Or, hear me out: The cops that are well enough educated and trained to recognise that it’s safer to just track down the guy later will also be well enough educated and trained to not do that. Because doing that would be stupid, and the whole point here is that you can and should select and train people with a monopoly on violence to not do stupid shit that gets people killed.
The only research I’ve seen on using LLMs in a school setting found that the kids that were given access to an LLM performed a bit better on exercises that those without. At the same time their experienced learning was a lot better. When they finally got a test assignment, the kids that had been using LLMs during exercises flopped and performed significantly worse than those that hadn’t.
Or, as is commonly done elsewhere, get their plates and a photo, and drop by their house later (unless they’re an active threat to public safety of course).
This is literally the SOP in a lot of other countries: You don’t chase someone in a vehicle unless you absolutely have to. You rather just identify them and apprehend them at a later point.
It’s not about the pictures. I honestly think this is just an excuse to get rid of journalists, and a method for hammering home the point that “journalists bad. news fake.” I’m not even sure he’s actually seen the pictures I question.
With that said, I wouldn’t put it past him to actually be so vain that it is really about the pictures. However I think it’s more likely that he would have done something like this anyway, and just picked an excuse.
Viking/Danish
Norse. And it’s more similar to modern Icelandic than anything else, perhaps most closely followed by (distant second place) Norwegian.
You are aware that the whole basis for my original comment (and follow-up) was that insurance isn’t inherently a scam, right? Any transaction can be turned into a scam if you refuse to hold up your end of the deal, but that doesn’t make the concept of transactions a scam in itself.
My impression is that US insurance companies are particularly bad about not paying up, and thereby scamming people. Luckily, I don’t live in the US, and don’t have any historical precedent that gives me reason to doubt my insurance company would pay up. The problem with insurance (and a lot of other things) in the US is a system that heavily incentivises squeezing consumers at every turn. The problem is not that insurance is an inherently a scam.
I agree that the house is winning here (as always) and I also hate companies that squeeze us regular people for cash at every opportunity as much as the next person.
My point is that I don’t really see buying e.g. house insurance as a gamble as much as I see it as paying a monthly fee for the peace of mind it gives me to know that I won’t be financially ruined by a house fire or a burglary. It’s not about making money in the long term for me, it’s about mitigating the consequences of highly unlikely but absolutely devastating events.
Why would I take that when I already have a running bet with my insurance company where I only pay ≈ 20 USD / month?
The whole point here is that I can afford 20 USD/month indefinitely. However, having my house burn down at any point would be absolutely detrimental to my personal economy, to the point of bankrupting me and likely preventing me from being able to afford a new house in the foreseeable future. I’m well aware that in purely economic terms I’m taking a losing bet. The point is that the consequences should the bet strike home are so large that I can’t afford not to take it.
Of course, you could argue that I would be better off saving that money and being “my own insurance”. You would be right, except for the fact that the house burning down is just as likely tomorrow as in 20 years. If I had enough cash to insure myself, I obviously wouldn’t need to take this losing bet, but I don’t.
That’s just blatantly false. I’m all for hating companies that gouge people to make money, but insurance isn’t inherently a scam. Insurance, when implemented properly, is paying a low regular premium to offset a risk you can’t afford should it hit. I’ve insured my house against burning down, because I can afford to pay a small amount once a month while a fire (while unlikely) would bankrupt me. Most likely, I’ll lose money in the long run by paying for that insurance, but that’s not the point. The point is that I can afford to lose money over a 30-50 year period, but I cannot afford to lose my house at any single point during the next 30-50 years.
I’m not at all sure about this, but isn’t there decent reason to believe that the gas giants have solid cores? I mean, earth generates plenty of heat in its core (largely from nuclear decay I believe), I don’t see why the same thing couldn’t be going on in Uranus?
If that’s the side you’re coming from then I guess I can understand your argument. I was thinking from an animal welfare perspective, and the argument (which I’ve seen made before) that hunting is inhumane and that people should get their meat at the store instead.
As a side-note, I would really like a link to something backing up that people who hunt for food are more likely to be psychopaths.
Go to Wendy’s
You would prefer that animals are raised in horrendous conditions without ever seeing sunlight only to be slaughtered over shooting an animal that has grown up in it’s natural habitat?
Like, vegetarians I can get, because they argue that we shouldn’t be eating meat at all. Arguing that industrial farming is better for animal welfare than hunting is just absurd though.
I always assumed this was a parody account because of this post. Recent developments suggest otherwise. Is this guy, in fact, not a parody?
He had the important (and, admittedly unrealistic) important capability of recognising that someone was smarter than himself.
I honestly think this is the major plot hole in Idiocracy: The first thing to go would be peoples ability to recognise expertise. Thus, nobody would be willing or able to recognise that a stranger knew how to solve a problem they had no clue how to deal with. This is the real-world Idiocracy we’re seeing today.
This is not unique to people on meth, and just underscores why guns are a sub-optimal weapon in CQB. In reality, a person is reliably stopped dead in their tracks if hit in the thigh bone, hip, nervous system (spine/head) or heart. Any other hit, and they have anything from seconds to hours where they remain nearly fully functional.
Note that most of the body is not one of these critical zones. Hit someone with three lung-shots at 3m range, and they’ll still be able to reach and stab you. This is a large part of the debate regarding the “stopping power” of various types of ammunition (i.e. how much of the ammunitions momentum is imparted into the target, physically stopping them), and is a large part of the reason expanding ammunition is preferred for close-range exchanges (e.g. police).
A baton strike to the liver or knee will physically shut down part of your body. Just look at any professional fighter that receives a solid strike to either and see how they go down. This has nothing to do with meth or adrenaline, but is a physiological response to the strike.
First of all, I’ve been involved in this myself, so I’m not talking out of my ass.
Secondly, by far most cases of “London police officer got stabbed” are the result of a police officer being forced into a confrontation without time to back out and request backup. If someone at <5 m range decides to stab you, and you’re unprepared, you’ll get stabbed regardless what you’re armed with.
My argument regards police responding to an armed person, where they have the time and space to control the confrontation.
You could have made your point without being obtuse.
When you swarm someone with a knife, you are able to attack them from many sides at once. This means that when they slash around you control distance, and if they try to single out someone, that person backs off while those behind them go in to whack or grab them. To see this in action, either look up videos of how humans pick off a cornered animal, or videos of how police without firearms or tasers in one of many countries (Norway and England come to mind) take down someone with a bladed weapon.
Of course, preferably you’ll be wearing a vest, but given 5-6 people with batons and training, dealing with a single person armed with a short-ranged bladed weapon shouldn’t be an issue where you get injured.
This isn’t radical rocket science. It’s being done regularly all around the world.
Idk why you’re being downvoted, you’re right. However my point still stands for anyone not armed with a weapon with decent range.
The point is that you deal with such a person by bringing more people to the scene and swarming them. Any person that is only armed with a short-ranged melee weapon will be quickly overwhelmed by many people with mace and batons coming at them from several sides. If you have any kind of training, you should be able to maintain sufficient distance that they can’t harm you with e.g. a knife, and from there it’s a game of patience to wear them out or find an opening to grab them and swarm them.
It objectively is. Most people are put out of action by 1-2 whacks with a telescope baton. If you’ve ever felt one, you’ll know that your muscles basically go numb when you’re hit - it’s not just pain.
One of the major disadvantages with deploying tasers to untrained people (e.g. American cops), is that it causes them to think they can handle 1-on-1 confrontations and then panic when the taser fails (not unlikely). The safer way to deal with a single unarmed person is to overwhelm them with several people that force them to the ground with sheer volume of baton blows (to the legs/body), pepper spray, and body mass.
Hence the photo, which should make it pretty easy to figure out who the guy is when he’s already registered in the system. Once you know who he is you quickly find out where he’s living, because again, the guy has 97 priors, so the cops should have a solid database on where he tends to reside and who he knows.
That’s absolutely horrendous… hope he gets caught again before he kills someone…
Besides that: That could quickly be a situation where whoever is apprehending him recognises that he’s drunk-driving and that he’s a big enough threat to the public to warrant chasing him down instead of letting him go and apprehending him later.