Just a little reminder that there are plenty of missiles out there that are NOT nukes. And a lot of them aren't nearly as destructive as a Falcon Heavy going boom right over your house. Here's hoping they have a good flight.
Every publicly traded company is required by law to publish an annual report. Their entire financial picture is there for you to peruse at your leisure. You have to go them if you're not a shareholder. Shareholders can have them sent to them electronically or in print, automatically, every year, with no further fuss. You can't not know this.
I implied ( although admittedly did not outright stated ) any large company that can't figure out weather or not they are able to make a profit on a given product isn't going to be in business long.
Which, again, suggests that you really don't understand any of this at all. Of COURSE they, especially pharmaceutical companies, don't and cannot know if a given area of research is going to be a winner or a multi-billion-dollar loss. They can't know that. It's the very nature of that line of work. And it's why they have to be involved in many, many such projects at any given time, and make very solid profits on those that can make it through the very long, incredibly expensive process of getting something tested and actually useful and suitable for human use. This can take years, sometimes decades per product, and most - the vast majority - are failures and lose huge amounts of money.
And yet those companies ARE still in business, because they are rational and charge necessarily high prices on their few successes, to make up for their enormous overhead, which is weighed down by the huge R&D costs. These are almost all publicly traded companies. You're making sound like we have to speculate and guess about this stuff. It's all out in the open! There's no need for "it's entirely possible" type speculation on your part.
I know the typical objection is ( but what about all the failed products they also research , but there is no reason you can't build that into the cost by make cost of research = total research cost / successful number of products to get an average cost for research across the company.
So, you save for your last badly written sentence a suggestion that the companies look at their entire body of costs, revenue, opportunity costs, losses, overhead, future prospects, number of prospective users, and then take that all into account when figuring out what a very advanced procedure for a tiny number of patients actually costs if they want to stay in business and continue to invest in more R&D and the billions of dollars they have to spend in government compliance costs. Which is exactly what they do. Stop contradicting yourself.
The fact that you're thinking a 200% return on money invested in a given project - in the context of a huge company spending front-loaded billions on projects that frequently go nowhere except in to pure losses - is somehow "not fair" tells me that you've never, ever actually run a business. Probably not even mowed lawns for pocket money. Because your outlook on this is absurd. If you think we'd be better off with a centrally controlled economy where a government bureaucrat decides if your personal paycheck or your company's week-to-week profits and losses look "fair," then I encourage you to use only the advanced medical technologies produced in places where the government tells people what they're allowed to make on long-range investments in new technologies. Perhaps you'd like it in Cuba, or Venezuela, or North Korea. They have MUCH better gene therapy programs for a tiny number of blind people. You'd love it, because people don't get to keep their "unfair" earnings, which of course inspires people to really invest in more long term projects.
Please don't endanger other people by recklessly doing things like voting. You're not up to it.
The best answer is always more government. Perhaps something like the Fairness Doctrine, so that panels of government appointees can wield power over the exact weight that each opinion and story is given. The US would be a much better place if there were only a ministry of truth, and black masked volunteer Antifa enforcers with baseball bats to clarify the right way for young people to think, or else. We'd be so much happier if only those people we don't like were silenced. If only someone with government power could tell us which people should be allowed to speak or gather on state-run college campuses, we'd be so much more free.
The Chinese are so wise. We should follow their example, as so many forward-thinking college administrators are now doing.
As for majority rule hitting the brick wall due to an ignorant and antipathic majority, well, that's something that needs fixing pronto. We still haven't reached the bottom of that trench yet.
Well, at least you're recognizing that the electoral college's role in 2016 was a vital one.
I wouldn't want Microsoft, or any other software giant for that matter, near my government.
So, you want the millions of people who work in government to use only software and systems created and maintained by small mom-and-pop companies and fad-driven groups of drive-by open source hobbyists? No, you can't run the military with LibreOffice spreadsheets.
Yeah, well, know your neighbor. Look, if it's such a big deal, you should finish the job you started. Your half assed methods are what put us where we are today.
More intellectually empty, craven, cop-out crap. How embarrassing for you. But consistent, anyway.
Which of my half assed methods are you referring to, by the way? As usual, you're quick with the lazy ad hominem and ever so very careful to never mention a single concrete thing. Because you know you're being a gaseous hypocrite, as usual, and can never muster the energy to even badly attempt to back up your arm-waving histrionics. So, be specific. Which of my methods are you describing?
I like how you substitute "liberals" for general will of the American people.
We're talking about FDR and his cabinet, here. The very height of liberal politics. And I choose that word carefully because the sort of moral relativism on display in that shameful turn of events plugs in nicely with today's liberal politics, where Democrats, for example, insist that we treat the governments of cultures that throw gay people off of rooftops as moral equals because to call them what they are - when they happen to be predominantly from some other cultural heritage and statistically perhaps even a different shade of skin tone - would be racist. That sort of agonizingly muddled thinking on display today has its roots deep within the progressive politics hatched early in the 20th century. I do find your attempt to call someone pointing that out a revisionist to be hilarious, though. Thanks for humor this afternoon!
You're even taking an event where the US literally helped out Britain's war effort and trying to posit it as proof that the US did not help them.
No, you're taking an occasion when the US president signed an act preventing us from helping them, and then went to considerable lengths to avoid delivering to them manufactured items they needed for their defense, and only grudgingly allowed them to drag it literally with horses across the border into Canada to cravenly avoid being seen being making a moral distinction between the British and the Nazis... as somehow "literally helping" Britain. It was pure obstructionism, which you're somehow getting exactly backwards. And you're complaining about what other people say?
Maybe look at the fact that the Brits were in fact building up their military because they werent the complete and utter idiots you seem to want to make them out to be.
You don't even have the basic facts right. They were (lamely) trying to build up, but didn't really do it in earnest until Churchill smacked some sense into everyone. The Brits did, of course, place an order with the US for some much needed fighter aircraft. And FDR, anxious not to upset the Germans but even more anxious to not upset his fellow liberals, refused to ship the fighters to the UK. He did eventually tell Churchill - who was desperately pleading for the goods the British people bought - that perhaps, if he kept it quiet, they could leave the fighters on the road near the Canadian border, and the Brits could hire some local Canadians with horses (FDR said using trucks would be too provocative) to haul them across the Canadian border on the down-low, so that nobody would notice liberals helping out the Brits in the war effort by giving them what they paid for. Meanwhile, Nazis were slaughtering people by the thousands every day. It was yet another display of classic liberal moral relativism - we wouldn't want to be seen as judging the Nazis as being somehow bad, compared to, say, the people of Britain or France or Belgium. That would be too judgy.
How about citing where I said any of the fighting-a-strawman crap you're talking about in order to deflect from being called out on your absurd fantasy about liberal politicians staying out of the war for "inventory" purposes?
In fact, historically and globally
Ah, so you're going to go "historical" in order to avoid discussing the recent history we're actually talking about, and the current situation that is an uninterrupted offshoot of it? No, if you're going "historical," then you're STILL wrong. Who has "Europe" been hostile to? Your understanding of geography, borders, nation-states, cultures, and basic history is astonishingly juvenile. Which fantasy alternate history are you currently cosplaying in, that has "Europe" being the aggressor? Or are you one of those people that thinks, say, Spain is a city in the country of Europe? No, they didn't name Flanders after Ned Flanders. There's all sorts of actual information you can look up, for free, that will help you to understand that the whole notion of some entity called Europe that could march out and start a war with someone else is only found in your fevered imagination. Want some real history? Since you're still very carefully avoiding the topic you so childishly threw out there and are going "historical," now - perhaps read up on one G. Khan. Whatever you think "Europe" did as an aggressor is a joke compared to him. Your cherry-picking and fabrication isn't helping whatever laughable point you're trying to make.
Russia isn't the problem
Had a beer with any Ukrainians lately? I have. Know any Romanians? I do. You're coming across like quite the little Putin shill, here, pining away for the good old days when the USSR was spreading love and happiness and millions of deaths around.
You're saying that you can't understand why we would want to push back against Russian incursions into neighboring countries, or North Korea's cancerous behavior. If you can't muster the intellectual honesty to answer that question yourself, consider at least trotting out some less laughable assertions and phony rhetorical questions, since you're just embarrassing yourself.
Ah, the immediate relapse into ad hominem, carefully avoiding the reality of the situation as usual. Careful! Don't notice any facts! Then you'd have to address them. Which you didn't because that would mean acknowledging the circumstances that you were pretending to be too ignorant to get. Your phony questioning of why we have forces near places like North Korea and Russia was silly enough, but maybe you could at least pretend to address the points made? But no, instead of troubling yourself to read the words expressed by liberal heroes like FDR, you're going to stick with your "he was just working on his inventory before helping with the Nazis" alternate history. Hilarious.
Or they may ave been waiting until there was sufficient inventory to fight a war, instead of just jumping right in.
Or, you could just listen to the people who explained - at the time - why they didn't want to get involved. Because they explained their thinking for contemporary consumption and for posterity. You're part of posterity, but you're wishing away reality because it's uncomfortable realizing that hindsight is better than politically skewed contemporary processing of information, and you're wishing that the liberal establishment at the time would have been wiser about where Hitler was headed.
Besides, it wasn't too late, we won
Ah, so it doesn't matter how many millions of people die in the process. Gotcha. And you're not worried about (or even aware of?) the fact that much of what we fought against never went away.
I do have to ask, why are we still there?
That you don't understand that demonstrates how ignorant you are of what we were and are up against. Let me guess, you were also one of the people mocking Mitt Romney for mentioning Russia as one of the prominent threats to a peaceful world. Up until Hillary Clinton told you to blame them for her loss, at which point Russians are suddenly the bad guys again. They never stopped being the bad guys, and that's why we're still there. Can't believe you need that explained to you.
I thought when you win a war, you go home back to the farm
And if you haven't won, because totalitarians armed with nukes and huge armies are still standing there looking at you and marching into places like Ukraine, then no, you haven't won. At no point after defeating Nazi Germany, did any rational person consider matters "won." Convenient, fleeting cooperation with the Soviets in defeating a mutual enemy gave way - as it must - to an immediate tension between our vision of a free and democratic world and their vision, of a socialist prison empire looking to take over the world. They, as socialists always do, ran out of other people's money, and slid into more traditional totalitarian thuggery while their older ideological offspring around the world are still limping along, killing people who try to leave their little paradises. We're still in places like Asia and Europe because despite your completely wrong understanding of reality, there are still people that need staring down and others (including ourselves) that need defending from them.
corporations had no problem doing business with Hitler
Because, in most cases, they saw things exactly as the British prime minister did. How bad could this guy REALLY be, after all? Or, they were businesses that literally had no choice because if they didn't play ball they were destroyed, and the company's assets and reigns handed to someone else. But for companies outside of Germany, don't underestimate the Chamberlain effect. Or the sort of blithe dismissal of Nazi evilness exhibited by Democrats like FDR until it was much too late.
But it's how first responders HAVE to work. Not, "Say, how about Bob drives across town first to see if that phoned-in kitchen grease fire is real before we roll a bunch of trucks all the way over there." Rather, the presumption that what's been called in is real, as described, until more information is gathered. Because if they started operating out of doubt instead, you'd be the first person to blame them for that, too. Because your main agenda here is your condescending vilifying of the very people who've sworn to try to save your life if they can. Because you think they're just blue-collar rubes doing something less difficult that window washing, and you have contempt for their low-brow career choice.
Critical thinking skills start (or fail) long before then. Sure, some of that can be taught later. But getting the foundational how-to-think pieces in place starts (or fails) long, long before that. This is parent stuff first, and is somewhat dulled or honed later on by school teachers. Specific awareness of how to use, say, Google and a fistful of less-bad fact checking resources to tell a kid when they're being lied to is sort of like learning lab techniques. But an embrace of activity in a lab class only comes in kids that have already had their curiosity and some intellectual rigor stoked at home, well before that class happens.
And how would you react if someone in your family was killed by a crazy neighbor holding them hostage because the dispatcher thought, "Nah, he sounds a little inconsistent about his description of the neighbor's home structure where he claims he just killed someone... no need to send SWAT. Maybe we'll send a patrol car around between other calls."
Have you ever, personally, talked to anyone as unhinged as most people would be having just killed their father and taken steps to prepare to burn the rest of his family alive? No? They're rarely rational enough to calmly relate much about their environment. They'll get simple stuff wrong. Stress does that. Dispatchers are used to getting completely self-contradictory stuff from callers in one breath. It's normal. And it doesn't mean the call is otherwise baseless.
I'm thinking that pretty much nobody who's suddenly felt hipper-than-thou using the phrase "dumpster fire" has ever sat around a campfire, let alone seen an actual dumpster on fire.
The information provided to the police ARE the facts until more information is available. You believe in magic, so of course you're a little fuzzy on this. Perhaps you should lecture the family of the dead Colorado sheriff killed today when responding to yet another domestic scene, and his several wounded colleagues. Because I'm sure they'd like to hear from you about how dumb they all are, and how they really aren't doing anything harder than window washing.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a little reminder that there are plenty of missiles out there that are NOT nukes. And a lot of them aren't nearly as destructive as a Falcon Heavy going boom right over your house. Here's hoping they have a good flight.
Don't we also call this a missile? I think I actually like the idea of the Air Force guy with the destruct button better.
And you know all of this for sure, how? Trump told you?
No, he got it from Hillary Clinton. She's the server expert.
Every publicly traded company is required by law to publish an annual report. Their entire financial picture is there for you to peruse at your leisure. You have to go them if you're not a shareholder. Shareholders can have them sent to them electronically or in print, automatically, every year, with no further fuss. You can't not know this.
I implied ( although admittedly did not outright stated ) any large company that can't figure out weather or not they are able to make a profit on a given product isn't going to be in business long.
Which, again, suggests that you really don't understand any of this at all. Of COURSE they, especially pharmaceutical companies, don't and cannot know if a given area of research is going to be a winner or a multi-billion-dollar loss. They can't know that. It's the very nature of that line of work. And it's why they have to be involved in many, many such projects at any given time, and make very solid profits on those that can make it through the very long, incredibly expensive process of getting something tested and actually useful and suitable for human use. This can take years, sometimes decades per product, and most - the vast majority - are failures and lose huge amounts of money.
And yet those companies ARE still in business, because they are rational and charge necessarily high prices on their few successes, to make up for their enormous overhead, which is weighed down by the huge R&D costs. These are almost all publicly traded companies. You're making sound like we have to speculate and guess about this stuff. It's all out in the open! There's no need for "it's entirely possible" type speculation on your part.
I know the typical objection is ( but what about all the failed products they also research , but there is no reason you can't build that into the cost by make cost of research = total research cost / successful number of products to get an average cost for research across the company.
So, you save for your last badly written sentence a suggestion that the companies look at their entire body of costs, revenue, opportunity costs, losses, overhead, future prospects, number of prospective users, and then take that all into account when figuring out what a very advanced procedure for a tiny number of patients actually costs if they want to stay in business and continue to invest in more R&D and the billions of dollars they have to spend in government compliance costs. Which is exactly what they do. Stop contradicting yourself.
The fact that you're thinking a 200% return on money invested in a given project - in the context of a huge company spending front-loaded billions on projects that frequently go nowhere except in to pure losses - is somehow "not fair" tells me that you've never, ever actually run a business. Probably not even mowed lawns for pocket money. Because your outlook on this is absurd. If you think we'd be better off with a centrally controlled economy where a government bureaucrat decides if your personal paycheck or your company's week-to-week profits and losses look "fair," then I encourage you to use only the advanced medical technologies produced in places where the government tells people what they're allowed to make on long-range investments in new technologies. Perhaps you'd like it in Cuba, or Venezuela, or North Korea. They have MUCH better gene therapy programs for a tiny number of blind people. You'd love it, because people don't get to keep their "unfair" earnings, which of course inspires people to really invest in more long term projects.
Please don't endanger other people by recklessly doing things like voting. You're not up to it.
The best answer is always more government. Perhaps something like the Fairness Doctrine, so that panels of government appointees can wield power over the exact weight that each opinion and story is given. The US would be a much better place if there were only a ministry of truth, and black masked volunteer Antifa enforcers with baseball bats to clarify the right way for young people to think, or else. We'd be so much happier if only those people we don't like were silenced. If only someone with government power could tell us which people should be allowed to speak or gather on state-run college campuses, we'd be so much more free.
The Chinese are so wise. We should follow their example, as so many forward-thinking college administrators are now doing.
As for majority rule hitting the brick wall due to an ignorant and antipathic majority, well, that's something that needs fixing pronto. We still haven't reached the bottom of that trench yet.
Well, at least you're recognizing that the electoral college's role in 2016 was a vital one.
I wouldn't want Microsoft, or any other software giant for that matter, near my government.
So, you want the millions of people who work in government to use only software and systems created and maintained by small mom-and-pop companies and fad-driven groups of drive-by open source hobbyists? No, you can't run the military with LibreOffice spreadsheets.
Which is exactly why people who think that handful of very large carriers didn't like NN rules have it exactly backwards.
Yeah, well, know your neighbor. Look, if it's such a big deal, you should finish the job you started. Your half assed methods are what put us where we are today.
More intellectually empty, craven, cop-out crap. How embarrassing for you. But consistent, anyway.
Which of my half assed methods are you referring to, by the way? As usual, you're quick with the lazy ad hominem and ever so very careful to never mention a single concrete thing. Because you know you're being a gaseous hypocrite, as usual, and can never muster the energy to even badly attempt to back up your arm-waving histrionics. So, be specific. Which of my methods are you describing?
I like how you substitute "liberals" for general will of the American people.
We're talking about FDR and his cabinet, here. The very height of liberal politics. And I choose that word carefully because the sort of moral relativism on display in that shameful turn of events plugs in nicely with today's liberal politics, where Democrats, for example, insist that we treat the governments of cultures that throw gay people off of rooftops as moral equals because to call them what they are - when they happen to be predominantly from some other cultural heritage and statistically perhaps even a different shade of skin tone - would be racist. That sort of agonizingly muddled thinking on display today has its roots deep within the progressive politics hatched early in the 20th century. I do find your attempt to call someone pointing that out a revisionist to be hilarious, though. Thanks for humor this afternoon!
You're even taking an event where the US literally helped out Britain's war effort and trying to posit it as proof that the US did not help them.
No, you're taking an occasion when the US president signed an act preventing us from helping them, and then went to considerable lengths to avoid delivering to them manufactured items they needed for their defense, and only grudgingly allowed them to drag it literally with horses across the border into Canada to cravenly avoid being seen being making a moral distinction between the British and the Nazis ... as somehow "literally helping" Britain. It was pure obstructionism, which you're somehow getting exactly backwards. And you're complaining about what other people say?
No, just suggested that the call doesn't have any credence if the caller doesn't seem to know some things the dispatcher is asking.
Maybe look at the fact that the Brits were in fact building up their military because they werent the complete and utter idiots you seem to want to make them out to be.
You don't even have the basic facts right. They were (lamely) trying to build up, but didn't really do it in earnest until Churchill smacked some sense into everyone. The Brits did, of course, place an order with the US for some much needed fighter aircraft. And FDR, anxious not to upset the Germans but even more anxious to not upset his fellow liberals, refused to ship the fighters to the UK. He did eventually tell Churchill - who was desperately pleading for the goods the British people bought - that perhaps, if he kept it quiet, they could leave the fighters on the road near the Canadian border, and the Brits could hire some local Canadians with horses (FDR said using trucks would be too provocative) to haul them across the Canadian border on the down-low, so that nobody would notice liberals helping out the Brits in the war effort by giving them what they paid for. Meanwhile, Nazis were slaughtering people by the thousands every day. It was yet another display of classic liberal moral relativism - we wouldn't want to be seen as judging the Nazis as being somehow bad, compared to, say, the people of Britain or France or Belgium. That would be too judgy.
In fact, historically and globally
Ah, so you're going to go "historical" in order to avoid discussing the recent history we're actually talking about, and the current situation that is an uninterrupted offshoot of it? No, if you're going "historical," then you're STILL wrong. Who has "Europe" been hostile to? Your understanding of geography, borders, nation-states, cultures, and basic history is astonishingly juvenile. Which fantasy alternate history are you currently cosplaying in, that has "Europe" being the aggressor? Or are you one of those people that thinks, say, Spain is a city in the country of Europe? No, they didn't name Flanders after Ned Flanders. There's all sorts of actual information you can look up, for free, that will help you to understand that the whole notion of some entity called Europe that could march out and start a war with someone else is only found in your fevered imagination. Want some real history? Since you're still very carefully avoiding the topic you so childishly threw out there and are going "historical," now - perhaps read up on one G. Khan. Whatever you think "Europe" did as an aggressor is a joke compared to him. Your cherry-picking and fabrication isn't helping whatever laughable point you're trying to make.
Russia isn't the problem
Had a beer with any Ukrainians lately? I have. Know any Romanians? I do. You're coming across like quite the little Putin shill, here, pining away for the good old days when the USSR was spreading love and happiness and millions of deaths around.
You're saying that you can't understand why we would want to push back against Russian incursions into neighboring countries, or North Korea's cancerous behavior. If you can't muster the intellectual honesty to answer that question yourself, consider at least trotting out some less laughable assertions and phony rhetorical questions, since you're just embarrassing yourself.
Ah, the immediate relapse into ad hominem, carefully avoiding the reality of the situation as usual. Careful! Don't notice any facts! Then you'd have to address them. Which you didn't because that would mean acknowledging the circumstances that you were pretending to be too ignorant to get. Your phony questioning of why we have forces near places like North Korea and Russia was silly enough, but maybe you could at least pretend to address the points made? But no, instead of troubling yourself to read the words expressed by liberal heroes like FDR, you're going to stick with your "he was just working on his inventory before helping with the Nazis" alternate history. Hilarious.
Or they may ave been waiting until there was sufficient inventory to fight a war, instead of just jumping right in.
Or, you could just listen to the people who explained - at the time - why they didn't want to get involved. Because they explained their thinking for contemporary consumption and for posterity. You're part of posterity, but you're wishing away reality because it's uncomfortable realizing that hindsight is better than politically skewed contemporary processing of information, and you're wishing that the liberal establishment at the time would have been wiser about where Hitler was headed.
Besides, it wasn't too late, we won
Ah, so it doesn't matter how many millions of people die in the process. Gotcha. And you're not worried about (or even aware of?) the fact that much of what we fought against never went away.
I do have to ask, why are we still there?
That you don't understand that demonstrates how ignorant you are of what we were and are up against. Let me guess, you were also one of the people mocking Mitt Romney for mentioning Russia as one of the prominent threats to a peaceful world. Up until Hillary Clinton told you to blame them for her loss, at which point Russians are suddenly the bad guys again. They never stopped being the bad guys, and that's why we're still there. Can't believe you need that explained to you.
I thought when you win a war, you go home back to the farm
And if you haven't won, because totalitarians armed with nukes and huge armies are still standing there looking at you and marching into places like Ukraine, then no, you haven't won. At no point after defeating Nazi Germany, did any rational person consider matters "won." Convenient, fleeting cooperation with the Soviets in defeating a mutual enemy gave way - as it must - to an immediate tension between our vision of a free and democratic world and their vision, of a socialist prison empire looking to take over the world. They, as socialists always do, ran out of other people's money, and slid into more traditional totalitarian thuggery while their older ideological offspring around the world are still limping along, killing people who try to leave their little paradises. We're still in places like Asia and Europe because despite your completely wrong understanding of reality, there are still people that need staring down and others (including ourselves) that need defending from them.
corporations had no problem doing business with Hitler
Because, in most cases, they saw things exactly as the British prime minister did. How bad could this guy REALLY be, after all? Or, they were businesses that literally had no choice because if they didn't play ball they were destroyed, and the company's assets and reigns handed to someone else. But for companies outside of Germany, don't underestimate the Chamberlain effect. Or the sort of blithe dismissal of Nazi evilness exhibited by Democrats like FDR until it was much too late.
That is not how facts work
But it's how first responders HAVE to work. Not, "Say, how about Bob drives across town first to see if that phoned-in kitchen grease fire is real before we roll a bunch of trucks all the way over there." Rather, the presumption that what's been called in is real, as described, until more information is gathered. Because if they started operating out of doubt instead, you'd be the first person to blame them for that, too. Because your main agenda here is your condescending vilifying of the very people who've sworn to try to save your life if they can. Because you think they're just blue-collar rubes doing something less difficult that window washing, and you have contempt for their low-brow career choice.
Teaching this in school? Too late.
Critical thinking skills start (or fail) long before then. Sure, some of that can be taught later. But getting the foundational how-to-think pieces in place starts (or fails) long, long before that. This is parent stuff first, and is somewhat dulled or honed later on by school teachers. Specific awareness of how to use, say, Google and a fistful of less-bad fact checking resources to tell a kid when they're being lied to is sort of like learning lab techniques. But an embrace of activity in a lab class only comes in kids that have already had their curiosity and some intellectual rigor stoked at home, well before that class happens.
And how would you react if someone in your family was killed by a crazy neighbor holding them hostage because the dispatcher thought, "Nah, he sounds a little inconsistent about his description of the neighbor's home structure where he claims he just killed someone ... no need to send SWAT. Maybe we'll send a patrol car around between other calls."
Have you ever, personally, talked to anyone as unhinged as most people would be having just killed their father and taken steps to prepare to burn the rest of his family alive? No? They're rarely rational enough to calmly relate much about their environment. They'll get simple stuff wrong. Stress does that. Dispatchers are used to getting completely self-contradictory stuff from callers in one breath. It's normal. And it doesn't mean the call is otherwise baseless.
I'm thinking that pretty much nobody who's suddenly felt hipper-than-thou using the phrase "dumpster fire" has ever sat around a campfire, let alone seen an actual dumpster on fire.
The information provided to the police ARE the facts until more information is available. You believe in magic, so of course you're a little fuzzy on this. Perhaps you should lecture the family of the dead Colorado sheriff killed today when responding to yet another domestic scene, and his several wounded colleagues. Because I'm sure they'd like to hear from you about how dumb they all are, and how they really aren't doing anything harder than window washing.
We were just presented with two choices. I described the better of the two choices.