, sure, I can see how that's an advantage to you. One company. One app. Same UI everywhere.
If the cab companies weren't idiots, they'd make a single WTA (world taxi association) app. Though putting multiple taxis in the same area under the same app would cause problems. But if I can't get one UI for all, then the taxis will always be at a disadvantage, one of their own making.
I'd rather the local taxi driver / taxi company keep the money in the local economy.
They work really hard to keep me from giving them the money. They petition to stop transparent pricing. They refuse to form a unified app I can use across different companies/areas. And the times I call ahead to reserve a cab, they don't show at the appointed time. I try. They just don't want money.
Dealing with a shitty abusive company in exchange for a bit more convenience? I'm willing to make the effort not to.
Wait, which shitty abusive company are we talking about? The taxis that sue the government every time the government tries to increase the number of taxis on the road to match population growth?
Yeah, the reasonable law would be to raise the smoking age 1 year every year, no new smokers.
Actually the local cab companies all have apps now, automatic dispatch systems, sms notifcations [SIC] when your cab is close etc.
Not where I've tried. And to use that, a frequent traveler would need hundreds of apps. Maybe a few do it in the top 3 cities, but in the medium size places, there are piles of Ubers, middle class folk trying to earn a few $$$ in their spare time, but no taxi apps.
The same taxi service that has a "broken credit card machine" and only accepts cash...
You've never walked away without paying? If the service advertises "takes credit cards" and you confirm that when ordering, when you offer to pay with a card, and they don't take it, it's no longer a "sale", it's a debt. "Bill me" and walk away. You tried to pay, they refused. Your ability to change payment methods doesn't change their consumer requirements.
The laws are the same as if a restaurant charged you $1M for a hamburger marked at $10 on the menu. They broke the law. You are now in their debt, and they can pursue that in a civil court, but it isn't theft of a service, and you aren't required to pay for it.
The same cab service that takes some obscure routes to bill you more if they detect you're from out of town?
They don't do that anymore. It's too well known. And too many non-locals know the routes. Many follow the route on their GPS, if they can't see the cab's GPS.
Not usually, but more often than Ubers do.
Favorite Taxi is like favorite cancer. Sure, one may be preferable over another, but neither is desired.
AKMLS. I've never worked with Zillow. I'm trying to see where they get their data from. I've heard people here assert that they are scraping "public" sites, in contravention of the Terms of Use. While others are saying that Zillow has permission. Zillow indicates it uses "public records", and there are lots of entries in Zillow that are obviously court records (foreclosures and the like), as well as wording that matches MLS wording, but not the wording used on the agent's public listing (i.e., the wording matches the MLS, but not the Re/Max or Century 21 listing wording).
I'm asking how, and you are more focused on my credentials to ask that question.
"They nearly did [take over the US]" - Hobnoxious.
400 ships sunk isn't an invasion, and he did talk about taking over.
Either it came from the MLS, or the person that listed it with MLS, also listed it with Zillow...
... or Zillow scraped it from the site of a Realtor or brokerage who pays for the privilege of displaying the data publicly.
So the realtor pays to list with secret MLS. Then the realtor pays to list it on a public MLS-like service. Then Zillow, without permission, scrapes the public site and sells it? Or the agent pays Zillow to list it?
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
A real estimate is both trivial and impossible. The neighborhood numbers are good, as they are real records from real listings/sales, and consistent across time, for properties compared. But yes, you'll never get a good estimate from data. That's why bids come with inspections and the like. The value is not knowable even for the agents in the area. It's all a guess based on comperables.
I know Zillow doesn't: most MLS providers won't offer that data to anyone other than a licensed and practicing Realtor or brokerage.
I just checked the MLS and Zillow for a house (more than one, but they were all the same result), and Zillow uses the same wording as the MLS. Either it came from the MLS, or the person that listed it with MLS, also listed it with Zillow. How would you explain that?