ChristianBundy
If someone takes a bunch of hostages then we need people who can de-escalate and rescue them, but that isn't what most cops spend their time doing every day.
This is a blatant misrepresentation. The tweet talked about "race riots" and Democrat election results. Many people would argue that the point of direct action is not to sway electoral votes toward the Democratic party.
My guess is that it's closer to your estimate, about 1 day of wages, but it could be 2.7 years of wages at most.
Why can't we discuss the legitimacy of the government?
Generally I've seen people reach for "cancel culture" when:
1. Fear-mongering the left over perceived injustice.
2. Defending bad takes by tone-policing any disagreement.
Can you point to a comment by john_moscow where they've been 'cancelled'? Or maybe a comment by you?
Back in 2016 I noticed that OpenSSL was using the wrong primes (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/fb015ca6f05e09b11a...) and since then I've been very curious to know how prevalent the previous DH primes are.
Off-topic: I see a few links in your HN profile, is that the best place to keep up with the projects you're working on?
Would BIPF fall into this category? It's a serialization format for JSON: https://github.com/dominictarr/bipf
What exactly is that message? Maybe:
"If you make your money by separating families, putting kids in cages, and deporting asylum-seekers to places where they're in danger, then we don't want your money."
Do you see anything wrong with that message?
It really isn't. Private institutions are under no obligation to collaborate with public agencies unless explicitly required by the Defense Production Act[0]. Please remember that the government is meant to serve us, not the other way around.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950
If given the option to run away, you should absolutely do so -- but that shouldn't stop you from learning self-defense in case the 'flight' option isn't available.
We shouldn't have guns, but I don't think that we should disarm ourselves unless everyone else agrees to disarm themselves as well.
> taken out of context
This seems orthogonal to the problem you've described. Just because you're getting ripped for your opinions doesn't automatically mean that your positions are taken "out of context".
Obligatory: It's impossible to argue with hypotheticals. Please point to a position you've taken and how it's backfired and we can take a look at who was in the wrong.
In other words:
> An unarmed people are slaves or are subject to slavery at any given moment.
> -- Huey P Newton
> state
Why would you think that anarchists are trying to start a state?
Interesting. In the Node.js ecosystem there are loads of different interfaces (https://github.com/substack/tape/#pretty-reporters), but my favorite is node-tap (which also comes with coverage tests and such).
Alternative: Isn't there some way to save an HTTPS request in a way that others can verify that the webpage was signed with an authorized certificate?
Future: I wish authors would sign their content directly rather than depend on TLS and certificate authorities. P2P networks do this well (because they have to) but it hasn't caught on in the rest of the web.
I'm not sure which Matrix client you use, but clients like Riot don't even let you opt out of sending read receipts unless you edit `/etc/riot/config.json` to enable experiments and then go into the settings to disable read receipts. Problems like this (and issues like this [0]) give me the impression that Riot isn't designed for people who need privacy.
(Yes, there are other Matrix clients [1], but my understanding is that Riot is the flagship interface.)
Nitpick: Cops are civilians too. Every time the cops show up, the community has to deal with an "armed civilian".
> situations where the civilian is armed (which is not always known by dispatch nor the cops themselves, until it's too late)
Cops aren't the only government employees that interface with the [potentially armed] public though. Parking enforcement officers don't have guns, and it doesn't seem to me that they're regularly ambushed. I've found three cases where this has happened, although I'm sure there are others:
- Campus parking officer stabbed my school janitor (https://nypost.com/2018/06/29/campus-parking-officer-stabbed...)
- Ex-Federal Protective Service cop gets intoxicated and shoots at parking enforcement (https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/shots-fired-at-park...)
- "Man with AK-47 approaches parking officer during argument about tickets" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDJ4OsYXul0)
Anyway, yes, there are lots of people with guns, and that means that they may act erratically (to neighbors and government employees).
Showing up with guns and threatening them with violence makes many people behave more erratically, not less, and my hope would be that we don't have to worry about "what if that guy has a gun" because 'maintaining public safety' means replacing their broken headlight rather than giving them a ticket and a court date and demanding to search their vehicle while you're at it.
Community self-defense is absolutely necessary, and I'm not taking the position that acts like murder should be shrugged off. No amount of healthcare and housing and social programs will completely eradicate anti-social behavior, and at the end of the day we need to maintain public safety.
My point, which has been echoed by the various links that I've shared (and the article (which you're commenting on (which you should read!))), is that the vast majority of public safety problems don't need to be solved by the police. Quoting an article, because explaining this repeatedly is getting exhausting:
> Part of our misunderstanding about the nature of policing is we keep imagining that we can turn police into social workers. That we can make them nice, friendly community outreach workers. But police are violence workers. That's what distinguishes them from all other government functions. ... They have the legal capacity to use violence in situations where the average citizen would be arrested.
> So when we turn a problem over to the police to manage, there will be violence, because those are ultimately the tools that they are most equipped to utilize: handcuffs, threats, guns, arrests. That's what really is at the root of policing. So if we don't want violence, we should try to figure out how to not get the police involved.
People experiencing mental health crises don't need cops, they need social workers. Someone with a broken tail light doesn't need a cop, they need someone who can quickly and safely replace their tail light.
There are a small number of situations where public safety might require violence, but police officers are over-armed and under-qualified for the vast majority of calls they show up to. Last year the most common 911 call in my city was for an "unwanted person" [0], which I understand to mean 'experiencing homelessness', where cops really can't do anything to help. I'm optimistic that our communities would be better served by less-armed and more-qualified professionals who can use tools other than violence.
[0]: https://www.wweek.com/news/2019/02/06/portlanders-call-911-t...