MathCodeLove

Precisely this. Empty shops have an unconscious (sometimes conscious) effect on people making them less likely to drop in themselves. 1-3 people taking up wifi and electricity could easily attract enough customers to pay for their visit with each stay.

This does only really apply in shops in areas with decent foot traffic though.

Are these gone? I thought they were still around.

I don't disagree that these things should be acknowledged and taught, but only in the proper setting. Constantly hammering every existing racial disparity into a child's mind is what I'm concerned about. Math isn't a place for this, history and social studies is.

Do you think that the food insecurity example may not produce a feeling of pity towards minority students, and a feeling of rejection in the minority students themselves?

The problem with this isn't the facts being presented, but the fact that when these sort of facts are needlessly inserted into every possible area of a child's education that child will then have a fundamentally different outlook and racial division will only rise as these differences are expounded

I don't think one's ability to do math is a great indicator of how effective they function in day to day life.

What are you trying to say here? That nutrition doesn't exist? It's anti-science to state that an apple has more nutritional value than a potato chip?

Specifically what the parent is referencing is the density of nutrients per unit of meat. Are you saying that all meat is uniform in nutrient density?

I'm genuinely flabbergasted by your supremely odd take on this situation.

Did you read anything or are you just going to project your own bias on the discussion?

"It's banned in warfare" doesn't make it some egregious WMD. It's banned because all chem weapons are banned per the Geneva convention and adding particular exceptions is a dangerous path to go down. Every single basic trainee in the US Armed Forces is subjected to it and they all turn out just fine (or well, if they don't it's not because of the tear gas exposure). You're using the term as if it's some catch all that ends any and all conversation. Would you like to suggest an alternative to safely controlling dangerous crowds?

> They should disengage

The exact situation I laid out was protestors surrounding an officers vehicle and beating it trying gain access to do him bodily harm. Would you like to suggest how he can disengage? I'd love to hear any ideas you have because driving away is quite literally the safest option there. The alternative is to shoot the people trying to attack him. One most likely results in broken bones where the other most likely results in death. Here's an example in which people swarmed the car that showed up on screen and the officer had to run someone over to escape personal harm. Frankly if protestors surround a vehicle, don't move or clear the way when asked multiple times and given multiple warning, then they 100% deserve to be run over. That's their fault. Don't surround an occupied vehicle in a violent environment and expect nothing to happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bou2MzSGfvs

I didn't say it was "clear cut brutality". I said it probably wasn't okay, but that it's more nuanced than people such as yourself would like to make it appear.

Are you going and holding every single software engineer that writes malware or privacy invading adware responsible? Oh no? Guess that makes you just as bad as them.

Edit: And I should add, nor have you provided evidence to the contrary. How many videos are there of police intentionally ramming into completely peaceful protestors? I'd wager there aren't very many. You're the one claiming that any potentially adverse action taken by a police officer is wrong despite any co-factors or context. Show me a video where the police are running someone over and, with all the context and surrounding information, it still looks absolutely unreasonable.

I'll check it out, thanks

The difference is on one hand you have people sharing videos that make police look like they're suffocating people and hitting them with cars for the fun of it, and on the other you see that they're often in a situation where they've already tried a tactful approach, where they themselves are being met with or have been met with violence, and where the expediency of the moment required a difficult decision that may or may not have been correct.

I've seen videos of protesters surrounding police vehicles trying to destroy them and harm the officer inside. That's a situation where running people over to get away would absolutely be acceptable.

Tear gas is a great way to safely control crowds without firing gunshots. I've been subjected to it myself and while it's not pleasant, no lasting damage results from it.

Stop trying to act like context doesn't matter, it always does and here even more so.

Are you joking? That applies in the vast majority of the world, the exceptions you named are just that, exceptions that are exceptionally rare.

This entire discussion started as whether pedestrians should/shouldn't be on roads. No, they shouldn't. They should be on a sidewalk, best of both worlds.

Sure I agree, that is reasonable. Many people try to make the argument that all/most police are bad and out of control, which is what I refute.

But why should shared roads be preferred over sidewalks? I see quite a few potential disadvantages but no real advantages whatsoever.

15mph is still faster than walking speed. I'm not saying cars are the most optimally efficient mode of transportation, just that they are much more efficient that walking.

No one else provided examples nor asked for any. Perhaps you should ask for examples instead of assuming I'm acting out of malice. Here's a link to the full video for probably the most widely recognized case in the history of police brutality, the killing of George Floyd.

Does the context this video provides make the officers actions okay? No, I don't think so. Does it make those actions appear much, much more reasonable than it was made out to be on social media? Absolutely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjKjaCvXdf4

Yes but this conversation was about jaywalking and what roads are intended for. No one (I think) is arguing that a bike crossing the rode to go from one bike lane to another is wrong, but that it isn't the intended purpose of roads. Pedestrians do have the right away, but that doesn't make jaywalking illegal, it just makes it so drivers are (rightfully) held accountable for running over pedestrians trying to cross the street. It doesn't give a pedestrian the right to walk down the middle of the street at a leisurely pace

I mean you're making an argument that does nothing to facilitate discussion on the issue. It's basically saying "No it hasn't changed. And if you have evidence or data showing otherwise, it can't be trusted." At the point you refute any provided data or evidence the conversation just devolves into an argument instead of a debate or conversation.

That's fair, I just pulled that number from thin air to try and portray my point. The actual crime stats in the US is 47.7 per 100,000. Unless there's hard evidence to the contrary, it can be assumed that those number also apply roughly to police.

That is not a valid citation, it immediately starts off by illustrating it's own political prejudice. The fact that they don't link directly to their sources is also questionable. They say they use Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/data/ (among others) but I don't see any data for some of the numbers they're projecting.

It's also not quite fair to analyze this data without also taking into account the prevalence of violent crime in general at each country in question. Of course a country with more violent crime will result in more violent policing.

I'm not saying that it doesn't make any valid points, but you can literally make any profession or population of people look bad if you cherry pick data-points and provide politically biased commentary while also not explaining co-factors or context.

Yeah fair enough, I just pulled that number from thin air to try and portray my point. The actual crime stats in the US is 47.7 per 100,000. Unless there's hard evidence to the contrary, it can be assumed that those number also apply roughly to police.

Alright sure, I guess so. Neither of us have any hard data to back up our opinion so I guess it turns into a debate of feelings, which will lead neither of us anywhere.

What I do know is that as of May 2021 there were 665,380 police officer employed in the US, and trying to generalize all of them in any way based on a few highly edited videos is absolutely not a valid approach given the standard practices in data science and statistics. Given that the US generalized crime rate is 47.70 per 100,000 it's reasonable to argue that unless there is evidence showing otherwise, police officers also fit roughly into that same distribution and therefore would be "mostly good" (as defined by law), as most people are.

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333051.htm

Well, no I must admit I never have experienced that. Not really sure I understand how it pertains to my question you responded to.

I think it's extremely clear that I'm not trying to portray that exact number as a fact and more as a general portrayment of "most police officers are good, just as most people are good"

2. No, sidewalks and bike lanes are for pedestrians and bicyclists. Bike lanes are less common than sidewalks so I think it's reasonable to include them on low-speed/highly congested stretches of road, but to assume they should have a full access to, e.g. and interstate or highway is ridiculous and would hinder literally thousands of people.

Alright, but 25mph is still significantly faster than walking speed. I do think that mass transportation would be nice and we could use a better public trans infra in the US, but that doesn't make the fact that waking is still much less efficient that driving. Even with cars taking up much more space, a bunch of cars traveling at 25 mph are able to carry a many more people through a distance X in a period of time T than the equivalent walking would be able to. The alternative that everyone seems to be forgetting is having roads for cars and sidewalks for people, which already exists in the vast majority of areas with a high potentiality for pedestrian traffic.

Not necessarily. This assessment forgets things like sidewalks. I don't think anyone is going to visit shops on main street and every time they leave a shop drives 5 feet further down the road only to park and visit another one. In tightly clustered areas it's most common to park and then walk via a sidewalk to other destinations on the area.

1. Fair enough, but sources should almost always be provided. I hadn't heard that particular piece of historical trivia and I don't think it's necessarily common knowledge.

As for the later, why is that any better than just sidewalks and crosswalks, which the majority of areas with heavy pedestrian traffic already have? It'd be incredibly eco-unfriendly, expensive, and impractical to have two different types of roads for cars and pedestrians when we already have a solution that works just fine - sidewalks.

Alright but again, the anecdote of "This one time in Arkansas" can't reasonably be used as a justification for stating "All police are bad and out of control all over the country"

I don't doubt your experience but let's not pretend that there haven't been any changes in the past 2 decades.

I never said they were invented for cars. My question was why don't they think roads, as they are in 2022, shouldn't be a car only domain? This argument of "well their original purpose was for..." is logically incoherent in a multitude of ways. There are thousands of things that we use a bit different than originally as intended due to the advancement of modern tech

I've seen plenty of those videos, and 9 times out of 10 if you're able to find the whole, unedited version of the video the officers actions suddenly seems much more reasonable. Not always, admittedly, but very often.