It’s not implying he can’t be bothered, but that the machine can do a better job.

…which may be true, depending on just how bad he is at writing. Like, I was just watching this classic the other day. If this guy writes like some of those people, the machine may infact be better.

That said, for most people it’s stupid, and the tech isn’t able to do a better job at expressing such things.

Yet.

Thank you, I understand better now. So in theory, if one of the other search engines chose to not have their crawler identify itself, it would be more difficult for them to be blocked.

I’m kind of curious to understand how they’re blocking other search engines. I was under the impression that search engines just viewed the same pages we do to search through, and the only way to ‘hide’ things from them was to not have them publicly available. Is this something that other search engines could choose to circumvent if they decided to?

We could start with holding police officers responsible. It’s great that they charged this one, but why aren’t the other police there being charged as accomplices since they took no action to prevent the shooting?

So here’s a few simple starter thoughts.

1. Establish an external agency with the mandate of prosecuting police. They have their own prosecutorial system, their own investigators, their own prosecutors, their own courts and their own judges, completely unconnected to the prosecutorial system the police work with. You cannot have the same people that work together one day and rely on each other be the ones to investigate each other, it doesn’t work. Not even a separate ‘internal affairs division’ is enough.

2. Any police officer who discharges their weapon, for any reason, is immediately suspended, and any pay is withheld until an investigation for why the weapon was discharged is completed. The investigation of course is conducted by that external agency.

3. If a police officer discharging a weapon causes injury or death, all police officers on the scene are suspended and their pay withheld until the investigation is over.

4. If the police officer who discharged their weapon is charged with assault, murder, whatever, then all other officers at the scene are charged as accomplices, unless they took proactive action to prevent the first officer from committing their illegal action. Think of it like felony murder - if you and a group of friends are committing a crime and someone is murdered, you are all prosecutable under felony murder even if you had no direct hand in the murder at all.

That’s probably a good start, it may not solve all the problems, but it’d be a lot better than what’s being done now, which is very, very little. I’d say an even better thing to do in addition would be to have every current police officer purged and never work in law enforcement again. All police organizations kinda need a clean slate with fresh people and no organizational momentum and culture carryover from how it’s happening now, because a lot of what needs to change is organizational culture, and just altering the rules is more difficult than rebuilding a completely new organizational culture from the ground up.

Better to acknowledge it in a response. I prefer to do that myself if I’m wrong or something of that nature, post a reply acknowledging instead of trying to cover up that I was ever wrong in the first place.

It irritates me that so many forums and media sites allow you to edit your posts at will. There’s one site I go to that I like very much - it has a 5 minute edit window, and after that, your post can no longer be edited. You can’t change what you said, pretend you never said things, etc, once you say something it remains. It would be nice if more sites were like that. Or at least, if you edit/delete something, for there to be an option to check the history to see what it used to be, so if you try to delete some comment you made people can still check it. Whether it’s informational, or it’s because you’re trying to hide something you said that you realize was actually super shitty and people are getting angry at you for it, I prefer things to stick.

No. They’re not. If they were, they’d be stopping this themselves. This guy shot her. What about the other officers that were there? At least one other is mentioned in the article. Why didn’t they immediately draw on him and stop him from attacking this woman?

Every time we hear about one of these bad cops, there’s other cops just standing around doing nothing at best, and helping at worst.

No ‘good people’ are cops. If they were good people when they went in, they either get fired, get mysteriously dead on the job, or stop being good. There are no other options.

These convictions were for state level crimes that happened before he was president. So completely outside the scope of the official act thing.

That decision is probably going to be used to get him completely out of the classified documents case though, not that he really needed the extra help since that one was already being presided over by a crony judge he appointed.

Yeah, I mean, Trump already got convicted of felonies and then nothing happened. Did he even pay a fine or something for that? I heard about the conviction and then… absolutely nothing.

Yeah, that’s not a Borg cube, that’s Ozma. It’s gonna change into a sphere and then suck everyone in like a black hole any second.

Better to try to get them not to vote at all I think. Push that and it might convince them to go vote when they might possibly have been willing not to. And other offices are also very important.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Not ‘to grant them greater control’ or even ownership. To secure exclusive right for a limited time. And this only because it was meant to promote science and art.

Using copyright to prevent a work from spreading is a direct perversion of the intent, it is using it in a manner diametrically opposed to what it is supposed to do.

While breaking off diplomatic relations is an extreme step I wouldn’t recommend, I do wonder if it might not be practical to severely limit the number of diplomatic immunity eligible people allowed in after something like this.

Tell China that henceforth they get to send no more than three or maybe five people to whom it applies. Still gives it to the ambassador and a very small staff, but removes the feasibility of sending in teams of spies and kidnappers thus protected.

These changes could be applied retroactively; this isn’t like creating an ex post facto law and then jailing people for breaking a law that didn’t exist at the time of the event.

How about reword it slightly: it must be available for purchase if you want to use IP law to prevent others from distributing it.

Too fucking bad? The purpose of IP was to give the public access to novel ideas and art, not to increase the control creators had over it.

I feel the reference went over your head…

You know, eventually, after we’ve seen enough of this shit, I feel like there’s a point we have to ask…will no one rid us of these turbulent justices?

If they raise the prices in those countries they would make less money because volume of subscribers would go down enough for total income to decrease.

If they lowered the price in the US, they would make less money because the subscribers they would gain would not be enough to offset the reduced income from each.

That’s it, it has nothing to do with operating costs or fairness, it’s just a question of what price point they believe will make them the most money in a given market.

Odd to me is Her Majesty’s instead of His, considering Charles is now King.

Do these places just retain the gender of the ruling monarch at the time of their construction?