ethanhunt_

> Some would fix the problem by giving the police special immunity; I'd fix it by changing self defence laws for everyone.

Thinking about that for a bit and it sounds reasonable. A cop should only be shooting someone if he believes his or someone else's life is in danger and that's the same standard as civs in most states.

Perhaps cops in the US have more protection with their unions and such. I assumed that there must be a difference between US and UK because UK officers are refusing to carry whereas US aren't, but that difference might be that US officers get fired if they refuse to carry.

I think we are. Fixed.

An Australian citizen is an Ecuadorian embassy in England, in order to protect himself from multiple governments that are trying to jail him who coincidentally have been hurt by information he's published as a journalist. Allegedly, a politician who was quite powerful and stood to become even more powerful asked why he couldn't just be assassinated (I think there was never a reliable source for this last bit).

Nation states are the only thing that can protect us from the powerful.

Eliminating nation states would be like having one lawyer arguing both sides of a criminal case. We need nation states to advocate for their citizens and we need nation states working against each other and competing to ensure the best outcome for everyone.

Support your nation state that supports you. In a world without nation states, when the government turns against you, you'll have nowhere left to go.

> The Nation State is too large a unit for good experiments. Take education as an example. Having a national policy makes little sense at a time when technology is fundamentally changing how learning can occur.

So just run those experiments at a smaller scale than the federal government. Nice to see everyone finally catching onto the idea of States' Rights.

> Information technology allows new approaches to regulation through transparency. In many instances what the federal level role should be is provide requirements for transparency of and interoperability between local/regional policies. This means we could have a significantly smaller Federal Government in terms of the number of direct employees, size of agencies and body of regulations.

Again, this has nothing to do with the existence of nation states.

I don't think there's a great answer here. Without special legal protection, you're asking police to take a job that would require them to make decisions in a couple of seconds and if they make the wrong decision, they face a high risk of either death (should've shot but didn't) or life in prison (shot but shouldn't have). I wouldn't take that job if it payed 500k/yr, but we're asking officers to take it for 60k/yr?

I'm not asking for police to be protected if they're malicious, but if a police officer completes all his training correctly and tries his hardest to make the right decision in that pivotal moment, but makes a mistake and shoots when he shouldn't, then he's sentenced to life in prison if he is held to the same standard as a civilian.

And people wonder why their police officers aren't the best and the brightest: anyone making a rational decision under these terms wouldn't take the job.

> police aren't routinely armed

That might be because some UK police refuse to carry because the UK doesn't have laws to protect officers (those laws that the US has that are constantly protested). https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/15/police-chief...

Can't say I blame them. Why would someone take on the chance of being charged with murder for carrying out their job's duties? It's not an easy problem to solve, but I think the ease of access to firearms is only going to increase, and they're going to have to get the UK police sorted with carrying.

> If guns were meant to protect us from our government--well we already have an overtly anti-constitutional, criminal government with disproportionate powers residing in unelected individuals.

You don't really believe that otherwise you would've left to one of the other hundreds of countries in the world, unless you believe all governments are criminal.

> Ah but you just want to "save lives?"

I'm interested in saving my own life if I'm ever in danger. I already have a brita filter.

Really is a waste of time in my opinion. Despite appearances from the media, if someone in the US does not want to see firearms in their life, it is very very unlikely that they will ever see firearms (besides police officers') and even more unlikely that they would see a loose one that they should pick up to clear.

It's advice on par with telling someone to set aside money in their retirement for a nuclear bunker.

China is not the largest holder of American debt. This is a myth that contains not even a sliver of reality.

He mentions several times that what's he looking for is PR on the fact (acknowledged by Comey) that Trump personally was not under investigation. Certainly could be inappropriate, but this isn't the smoking gun the dems wanted.

Nate Silver came closest to predicting a Trump win? That's laughable. The USC poll had Trump as winning, and I'd be surprised if there weren't more pollers who had an accurate reading (I only know of the few most popular ones).

via https://twitter.com/TrustedFlagger/status/848664259307466753

".@h3h3productions messed up. The video was monetised by OmniaMediaMusic. Evidence in source code of original video." "The video was claimed due to the copyrighted content, hence the sudden drop off in ad revenue. Nothing to do with it being demonetised by YT"

The initiative was I-732, CarbonWA (https://yeson732.org/). The torpedoing I was referring to: "recent comments by Bauman compelled us to publicly endorse the Alliance and voice our opposition to I-732" http://fusewashington.org/why_we_cant_support_carbon_washing...

> One of the more interesting features of the American political environment, over at least the last three and a half decades, is the extent to which the demographic that is (or was) nominally represented by unions has voted for politicians who have made no bones about their intent to weaken the unions and labor law, especially at the state level.

They failed because the majority of people are hard workers who loathe being yoked to a lazy or incompetent person, and unions have proven to be exceptionally good at maintaining employment of people who are terrible at their jobs.

Some people are absolutely baffled by the software industry not having unions. It's because people getting hired and fired within 12 months at my job is what ensures that I only work with the best.

Unions suffer from what most of the progressive movement does: everything bad that happens to them is the fault of the big, bad republicans and capitalists. If they'd bother to introspect for even a second, maybe they could fix their shortcomings and start to do some good.

The environmentalist initiative that went on the ballot in Seattle this month was lead by a guy who is working within the Republican party for climate reform because he's said it's not possible to work with the left anymore because of their dysfunction. The left's response to this? Tried to torpedo his climate bill. The head of the left is so far up its own ass that I think it's getting close to terminal. Progressivism in America will have to die and be reborn as a functioning body for political change.

The NYT is doing hit pieces on wikileaks and friends, and this is part of that (the previous one was: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-jul...).

The NYT operates in coordination with the U.S. government (c.f. DNC email leaks that show them coordinating a Bernie article with the DNC). It is helpful to consider them as the U.S.'s own state owned media (c.f. Chomsky), and these its press releases. Read them, but be skeptical.

Their likely is something very big coming from wikileaks in the next few weeks. The political elites in Washington have been working hard to discredit wikileaks.

Very cool workaround in the article, but it feels like it's just another hole that is going to be closed off. It's impossible to balance because on the one hand we want these fortresses to protect us from prying eyes (see apple vs fbi), but manufacturers are also using these fortresses to keep out owners who just want to hack on their own things.

I'm glad Apple is working to keep backdoors out of iOS, but I still prefer Android because I can get into it anyway I want, and do things like the OP without having to resort to backdooring my own device.

> the discrepancies shown in all of the above final results have been consistently larger than the MoE in favor of Hillary in 11 of the 26 primaries. The probability of this happening without fraud is 1 in 77 billion

Can someone with a stats background say if this math (and the rest in the first half of the article) is correct?

There is evidence to support the claim. The judge released information that he wasn't supposed to (judge reversed the release later), and he set the first court day on the day of the GOP convention. There's a few other things too.

How is that no evidence? That is evidence to support the claim. Is it proof? Is it enough to condemn the judge? I don't know, but it is false to say that Trump came out of nowhere with this and has no evidence.

I'm not arguing that you should vote for Trump. I'm just pointing out the lies and distortion. People should make their decision based on facts.

> Trump is calling bias here is because he knows that he antagonized people of Mexican origin

Doesn't matter. Even if Trump deliberately antagonized people of Mexican origin, he still deserves fair treatment in court.

> Re: Muslim ban/profiling

Muslim profiling is the de facto security policy in the United States and has been since way before Trump announced his candidacy. If Muslim profiling is equivalent to Nazi treatment of the Jews, I look forward to your spirited campaign calling for the resignation and charging of Obama. I agree on the Muslim ban: not a good idea, would have no effect on terrorism, and is contrary to the ideals of the country.

> You said that no one mentioned it. Apparently, you and I read different articles by sama then.

It's my fault, I meant no one mentioned it in the thread, and I didn't realize that you were referencing the articles reference. But again, I do think it's irrelevant to the point about the judge. Every argument should stand on logic and truth, otherwise we're just like the conspiracy theorists who put together 1 true argument, and 9 false ones, then point to the true one whenever someone points out the issues with the false ones.

> I'm sorry, but being a Trump supporter means you accept his positions on race, immigrants, and the economy.

I do agree with his position on removing illegal immigrants. They're a modern slave labor class in America that is being capitalized by the rich. They're mistreated, underpaid, and when I look at it the only two solutions I can think of to the problem are open borders or enforcement of the borders. Unfortunately Trump is the only candidate calling for the latter.

Those quotes prove my point. Trump did not say he can't do his job because of his heritage. He said he isn't doing his job, and that he thinks it's because of his heritage.

And there's nothing racist about that conclusion. People do act based on their identity and heritage, and there's nothing wrong with that. If it affects their rulings as a judge, then that's problem, and all Trump has said is that he's not getting fair rulings (subjective, but that is his POV), and that there's an obvious potential conflict of interest.

> You also conveniently ignored the fact that Trump wants to ...

I didn't ignore it, nobody even mentioned. Every argument should stand on its own, and be built on facts and logic.

Tossing in words like Nazis, frothing-in-the-mouth, dangerous, fool, racism, misogyny, and dictator are all unrelated buzzwords.

If you think this judge situation is so vile and leads to racist dictatorship, why have you not called for the resignation of Obama after his admin tried to force a judge with Iranian heritage from hearing Iranian-American immigration cases?

If you watch the interview that someone linked above, it is what he says. He says:

- he is being unfair, so now I say "why"

Now people invert this argument and say Trump is saying "He can't do his job because of his heritage". That's completely different from saying "he is not doing his job, and the most probable reason is his heritage".

Now you can certainly say that even the latter argument is racist or xenophobic or morally wrong, but why fabricate something that he never said or implied?

You just quoted the reporter, not Trump! This was the same tactic used to claim that Trump said we should have all Muslims wear a mark in the U.S. A reported said that, then people said that Trump said it.

I think it's the cognitive dissonance. People have so convinced themselves that Trump is Hitler incarnate, that they are unable to read anything positive about him. Sam would be crucified for this "Trump is right post" if he hadn't followed that up with 10 paragraphs of negative (some false) things.

I've tried to engage people regarding Trump on facebook (not confrontationally; with facts and debate). The last time I replied to a post regarding the Mexican-American judge, the OP deleted the entire post within an hour. The time before that when someone said Trump has no policies I pointed out his major policies/themes that he's had and got radio silence on the thread.

Disappointed to see Sam repeat things that are plainly false. Everyone says that Trump says such horrible things, but why is it that so often those same people have to misquote him to make it seem horrible?

> He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage and that we should ban Muslims from entering the country.

He said that a judge of Mexican descent isn't treating him fairly, and that it is probably because of his heritage. That's very different from saying that the judge can't treat him fairly because of his heritage. How could someone with Sam's command of language and attention to detail not see the difference? And where was the condemnation of the Obama admin when they tried to prohibit an Iranian-American judge from presiding over Iranian immigration cases?

> He has accused Obama of somehow being responsible for the recent shooting in Orlando.

The WP originally ran this headline and changed it because it was such a wild inference from what he actually said.

Watching the talk but the crowd noise is exhausting to the ears. Would be nice if someone could filter it somehow and reupload.

Additional discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10038727

> The Fed is very, very unlikely to raise interest rates in September. It's practically guaranteed not to happen. Investors are likely to bet on this today, and stocks will probably climb significantly over the next few months in response to the Fed not hiking. The bet will shift from expecting a hike, to not expecting one for the remainder of 2015.

Why would the yuan devaluation affect the fed's decision?

The stock market opened after you wrote your comment, and u.s. index is down >1% and foreign index is down >2%.

"because American structural design forces everyone to drive two-ton bullets to go anywhere, which inevitably results in lethal wrecks. Compare Denmark's road fatality rate of 3.0 per 100,000 inhabitants versus the US ratio of 11.6 per 100,000."

Check the per-vehicle-km rate. Denmark isn't safer because they drive less.

I thought this too, but after looking at data it doesn't really seem any more dangerous than driving a car. I think the reason it sounds dangerous is that when it happens everyone hears about it and talks about it a lot more than car accidents.

Mrmoneymustache did an analysis and if you define 'safety' as 'expected life span', cycling is actually safer than driving a car.

"Now all personal music players sold in the EU after February 2013 are expected to have a default sound limit of 85dB.

The user can choose to override the limit so that the sound level can be increased up to maximum 100dB. If the user overrides the limit, warnings about the risks must be repeated every 20 hours of listening time. "

via http://www.bbc.com/news/health-21294537

The "repeated every 20 hours" would explain why OP was seeing the warning seemingly randomly.