The reasoning behind retracting the publications is to discourage further unethical practice in the future. That's it right there.
Here's an interesting question for you though. Should possession of child pornography be illegal? Arresting someone for having an illegal digital image that they had no role in the production of would be similarly useless or is it different here? The reasoning is the same. Arresting someone for possessing child pornography doesn't remove the abuse or suffering that the victim suffered, but it does help to prevent further production.
If he had cocaine in his system he was likely taking it with the opioids, which is a pretty deadly combo. Of course fentanyl is deadly itself. This article has an image showing what a lethal dose looks like so it's easy to see why you can so easily end your life accidentally.
No one suggest cops raid houses of citizens with nice cars and big houses. Just keep busting the doors down in the slums and getting the same results as always.
Removing everything else from the equation, if your goal is to stop the illegal sale of drugs, it makes far more sense to target the point of sale than it does to go after all of the buyers individually. It's also a matter of how much punishment can be handed out since a person with a first possession charge who only has a small amount of some substance will see less punishment than a person with a large amount of that substance and likely previous criminal history. It's also easier to catch buyers in the act while busting the supplier since they're more concentrated.
There's a lot of extra baggage saddled on top of that, but if you just remove all of that and look at it like a simple problem detached from actual people and their individual characteristics, the decisions seem rather obvious. It is as you point out a bit of insanity, because it doesn't matter how many drug dealers you arrest, since people want to buy more. Viewed purely from a perspective of economic principles that action is foolish since reducing the supply only drives up prices which signal others that they should engage in that activity as it is now even more profitable for them to do so.
I think we'll eventually come around to decriminalizing and legalizing all drugs. However, that isn't going to fix bad neighborhoods. They'll still be poor and likely turning to some other form of crime to get by. Not necessarily because they're bad people, but because a lot of other foolish decisions that we've made had made it incredibly difficult for those people to legally do anything productive that is as profitable as crime is for them.
Historically, the government provides more compensation than it ever has before. If you plotted everything out, the correlation would likely be negative.
None of the shit you've listed is free, and in fact the more stuff you try to make "free", just means that everyone else has to work more to provide all of those "free" things. That takes time, some of which those people might otherwise use to raise a family. In its quest to make everything free, the government invariably does a shit job since it doesn't care about the real cost, and you can easily end up with something that costs quite a bit more than it would if people had to pay for it.
A glance at the facts would also suggest this is wrong. Look at the countries that have all of this "free" stuff. The Scandinavian countries are everyone's favorite example for these kinds of comparison. They must have a massive baby boom since they have all of those free things. Nope, they're about the same or even lower (though perhaps not in a statistically significant sense) than the U.S. Same approximate trend over time as well.
It might not be as bad as you think. Tesla would have the ability to choose who to contract with and could as a result bargain for set rates that may be cheaper for the end user. It might be more like AAA because it is a service that Tesla offers alongside their core business.
This is no guarantee of quality, but it sounds as though you can disable it if you don’t want it, false alarm or not. Even if it’s no better for the consumer than calling a tow truck on their own, it still affords the convenience of not having to find and call a service yourself. Tesla is still a luxury brand in many ways, so they need to offer these kind of frills so that people will pay the higher costs.
At first I read that as battered WiFi syndrome. Maybe that’s a good name for a service like this where you feel like there aren’t alternatives so you’re almost forced to stick with it even if it’s bad for you in a multitude of ways.
School shootings have become a regular occurrence in the USA. A "normal" part of everyday life. How did this happen?
Sensational news media mostly. The rates were much higher in the early 90's and just like most crime, the overall rates are much lower now than in the past. However, the old saying of "it bleeds, it leads" is still relevant and no one wants to read stories about how things are generally better than in the past. That's essentially what Trump's Make America Great Again boils down to: the notion that things have gotten worse and we can see that people like to buy into this notion when it isn't true.
I do recall reading some previous research that linked gun violence in schools with economic troubles. I couldn't find a full-text version of the paper, but here's an overview of the research: https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/about/news/2017/infographic-hagan-school-shootings.html. The authors are just claiming that there's a correlation, so the cause may be deeper, but it was an interesting take that I hadn't seen before.
Why the hell wouldn't you take highly skilled people with advanced degrees? The average American isn't going to earn a Ph.D. and less than half of the population aged 25-29 has a bachelor's degree. The notion that if we just trained everyone that we'd be able to solve all of our problems is nonsense. There are limits to what a person is capable of and not everyone can become an engineer, doctor, lawyer, etc. So if we want more of those job positions, we're going to have to import them.
If Foxconn is the one that's supposed to be sticking it to the state of Wisconsin, then why are they are the one that's reconsidering? Shouldn't it be the state that's trying to pull out of the deal?
It doesn't matter what designs a person or an AI comes up with, because people will always want something new. Just like every generation goes on to develop new music or new movies even though it's a lot of the same chord progressions or plot lines, it's nevertheless something new. It doesn't matter if you extrapolate further ahead and give us a design ten years before its time. We'll still be tired of it five years down the road regardless of when the countdown starts.
If YouTube doesn't fix this shit, it will only encourage people to move to competitors. Even though YouTube doesn't face any serious competition right now, a failure to do right by their customers only ensures that they'll be abandoned. They ultimately make no money if there aren't any creators willing to put their videos on YouTube's platform. They too can be spit out.
Even if he is granted a patent, that's no indication that it works as well as he hopes that it does. A patent is just an indication that he's created a novel invention. Nothing about a patent says that novel invention is actually useful. People get patents for cat litter boxes, they're nothing special in and of themselves.
After reading this, I'm even more in favor of this idea. Public fights between dildo covered, graffiti strewn delivery bots sounds more fun than Chuck E. Cheese's on weed.
Humans have used sidewalks to deliver goods forever. Was that private taking of a public good also illegal? You might have a point regarding the legality of operating a motorized vehicle on sidewalks, but if people find robotic deliveries convenient and desire them, they'll have no problem making an exception for robotic delivery vehicles.
Does that do any good though? They already do this with other criminals and for other crimes, but that doesn't really seem to stop anyone. To some degree, telling high school kids not to do something is going to have the opposite effect. I remember one of my friends in high school saying that after having to sit through some D.A.R.E. type presentation, that he wanted to smoke a joint just to spite them. Apparently, he may not have been the only one that felt that way.
I don't think you can really tell an adolescent anything that they don't want to hear. Part of growing up and becoming an adult is building up independence and pushing back against authority. I believe that if we want to see better outcomes, we have to provide a more controlled environment to let youth make little mistakes and help correct them. That's obviously a lot harder than it sounds, and maybe impossible without spawning some Orwellian hell, but sending some idiot around to speak to high school classes about the evils of swatting isn't going to do much more about stopping it than someone telling my friend and I that weed wasn't cool.
I'd consider it worse if he were militant about his ideology and wanted to ban anyone else from freely choosing those decisions for themselves. As long as consumers are properly informed and capable of providing consent, I don't believe that it's any of my business to interfere with their choices.
I consider smoking tobacco to be stupid for a variety of reasons and do not and will not do it myself, but I'm not going to prohibit anyone else from making up their own mind. Can it be said that I can get the benefits of having other people smoke (someone having a lighter handy I suppose) without the drawbacks?
You don't need an app to alert you. In the U.S., the peasants will gladly make the identifying noise themselves when they tell you all about their art degree.
Slashdot Mirror
Worse than that, it will be political ads designed to annoy you but appear to be from some other candidate so that you hate them in turn.
The reasoning behind retracting the publications is to discourage further unethical practice in the future. That's it right there.
Here's an interesting question for you though. Should possession of child pornography be illegal? Arresting someone for having an illegal digital image that they had no role in the production of would be similarly useless or is it different here? The reasoning is the same. Arresting someone for possessing child pornography doesn't remove the abuse or suffering that the victim suffered, but it does help to prevent further production.
Here I thought it was the men that weren't thinking with the head on their shoulders as often as they should be.
Who else are they going to get to open jars for them.
If he had cocaine in his system he was likely taking it with the opioids, which is a pretty deadly combo. Of course fentanyl is deadly itself. This article has an image showing what a lethal dose looks like so it's easy to see why you can so easily end your life accidentally.
No one suggest cops raid houses of citizens with nice cars and big houses. Just keep busting the doors down in the slums and getting the same results as always.
Removing everything else from the equation, if your goal is to stop the illegal sale of drugs, it makes far more sense to target the point of sale than it does to go after all of the buyers individually. It's also a matter of how much punishment can be handed out since a person with a first possession charge who only has a small amount of some substance will see less punishment than a person with a large amount of that substance and likely previous criminal history. It's also easier to catch buyers in the act while busting the supplier since they're more concentrated.
There's a lot of extra baggage saddled on top of that, but if you just remove all of that and look at it like a simple problem detached from actual people and their individual characteristics, the decisions seem rather obvious. It is as you point out a bit of insanity, because it doesn't matter how many drug dealers you arrest, since people want to buy more. Viewed purely from a perspective of economic principles that action is foolish since reducing the supply only drives up prices which signal others that they should engage in that activity as it is now even more profitable for them to do so.
I think we'll eventually come around to decriminalizing and legalizing all drugs. However, that isn't going to fix bad neighborhoods. They'll still be poor and likely turning to some other form of crime to get by. Not necessarily because they're bad people, but because a lot of other foolish decisions that we've made had made it incredibly difficult for those people to legally do anything productive that is as profitable as crime is for them.
Historically, the government provides more compensation than it ever has before. If you plotted everything out, the correlation would likely be negative.
None of the shit you've listed is free, and in fact the more stuff you try to make "free", just means that everyone else has to work more to provide all of those "free" things. That takes time, some of which those people might otherwise use to raise a family. In its quest to make everything free, the government invariably does a shit job since it doesn't care about the real cost, and you can easily end up with something that costs quite a bit more than it would if people had to pay for it.
A glance at the facts would also suggest this is wrong. Look at the countries that have all of this "free" stuff. The Scandinavian countries are everyone's favorite example for these kinds of comparison. They must have a massive baby boom since they have all of those free things. Nope, they're about the same or even lower (though perhaps not in a statistically significant sense) than the U.S. Same approximate trend over time as well.
Your hypothesis is clearly wrong.
Wake up sheeple, that never happened. Those planes were crisis jetliners.
In case you couldn't tell, I'm being sarcastic. The OP probably was as well.
It might not be as bad as you think. Tesla would have the ability to choose who to contract with and could as a result bargain for set rates that may be cheaper for the end user. It might be more like AAA because it is a service that Tesla offers alongside their core business.
This is no guarantee of quality, but it sounds as though you can disable it if you don’t want it, false alarm or not. Even if it’s no better for the consumer than calling a tow truck on their own, it still affords the convenience of not having to find and call a service yourself. Tesla is still a luxury brand in many ways, so they need to offer these kind of frills so that people will pay the higher costs.
At first I read that as battered WiFi syndrome. Maybe that’s a good name for a service like this where you feel like there aren’t alternatives so you’re almost forced to stick with it even if it’s bad for you in a multitude of ways.
Has Netcraft confirmed it?
School shootings have become a regular occurrence in the USA. A "normal" part of everyday life. How did this happen?
Sensational news media mostly. The rates were much higher in the early 90's and just like most crime, the overall rates are much lower now than in the past. However, the old saying of "it bleeds, it leads" is still relevant and no one wants to read stories about how things are generally better than in the past. That's essentially what Trump's Make America Great Again boils down to: the notion that things have gotten worse and we can see that people like to buy into this notion when it isn't true.
I do recall reading some previous research that linked gun violence in schools with economic troubles. I couldn't find a full-text version of the paper, but here's an overview of the research: https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/about/news/2017/infographic-hagan-school-shootings.html. The authors are just claiming that there's a correlation, so the cause may be deeper, but it was an interesting take that I hadn't seen before.
Why the hell wouldn't you take highly skilled people with advanced degrees? The average American isn't going to earn a Ph.D. and less than half of the population aged 25-29 has a bachelor's degree. The notion that if we just trained everyone that we'd be able to solve all of our problems is nonsense. There are limits to what a person is capable of and not everyone can become an engineer, doctor, lawyer, etc. So if we want more of those job positions, we're going to have to import them.
If Foxconn is the one that's supposed to be sticking it to the state of Wisconsin, then why are they are the one that's reconsidering? Shouldn't it be the state that's trying to pull out of the deal?
It doesn't matter what designs a person or an AI comes up with, because people will always want something new. Just like every generation goes on to develop new music or new movies even though it's a lot of the same chord progressions or plot lines, it's nevertheless something new. It doesn't matter if you extrapolate further ahead and give us a design ten years before its time. We'll still be tired of it five years down the road regardless of when the countdown starts.
If YouTube doesn't fix this shit, it will only encourage people to move to competitors. Even though YouTube doesn't face any serious competition right now, a failure to do right by their customers only ensures that they'll be abandoned. They ultimately make no money if there aren't any creators willing to put their videos on YouTube's platform. They too can be spit out.
I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.
Well Obama is fucked. He asked everyone to learn how to code.
If you're using snapchat, I'd already considering it a worst case scenario either way.
Even if he is granted a patent, that's no indication that it works as well as he hopes that it does. A patent is just an indication that he's created a novel invention. Nothing about a patent says that novel invention is actually useful. People get patents for cat litter boxes, they're nothing special in and of themselves.
After reading this, I'm even more in favor of this idea. Public fights between dildo covered, graffiti strewn delivery bots sounds more fun than Chuck E. Cheese's on weed.
Humans have used sidewalks to deliver goods forever. Was that private taking of a public good also illegal? You might have a point regarding the legality of operating a motorized vehicle on sidewalks, but if people find robotic deliveries convenient and desire them, they'll have no problem making an exception for robotic delivery vehicles.
Does that do any good though? They already do this with other criminals and for other crimes, but that doesn't really seem to stop anyone. To some degree, telling high school kids not to do something is going to have the opposite effect. I remember one of my friends in high school saying that after having to sit through some D.A.R.E. type presentation, that he wanted to smoke a joint just to spite them. Apparently, he may not have been the only one that felt that way.
I don't think you can really tell an adolescent anything that they don't want to hear. Part of growing up and becoming an adult is building up independence and pushing back against authority. I believe that if we want to see better outcomes, we have to provide a more controlled environment to let youth make little mistakes and help correct them. That's obviously a lot harder than it sounds, and maybe impossible without spawning some Orwellian hell, but sending some idiot around to speak to high school classes about the evils of swatting isn't going to do much more about stopping it than someone telling my friend and I that weed wasn't cool.
I'd consider it worse if he were militant about his ideology and wanted to ban anyone else from freely choosing those decisions for themselves. As long as consumers are properly informed and capable of providing consent, I don't believe that it's any of my business to interfere with their choices.
I consider smoking tobacco to be stupid for a variety of reasons and do not and will not do it myself, but I'm not going to prohibit anyone else from making up their own mind. Can it be said that I can get the benefits of having other people smoke (someone having a lighter handy I suppose) without the drawbacks?
You don't need an app to alert you. In the U.S., the peasants will gladly make the identifying noise themselves when they tell you all about their art degree.