News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Amazon moves employees out of downtown Seattle office due... by seanmcdirmid on Monday March 14, 2022 @03:23PM (#30676975)
No not at all. But at that point it is less about them and more about everyone else.

For petty crime like fencing stolen goods, they are looking at a few weeks in jail at most. Not going to change their outlook very much, but will probably discourage them from fencing goods out in the open (at least in Seattle). This focus on petty crime works well for Bellevue (but forces the problem on Seattle).

The current crackdown, the cops aren't arresting anyone for fencing goods even when it's obvious what they are doing. Instead they are just telling them to leave (this happened a few times while we were waiting for the bus at 3rd and Pine a couple of days ago)...not a solution, they will definitely be back.

Re:Amazon moves employees out of downtown Seattle office due... by SketchySeaBeast on Monday March 14, 2022 @04:02PM (#30677467)
Given that the problem moved from Bellevue to Seattle, that sounds less like "about everyone else" and more like "more about me". Just punish people enough until they move and become a problem elsewhere isn't making life better for anyone but the residents of whatever county they came from and only as long as they don't come back.
Re:Amazon moves employees out of downtown Seattle office due... by seanmcdirmid on Monday March 14, 2022 @04:08PM (#30677547)
No, it is more of a "not being able to solve a regional/national problem" locally. If Seattle (or "Freattle" as it is called in grifter circles) is the best place to go and set up a tent, do decriminalized drugs, and shoplift with impunity, then...yes, they will attract a disportioncate part of the problem.

And yes, if the problem can't be solved locally (too harsh, push the problem somewhere else; too soft, attract more of the problem), why should be in the latter category? Is Seattle just a convenient sacrifice?

Re:Amazon moves employees out of downtown Seattle office due... by danShumway on Monday March 14, 2022 @04:33PM (#30677882)
> but will probably discourage them from fencing goods out in the open (at least in Seattle)

Do you know beyond intuition what the stats are on that? If we take an average person and put them in prison for fencing goods, statistically what is the most likely outcome when they come out?

- What are the odds they stop doing this in the open?

- What are the odds they stop doing this entirely?

- What are the odds they move on to something worse? How much worse will it be and are there ways to mitigate that outcome?

- On average, what is the ratio of percent reduction in visible crime to the amount of money we would spend per-person? Are those numbers better/worse than other alternatives that we've looked at?

- Is this a constant across multiple types of crime? Do the numbers become different when we look at petty crime or violent crime?

Have you looked into that stuff, or are you just assuming on intuition that the numbers are good? We're all kind of talking past each other here; I suspect most people on HN know in theory why prisons should work, and I suspect most people know in theory why social programs should work. So explaining the theory is not particularly valuable at this point.

These numbers are really complicated, they're difficult to measure because of confounding variables and implementation details. There are ways of running prisons that make recidivism rates higher or lower, so it's not even an across-the-board single statistic. But that should be the baseline of where any conversation about this stuff starts.