dr_analog
razorboy
No bio...
User ID: 583
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that women are more likely to get attacked than men, and that the women feel unsafe running there unless there are men with them. I'm using a specific example from my city in a running group that meets at 5am by the river path, when it's still dark.
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
Not sure where I'm going with this, but like Goodguy's personal story the other week, it's a general reflection on the inadequacy of crime statistics to capture its impact on communities.
me at party: well, the community feels unsafe
guy: crime isn't that high though?
me: so, what about the homeless people living by the train tracks? seems sketchy
guy: oh, I don't go there
me: what about being a woman and jogging the river path alone when it's dark?
guy: oh, yeah that sounds bad
me: the local Starbucks has sugar and stirrers behind the counter now. the Whole Foods doesn't dispense plastic utensils anymore unless you ask and only has a single entrance/exit now despite having been built with several
guy: ...
me: I had a baby stroller stolen off of my driveway because I left it out overnight
guy: ...
I'm glad we have below the median murder rate for the US but this shit sucks.
As an American who lived in London for a bit, I met several people who seemed completely identical to the rest of the English at first-blush[1], but they'd eventually confess to me that they're quite ashamed of their obvious(??) working class upbringing. The forward-ness of this surprised me, because I had many English acquaintances who would never open up about their feelings like this on other topics, no matter how much we were drinking. I do wonder if being an outsider helped them confess this to me, or if this is just something you have to voice to everyone.
Anyway, it sounded markedly different from meeting someone from the Midwest in NYC confessing their shame at growing up in corn fields of Indiana or whatever. The person from the Midwest just felt good to be in NYC, like they escaped. Whereas the persons I met in London very much projected that they could never escape their class, and this deeply affected them.
Can this shame lead to rage as this down-trodden feeling class is apparently ignored while the government falls all over itself to support problematic foreigners? I can see that, 100%
- In hindsight their accents were different though it's not like they were speaking blatant My Fair Lady style Cockney
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
Also, just for some context, these opinions are pretty bog standard for the vast majority of elites in the West over the last few hundred years. So it's not like they're crazy beyond the pale. Although I'll admit they're stated provacatively.
I don't have an exhaustive understanding of the UK but it sounds like he's expressing the median Londoner's opinion, candidly.
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
insert usual cynicism here that this would get you put in prison in SF for longer than any crime a fentanyl junkie can commit short of murder
dr_analog
razorboy
3mo ago
My problem with the drug war is not just rooted in my libertarian-esque attitudes about the proper bounds of government. It is also rooted in me seeing that the war on drugs turns the banned drugs into a highly valuable and easily produced form of underground currency and thus directly leads to the growth of drug gangs and cartels that are, clearly, responsible for a good share of the street crime that I am seeking to curb.
it's not 2005 anymore. we've scaled back waging of the drug war considerably and the problem has worsened. clearly, policing drug use was doing something useful
imagine it's your child living in a tent in the park. they refuse to speak to you because you have told them they need help for their fentanyl addiction. they've overdosed already and the police have administered narcan and left them with a card with a hotline number to call to get help. they refuse. they just want more fentanyl.
IMO, the most merciful thing you could do is arrest them and put them in jail for a few weeks so they can detox and remember they like things besides fentanyl
dr_analog
razorboy
4mo ago
I think if she debates Trump and makes it clear that we could have a 59 year old spring chicken like her leading the country there will be an excitement bump
dr_analog
razorboy
4mo ago
sure, but my claim was CrowdStrike has probably caused more economic loss from this one patch than they have ever provided, which is somewhat orthogonal to a statement about their stock price
the fact that their stock price is not zero only indicates that the world's ability to hold them liable for these losses is minimized
(or that they can be held liable and that my estimate of the damage caused is way, way off)
dr_analog
razorboy
4mo ago
I'm not saying CS provides no security, but it's hard to believe it provided as much global security as the damage it caused and that a competitor wouldn't have been better.
dr_analog
razorboy
4mo ago
Is the implication that the market would properly "punish" them for destroying more value than they've ever created? It could just as easily reward them for extracting rents for "malware defense" while making all of its clients worse off.
dr_analog
razorboy
4mo ago
I don't think this is too apocalyptic, probably most computers will be fixed by Monday.
But you bet your ass that everyone lost a lot of money today and that it may take weeks (or months) for some businesses to get back to the black.
Does anyone disagree with me that the amount of value destroyed by this failed patch outweighs all of the economic value CrowdStrike has ever provided? Imagine working at a company that would have been better off never existing.
dr_analog
razorboy
4mo ago
I'm aware of Botox and collagen implants, but what on Earth is this stuff about?
His eyes were half-shut or open very wide. They appeared darker than they once had, his pupils dilated. He did not blink at regular intervals.
dr_analog
razorboy
4mo ago
sex pest who was showering with his daughter according to her diary...
Link?
dr_analog
razorboy
4mo ago
All good points, though it certainly seemed like Trump couldn't get his agenda done. He was good at talking politics but not really at the details of enacting policy. Of course, not wanting your President to do anything is a valid desire I think.
OTOH, though, Biden has gotten a lot of important agenda items done.
dr_analog
razorboy
4mo ago
Well, I think you vote for the person and his orbit of family, friends and trusted advisors. That's kind of sort of like a vote in your government.
I actually think it is the opposite. President is there to lead and communicate policies of his team toward the public. If his staff members are the writers, president is the actor or comedian delivering the lines and bits. Presidents are supposed to debate, they represent their administration while giving State of the Union, they should represent the state behind closed doors meetings with other world leaders, they should inspire in times of need and be the face of the administration and above all else they should provide legitimacy for the government they represent as they are the person that people get to vote as opposed to their PR managers or analysts.
That's a fair point. If Biden was a much better orator and could speak non-stop about Israel, Ukraine, and opposing China and denying them semiconductors, he might be able to better persuade the public about the importance of these causes. Strategists have expressed regular frustration that the economic indicators are really good under Biden's administration but the public hasn't heard any messaging about this.
Although his State of the Union performance looked good, didn't it? I mean, he didn't seem like a tired corpse.
This take that person of POTUS is just unimportant position and that a corpse remotely controlled by unnamed staffers could do as good of a job, and that people really should just vote opaque party machinery and believe in the best is absolutely surreal to me. If the politicians can no longer be bothered to even pretend that they care, the legitimacy of the power is gone. It is incredibly dangerous direction imho.
I don't think he's a corpse with no agency. I think he still has judgment and isn't insane and can act like a reasonable person that's aligned with Americans. It seems like he tires easily and is probably tedious to keep up with and you have you have to remind him to stop going off on tangents. Doesn't look good, and we deserve better, but I don't think it means Trump is therefore the answer.
I'm going to be contrarian and say I thought Biden's debate performance was horrifying but I think it's still fine to run him if voters were like me and not like normal people.
I realize he looks terrible but is the President not being in peak fitness actually that important? Biden doesn't strike me as insane, or malevolent, or like he's so completely out of it that he'll launch nukes because he mistook the big red button for the toilet handle.
I'm probably too cynical but I think the President's job is probably a lot like a doctor's job in a hospital: the nurses all know more or less what the patient needs but they need the MD to make decisions. Sure you'd like a brilliant doctor like House for the truly difficult problems but any doctor that just did what the nurses told him to would probably make for an okay hospital. Biden probably spends his days picking from a set of reasonable proposals offered by his handlers. If he makes too many batshit decisions in a row too often he'll eventually get replaced.
I also don't think Trump has any edge on the mental side that would make up for the fact that he's him. Also his edge isn't great anyway, he's also incoherent, except he presents with speed freak energy. I wouldn't expect his judgment to be any better and he could just as likely start sundowning any day now as well.
It'd be sweet if they ran a Biden that was 20 years younger, but I still think he's better than Trump.
I agree with the SCOTUS majority that this is pretty weak 8th amendment claim but to get to the direct question:
...or leave
leave to where?
what if your county is so big you can't walk out of it in one day and pass out on the road and thusly get busted for sleeping in public? what if everywhere in every direction has criminalized sleeping in public?
you eventually have no choice but to go to jail, yes?
I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's a class of people exploiting the law who prefer to be fulltime druggists living in a tents in the park despite homeless shelters having space for them, but am slightly horrified that you could end up in a situation where if you lose enough resources you have no choice but to stay awake until you sort your shit out or you go to jail.
dr_analog
razorboy
5mo ago
The guy on the right who looks like a monk knows what the intended expected midwit answer is though.
They refuse to interpret it based on the author's portrayal and instead substitute their own. As a human living in 2024, I find the thought of making beads, baskets, hunting and growing corn dull and dreary and who are you to say it's not? That's the best fit. Final answer. As you can see I have now proven the question is dumb and we are unfairly giving kids low marks.
dr_analog
razorboy
5mo ago
Hmm, if it were me, I would be worried that this scenario question would get leaked online. But perhaps your company isn't famous enough that people collect interview questions on forums.
Furthermore, how is Brazil banning X different from the US banning TikTok?
I suppose the US followed a lot more legal process around it (it was an act of Congress signed by the President) and isn't so much banning it as demanding that its principals fall under US jurisdiction, and at least the cover story is not over suppressing speech but around guaranteeing that the CCP isn't conducting surveillance on every American.
In broad strokes it feels the same though?
More options
Context Copy link