I agree, and I'd go a step further and say that if you destroy evidence of someone burning my city down or looting, you're an accomplice to that crime.
What if you stop an EMT from checking the pulse of somebody who your co-worker has been choking to death for minutes? Does that make you an accomplice, too? If your city charged these cops justly then nobody would be burning it down; cure your disease and the symptoms will go away.
There's over a thousand service industry workers who've already been out of work for months due to the pandemic that the businesses on this street support. Many of them have struggled to get enough financing to even reopen, some have had to permanently close. Many (possibly most) of these businesses are destroyed and can not afford to rebuild. Who should the city of Cleveland have charged justly to prevent this? How many more innocent and unrelated people's livelihoods need to be burned down and how many more times (this has happened before, more than once)? There seem to be a lot of accomplices in the video.
>Yes, deliberately preventing anyone from providing care or defense for a person who's being murdered makes you an accomplice to the murder.
Are we in agreement that this was documented as happening, and the other cops present were accomplices in the murder of George Floyd? If so, why do you think they aren't being charged?
>Who should the city of Cleveland have charged justly to prevent this?
I assumed GP meant Minneapolis, which I feel is reasonable given the context. But okay, random US city accepted. Let's see if your city has a history of letting cops get away with killing innocent black people... oh yeah, one of your cops killed a 12 year old kid who was playing airsoft in the park and was subsequently hired by another police department in the same state without facing any charges.[0] So maybe charging Tim Loehmann would have helped make your city less sensitive to this pattern being repeated elsewhere in the country.
I don't think violence against businesses is helpful, but I do think violence against the government is helpful; it seemed to get a cop charged. They need to stop this pattern of violence ASAP, and they need to face time for crimes committed.
Semantics... We likely agree on the other officers' responsibility/duty both to police the unlawful/unjustified actions of their colleagues and to protect the life and liberty of Mr. Floyd in this situation.
I think murder requires some threshold of intent deliberation and I'm not very familiar with the details in this incident just yet... but on it's face it's doubtful the officer intended to kill George Floyd and choose a slow, public asphyxiation concealed by the unreasonable/illegal restraint while having him legally detained as a forgery suspect. That, of course, doesn't absolve him of being directly responsibility for this man's death.
They are not being charged (yet) because: it's only been a few days, only a very small percentage of crime commission results in charges, having charges at this point in time would have required the suspects to issue charges against themselves/each other and if one of them had that much integrity, George would probably not be dead in the first place, convicting the officer of murder may be difficult, so accessory or accomplice charges will require careful deliberation, information still being gathered, among other reasons.
FWIW, the people filming and/or spectating as George Floyd was killed bare some moral/ethical responsibly for their lack of (or cowardly?) effort to physically interject, although I'm aware many will not agree with me here.
Concerning Tamir Rice, a person called in to report 'a man in a dark hoodie at the park playground, waiving a handgun around pointing it at kids, they think it might just be a realistic looking toy gun' or similar to 911. The dispatcher called a unit to respond but did not include 'think it may be a toy gun' portion of the callers request for a police response. The officer spotted Tamir, standing alone, from 100 yards or more across the open field in the park. The one driving speeded across the field toward Tamir and pulled up close with officer Tim Loehmann in the passenger side, putting him directly in front of Tamir. Allegedly Tamir brandished/pointed/pulled out the gun and officer Loehmann fired in response and fatality
wounded/killed the young boy. It was tragic and there were dangerous mistakes made by multiple people but charging the officer who gunned Tamir down with murder would have almost surely resulted in acquittal. Mr. Loehmann then fraudulently concealed his background and got hired as a rookie officer in a small town across the state, then was subsequently fired upon discovery of his past.
The amount of violence, fear, division and destruction I have witnessed in the name of 'Justice for Tamir Rice' is also tragic. Protesters blocking roadways, terrorizing restaurant patrons and vandalizing or destroying uninvolved businesses every time someone else with a similar color skin dies unjustly does not help prevent the CPD from shooting innocence black children.
It seems that 'rules of engagement' between police and civilians have been eroded over time while executive authority has been expanded. This current state of anarchy can be greatly improved with discussion, consensus, enforcement, and public awareness of these rules. Until then some police will continue to act like mobsters and most will accept, take advantage of or enable some level of legal privilege because of their position. Body cams show us that unequal, crony, illegal, racist, and biased enforcement is widespread. Police in America conduct silent home invasions for non violent drug charges, shoot innocent people and pets without consequence (sometimes at a mistaken address), routinely profile otherwise cooperative non violent people as a threat in order to unlawfully discriminate. They point guns at these threatening people with impunity and treat them as hostile while being so threatened by guns that they can justify driving up to a 12 year old in a park with a fake plastic gun and open firing, no words exchanged. This is an area where legal reform and awareness severely needed.
Burning down Wendy's may have influenced a reactionary, politically motivated, premature legal filing. It will probably compound the hardship of those peoples and family's whose jobs and paychecks were destroyed. It will surely hurt a struggling economy and further stress the community by destroying a busy, low-cost prepared food resource and it will deprive the Dave Thomas Foundation of all future donations during a time of intense need.
I would recommend watching the George Floyd murder video, and not for morbid reasons. I think it helps to understand how calmly, with his hands in his pockets, this cop sat on Floyd's neck for 8 minutes (the last 3 of which Floyd was unresponsive for) while an EMT asked for a pulse to be checked. This was not an accidental death.
I don't think the man who killed Tamir Rice understood that he was shooting somebody holding an airsoft gun, but if the killer wasn't a cop then I seriously doubt that they would have decided his actions in that situation were reasonable as self defence -- they probably wouldn't clear me of all wrongdoing if I claimed that a 12 year old kid pointed an airsoft gun at me before I killed him. There's a double standard. Despite the victim being a 12 year old, I can see how this is less egregious than what I consider to be the clearly intentional killing of a known-to-be-helpless George Floyd -- I brought it up as an incident in your specific community where this pattern of violence bubbled up so dramatically that it received nation wide news coverage. I think you misunderstood some facts around the hiring and firing of the cop. He lied on paperwork at the original (Cleveland) police department, which is the technical reason he was fired -- it came up during a review of him following the shooting. The other (Bellaire) police department knew what they were buying. A quote from the link in my last reply:
>“He was cleared of any and all wrongdoing,” the Bellaire police chief, Richard Flanagan, told The Times Leader of Martins Ferry, Ohio, adding that it was unfair to “crucify” the officer. “It’s over and done with.”
I could see there being a causal link between how your city handled this incident (as well as others like it) and how much violence you're seeing now, a few years later, when everybody is focused on this other prominent example of the pattern.
"...a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?" -- Martin Luther King Jr.
You mention the pandemic. Somehow, our Congress has passed (in nearly unanimous fashion) five giant "bailout" laws supposedly in response to the health crisis, which have given trillions of dollars to powerful interests and pennies to normal citizens and none of the blessed laws have done a single blessed thing to provide health care to control the blessed pandemic! Meanwhile, comparable (though mostly poorer) nations have provided state-supported healthcare to all citizens, for decades. Are we sure the protests are only about racist cops? Besides, when they burn down the Nike store they aren't destroying too many American jobs.
Yup, I'd love if we were able to be a unified front and collectively say the mayhem will not stop until all four involved are charged. And if they're not convicted... 1992 will look like a joke.
But once you all agree on your demands, methods and victims it's no longer mayhem, just organized terrorism.
If they don't get convicted, will you be terrorizing only the jury, or do you plan on victimizing other innocent people too?
I sure hope you don't, but if you do get your wish please remember to have everyone print and sign their names on the petition/ransom note/demand letter. When choosing targets for arson just be aware it will take longer to comply if you burn down the courthouse(s).
A billion dollars of property damage and the targeted destruction of businesses operated by Korean immigrants, but multiplied by a factor that will ensure laughter at the memory of those killed in the '92 race riots? I don't know how you could more charitably interpret the "wish".
tal8d said 3 hours ago>'A billion dollars of property damage and the targeted destruction of businesses operated by Korean immigrants, but multiplied by a factor that will ensure laughter at the memory of those killed in the '92 race riots? I don't know how you could more charitably interpret the "wish".'<
I believe you're having problems thinking clearly. Here, in a public forum, you threaten
"A billion dollars of property damage and the targeted destruction of businesses operated by Korean immigrants..."
which is little more than a megalomanic wish. Shouldn't you be taking some medication or, at the least, seeing a psychologist instead of wasting our time here?
lol, either your reading comprehension is poor or your understanding of the '92 riots is... or both, I guess. That was a response to your question about what one could mean when saying "1992 will look like a joke", and I answered that question exactly. Do you not understand how usernames work?
This whole situation sucks because most people are rightly outraged about police violence, but their anger is totally misdirected. These businesses had nothing to do with the death of George Floyd.
I live in Portland, Oregon now. Without going into too many details, we have an expensive pension program. Many feel that the pension program is too generous, and there has been a lot of thought put into how we can fully fund both pensions and everything else. Last year there was a bill in the Oregon Senate (SB1049) that proposed some modest changes to how pensions work. It passed with bipartisan support, and the public unions went nuts. They said they'd never support a candidate who voted for SB1049.
Last month we had our primaries. The most important primary was the Democratic primary for the Oregon Secretary of State. If the governor were to step down for any reason (to take a cabinet position in the Biden administration, for example), the SOS becomes governor. Someone who opposed SB1049 joined the race at the last minute, got over half a million dollars of union money, outspent her candidate, and won the election.
This is just one of many examples. Even though the unions are only spending a couple of million dollars per year in Oregon, they're really smart about it, and as such, they get what they want. In the Secretary of State race they hit a home run. For half a million dollars, they pushed their preferred candidate through and sent a message that if you oppose them in any way, it will be a career limiting move.
The reason I mentioned that is because I think it is a good contrast to what we're seeing today. With smart leadership, we would have a better chance of solving this problem. But people are enraged and not thinking clearly. And there's no reason to believe that these riots are going to be more successful than the Baltimore riots, the Ferguson riots, the Oakland riots, or even the Rodney King riots.
It seems like the vast majority of employment contracts prohibit side projects like this, or at the very least, require explicit company approval. I'm interested in hearing strategies on how to best pursue side projects without violating one's employment contract.
One way is to be a California employee, where the labor law explicitly protects your side projects as long as you aren't using your employer's resources and isn't related to your day job. If you decide to take something Big Time and make a startup around one of your ideas, California also conveniently ignores non-compete agreements. These two things are why Silicon Valley exists in California and nowhere else.
In Germany tax laws might help you a little bit with this.
If you build something with the main interest of making money out of it, the state (and most probably your employer) will treat it as a business and want you to run a business for that or will likely forbid to do it. But if you build something because you need it for yourself and are running it more like a hobby but make profits from it, there´s something called "Liebhaberei". This special status mainly has tax implications (you can´t get refunds on losses from your Liebhaberei because it´s not qualified as a business, tax-wise...) but I´ve had friends which got their side projects "approved" by their employers because they did not look like real businesses and were run on this Liebhaberei status.
So if you like miniature railways and build a niche site around it, which will give you beer money (or a bit more), the tax people most probably won´t have any problems with that. You should avoid doing things that look like you are running a business (having a shop, selling stuff), but most of them probably won´t even notice affiliate links or understand what that does.
This can also help you with your employer. "Boss, I have this site about my miniature railways and now it´s making 50 bucks a month, is that a problem?"
Or you go the right way. Be honest and say that you´d like to do something for fun but there could be money involved and you just wanted to make sure that´s okay for everybody. I found employers to be unexpectedly tolerant when you´re honest.
I'm in a state that is notorious for enforcing non-competes (in fact our enlightened legislature tried to make them even stiffer), but even my contract says my non-compete is only enforceable where a clear conflict of interest exists.
I think the author's main point is that Apple's process violates the principle of least privilege. Technicians shouldn't require access to the software in order to repair a hardware problem.
One of the problems with Game Pass is that you can't actually watch live games.
You can listen to live audio. You can watch replays of games. In fact, you can watch replays from 22 different camera angles. You can watch condensed replays. You can even watch live preseason games. But you can't watch live games that matter.
Zoomed-out angles that show all 22 players on the field. The TV broadcast zooms-in on the quarterback so you can't see the receivers, corners, and safeties downfield. All-22 shows everything.
Seconding this suggestion. These are the sorts of things managers are expected to deal with, and it's important to engage them when you're unhappy with your team's situation. Knowing what's expected of you will make it easier to decide if changing jobs is the right choice for your career. If you don't feel comfortable talking to your manager about this, that's also a data point worth bringing into the decision.
I moved out of state a couple of years ago, and when I stopped using Facebook, I realized:
1: Facebook never was a good way of keeping in touch with friends and family back home for a number of reasons
2: I needed to be doing a better job of keeping in touch with friends and family back home
My solution was to set up a newsletter. The idea is every 3-4 months I send out a mass email to friends and family describing what I've been up to lately. It's been a huge win for me for a few reasons:
1: Everyone uses email, so I can reach with friends and family who don't use Facebook. I think my grandmother is my biggest newsletter fan, and is always encouraging me to publish more frequently.
2: I'd rather share a well-written email (with lots of links to my self-hosted photo gallery), than a series of short status updates that may or may not be read by people I want to keep in touch with. Also, a lot of the information I share in the newsletter I wouldn't share on Facebook. Not because it's super private or anything, but I'm not going to post a status update that basically says "My living situation is pretty good right now. I'm renting a nice house in a nice neighborhood, and my commute is fantastic!"
3: I never really enjoyed checking Facebook, but I did it out of habit/addiction. Quitting cold turkey has made me a happier person.
The feedback I have gotten has been overwhelmingly positive. I got a number of really good responses to the newsletter in which friends and family provided similar updates. It even inspired a friend of mine to write his own newsletter. These responses were great, and much better than any information I would have gleaned from Facebook.
The biggest downside is that people still try to contact me via Facebook. For the most part, it hasn't been a problem, except for the time I missed an invitation for a week-long hiking trip in Glacier National Park. I should probably cancel my Facebook account, but I'm not ready to do that yet.
Edit: I should add I don't use TinyLetter. I instead send out a mass email via gmail. It has worked well so far, but I don't have a good way of adding subscribers except via word-of-mouth. Maybe I should investigate TinyLetter.
> I'm not going to post a status update that basically says "My living situation is pretty good right now. I'm renting a nice house in a nice neighborhood, and my commute is fantastic!"
Why not? (Genuine question: why would you not share such a thing on fb, but share it with a large group via email?)
> The biggest downside is that people still try to contact me via Facebook.
While they've gotten worse, fb email notifications aren't all that terrible, especially if you don't participate in discussions on popular fb pages (ie: you only get mail about event invites, new messages).
Nice to hear you've been able to stay connected via email. I'd probably've set up a "private" mailman list, especially now thar mailman3 has a half-decent archive/web interface.
Bit strange to hear you complain about signup though... can't people just send you an email? I'd think word-of-mouth/email would be an improvement over fb in your use-case?
Also interesting to hear how different sub-networks on fb can be. Both in terms of "everyone uses email (sadly, not in my circles - at least for non-work stuff), and wrt what you/others share.
I think email works better because people perceive it as a more direct message just to them. If say, you send an email and bcc people on it, they feel like they were sent a direct one-on-one personal message (even if they objectively know it is a newsletter). Status updates on Twitter, Facebook, etc, when it was obvious that they are for multiple people not just a one-to-one message don't produce the same effect. People don't feel like they have to respond because someone else can respond instead.
I think the difference is subtle, but a little different. Status updates on Twitter, Facebook, etc. feel like a part of the service - something that exists on Facebook. By checking your timeline you're only looking at events that exist elsewhere. On the other hand, receiving a mail feels like it came to you. It does not exist as an entity somewhere in the world, it's a message that came to your inbox (and possibly to others in the CC/BCC field).
It's sort of like receiving a letter vs. reading something on a pubic notice board. The former is yours, the latter is in public space.
I think you hit the nail on the head. An email is yours in the sense that once sent to you, the sender cannot 'take it away' or 'modify it' or 'delete it'.
This is different than many other 'communication protocols' out there such as Facebook Posts, Twitter Posts, Slack comments, Shared Docs etc. which all have the notion of an 'owner' who can retract permissions, modify, delete etc. after 'send'. The email analogy would be the sender reaching into your inbox and deleting or modifying your email (ugh!). This is fundamentally what gives email the feel that there is no favored owner. Conversely, every recipient can feel that the email is theirs.
We're launching an email-like service, (https://tmail21.com) in the next couple of weeks. Our premise is to preserve the best aspects of email while fixing or improving on the worst.
We think one of the best aspects of email is the aforementioned 'democratic' (i.e. no favored owner) characteristic.
I applaud your energy and focus. If I had more energy and focus myself, I would be something, perhaps to keep up with subcultures of interest rather than old friends.
But that said, I think I'm similar to most people in not being easily able to jump to newsletter type activity. The thing is, if I were to do that, it would still be me relating to N other people rather than, say, all those N other people also relating to each other. That might make things even better for me but I don't see how that's an improvement over Facebook.
Facebook has given me a relationship of sorts with 30-40 people who I previously hadn't interacted with for 10 or even twenty years and lets me barely keep up relations with a number of others. That includes people I'd lost contact with BEFORE the Internet even began.
Most people who aren't on Facebook aren't starting newsletters, they're just isolated - maybe one of their friends sends them a newsletter. I would see one in ten people with a newsletter for all ten as not a desirable replacement to eight in ten people having a way to directly relate to each other.
And certainly electronic media produces all sorts of problems for things-like-community, especially face to face community but that's a bigger issue than Facebook in particular.
But would you argue that this is a flaw in the model of mail or in the perception and attitude towards emails and newsletters? If it's the latter, well, that's up to each themselves, and would deem mails and newsletters a still-viable way of notifying reliably about updates. While, if there are actual, inherent flaws in the idea of aggregated mails that make you and others dismiss them, another approach might in fact be better.
N.B.: There at least seems to be a curious niche where even daily newsletters like thelistserve.com or nowiknow.com have their little space, for whatever that's worth.
I think that's the expectation, as it is with Facebook updates -- that most people who see your post will ignore it, but they will be generally aware of it in case they do feel like reading it.
The "like" may seem kind of petty but it is a way for people to note that they did read what you wrote without them having to draft a reply of some sort. In that sense, "likes" are very useful.
Point 1 is true for me as well. But I take a different approach in doing Point 2.
Since everyone has a gmail account (at least my target audience) and hardly have any activity on G+, I created a G+ community with just the right people and post updates there. These updates automatically send notifications via email to the community members.
The way content is organized and presented in a community is much better than email IMO.
Of course everything can be translated to email - comments can be reply with text and likes/+1s can be reply with +1 - but looking back, it is a much better user experience to do this in a community/group rather than email.
But g+ notifications are still crap? Like fb, they don't contain (all) content and can't be interacted with. So you have the option of running the g+ app, and getting alerts for all g+ activity, or need to remember to check g+ in addition to your email. While with a proper mailing list and filtering you can see with a glance how many unread messages you have, and you can priortize based on list (eg: announce vs discuss vs meetup etc)
Newsletter is not connecting your subscribers together - add that and you have good old mailing list. One of my friends created such a mailing list for our circle of friends some time ago but it didn't win with the Facebook.
> But getting someone's Facebook is less socially awkward than their email address.
Really depends on the setting. Quite a few people I know would be more comfortable sharing a mail address than their Facebook info, even if we ignore the percentage that doesn't even have Facebook.
(For quick messaging contacts the fragmentation of messengers is really annoying. I don't want 4-6 different messengers on my phone just to be prepared to communicate with everybody. It's really time for a push back to federation or at least proper multi-protocol clients)
>> But getting someone's Facebook is less socially awkward than their email address.
>Really depends on the setting. Quite a few people I know would be more comfortable sharing a mail address than their Facebook info, even if we ignore the percentage that doesn't even have Facebook.
This is part of what's backwards about Facebook. Sometimes I've had a 5-15min conversation with someone at a bar and they're like, "Do you have Facebook?", and I'm like, "Give me your phone", and I will search for myself and send myself a friend request.
If I exchanged phone numbers or e-mail addresses with this person, it would be really odd IMO to ask the sort of questions to which answers are offered to me by facebook, and by its' algorithm, but _less_ odd to personally contact them IMO. So I'm kind of a wierd voyeur in basically a handful of strangers' lives and fairly rarely actually ever again meet up and do things with various people that seem to be a lot of fun to talk to when I meet them.
I've had a lot of interesting friendship circumstances arise, but also just spend a lot of time wondering who the fuck most of the people are, even on the new facebook. Even the people I decided to carry over, I don't know, it's a semi-random distribution based on how Facebook was already filtering my feed, I think. People I like, but I dunno.
It feels like Facebook has more influence over who I think about than I do at times, and I wonder if it isn't influenced by what relationships tell them things they can advertise based on or something.
Hadn't thought about that aspect, but that's of course right: a random mail address only gives you a way to contact someone, but not other context.
It's great if you have something specific you want to follow up on, otherwise it just gets filed away. Or can be used to give Facebook/Twitter/whatever else information the next day if you want to (after thinking about it). Mail addresses can be more anonymous and easier to dispose in that way, if you have clearly separated ones.
I don't use FB at all for my work; though my coworkers can obviously look me up. I only use it for family, friends, and try to keep it sanitary. I don't want my coworkers knowing my private life, and Facebook makes it difficult to have discrete sharing amongst different "classes" of friends.
An email address feels more intimate - it's something a romantic partner would have but a friend wouldn't necessarily. And asking someone for an email address is asking them to spend thirty seconds spelling things out (particularly in a bar), and another thirty waiting for you to send them an email to confirm. Facebook is just a question of typing their name, which you already know - often it can autocomplete based on your network - and they get a notification if you've done it right without needing any extra step.
I appreciate the reply, but I was rather interested in estonian's thoughts on the matter.
But, while we're here:
> Facebook is just a question of typing their name...
Many folks in my peer group used an (often oddly-spelled) nym when they created their Facebook account long, long ago. (Also, many folks in my peer group abandoned their FB account long ago, but that's another matter entirely. ;) )
> ...and another thirty [seconds] waiting for you to send them an email to confirm.
They way I've seen this handled is to either show the person how you spelt the email address, or have them wait for the "new email" notification to confirm that you did, indeed spell the address correctly.
Yet another way is to hand your conversation partner a business card.
The minority of them do, yes. And they never carry work business cards[0]; these are personal "business" cards. (I guess the name is a bit of a misnomer in this case. ;) )
[0] Doing so would be really, really strange for anyone who wasn't in sales [1] (and even then, it would be a little strange).
[1] Or, I guess, one of the founders of a tiny startup.
I feel like the typing/confirmation issue could be solved by adding a QR code generator to your email app, and having them scan the QR code on your phone to share details.
You already have your phone out, and they probably have to take theirs out to confirm, so it doesn't add anything that doesn't already exist. But this application of QR Codes saves typing in a good way.
Facebook used to have this feature but I can't find it anymore. I only found out about it after meeting someone in Tokyo and have never been able to find the feature since which leads me to wonder if it's geofenced.
