Don't even need SQLite for the speed up, although SQLite is fast. I routinely get blazing fast p99 latency on local hardware from postgres itself.
2,585 karma · joined December 5, 2011
Then do you arrest all people going 71?
> I think we would have to define more closely what a 'bad law' actually is to answer that first. Under this kind of fine-based regime, it would have to be something that targets a small group, unfairly, and manages to consistently extract a lot of money from them
Is suspect everyone can hypothesize a small group they belong to. So make up one that you belong to and imagine a group coming into power in the legislature where you live that makes that kind of law. The money itself doesn't need to be a large amount (what might be "a lot" to you and I might be different for different people) to make it oppressive and frankly a weapon for the police and government to use.
>Re/ the idler's law itself ... The people of New York City voted in favor of it
Correct. I don't agree with it but the local people do. This is the both the blessing and curse of our government and the exact situation where some people can can use this pay-for-snitching technique for good or bad. If it works for them then so be it. I don't have to like it. I don't like a lot of stuff. And some stuff I do like others don't. My original argument is that using money as an incentive to turn citizens against each other is a very slippery slope. In his case it might be great for them. I understand that you and I disagree on this point and there is likely nothing I can say or you can say to make the other suddenly change position and I respect you defending your thought process on this. But it is nice to be able to have a conversation about something controversial without it spinning into something else. Cheers!
In some cases, which seem like a good idea like corporate malfeasance whistleblowers or government grift whistleblowers. This is because the people paid by our tax dollars would be at a disadvantage compared to an insider in the company. In others, you could see the direction it must go.
>Thanks for letting me pick the reason, that's very thoughtful of you.
Cheers!
>Obviously it's because said law being strongly enforced would cause such a public backlash that it would quickly get repealed in its entirety, and thus further erode the monopoly on violence the state holds over its citizenry. Cops then have fewer en passants they can pull when they don't follow procedure, etc etc. I'm glad we're in agreement on this.
There might very well be laws like that. However, let me offer a non-controversial and obvious one. Speed limits. Many places have 65mph listed as a speed limit. Everyone knows you are not allowed to go faster. However very few place will pull you over for going 66mph or even 70mph. If they started pulling over everyone going 70 in a 65 there would not be "such a public backlash that it would quickly get repealed in its entirety" because we all know and they all knew they were breaking the law. But it isn't enforced in an authoritarian way because we have different vehicles, sometimes you need to pass, and frankly 70 and 65 just aren't that big of a problem. But almost everyone would agree that we do need a speed limit, although they might not agree on the number and a number has to be picked.
Now, I don't want to assume your political leanings, but I am getting some strong libertarian vibes. And you seem like a nice and thoughtful person, so maybe bad ideas don't even occur to you because you are honest and just don't think that way. But imagine, or go ask grok, some other ways this could work out. And while you are at it, imagine a law that did not effect all citizens the same. Now imagine that a bad law could effect a relatively small group much more than others. In what way could they cause affect a backlash that would quickly get a law repealed in its entirety?
Using money to incentivize any public action on behalf of the government should be a sort of last-resort situation where it makes sense and the people already being paid to do it can't for some reason. This is a very libertarian idea, in fact. A more reasonable idea, although much less libertarian, would be to pass a law that makes it where cars can not idle for more than a specified amount of time in certain situations, but that would come with its own can of worms don't you think? And I personally wouldn't be for such a law. In fact I am against the snitch on idlers law. If someone wants to pay $7 a gallon for gas to set there and idle it away, why shouldn't they be able to? How is it different than them driving the same gas away?
Agree. More of my thought is what happens when everyone is incentivized with money to spy on everyone else? How can you misuse this as a government? How can unscrupulous businesses misuse this?
>If switching to a fine-based bounty system like this suddenly causes an uproar over a given law, then I submit the proper thing is to look over that law and perhaps tear it down.
I would submit that there is the danger that people might want to keep a bad law if they continue to make money by snitching. In fact, money is the exact wrong incentive for this sort of thing.
>Any "law" that people put up with because it isn't enforced 9 times out of 10 is little more than a tax upon those too honest to get away with it.
Think a little harder and see if you can imagine why a law that isn't strongly enforced still might exist.
This type of thing can get out of hand quickly. Without me giving controversial examples, just imagine for yourself the types of things that different states can make a crime, add a fine, then offer to give other citizens part or all of that fine if they turn in others. After that, think of how unscrupulous businesses could use it against competition.
Many people might say that is a lower incentive than to being able to leave your family better off than they were, or in your more greedy interpretation, so that their children and their children can enjoy something less briefly than you were able to.
Like Netflix and Amazon Videos?
Interesting because "them" very much have an antagonistic mentality vs "us". "Them" would fire you in a fucking heartbeat to save a relatively small amount (10%). "Them" also want to aggressively pay you the least amount for which they can get you to do work for them, not what they "value" you at. "Us" depends on "them" for our livelihoods and the lives of people that depend on us, but "them" doesn't doesn't have any dependency on you that can't be swapped out rather quickly.
I am a capitalist, don't get me wrong, but it is a very one-sided relationship not even-footed or rooted in two-way respect. You describe "them" as "leadership" while "Them" describe you as a "human resource" roughly equivalent to the way toilet paper and plastics for widgets are described.
If you have found a place to work where people respect you as a person, you should really cherish that job, because most are not that way.
Lots of reasons, but here are a few:
1. The misspellings and grammar issues (used to) continue beyond emails into the websites, etc.
2. The grammar issues, magically, seem to mimic the the same grammar differences between certain countries typical language constructions and those of standard American English
3. Check your spam folder right now if you have gmail. Where did this 4-D chess triage of illiterate potential dupes go? Spelling and grammar are suddenly almost perfect! Also, many of the older scams seem to be replaced with romance or family impersonation scams.
>It makes economic sense. The most expensive part for a scammer in any automated scam is the part which can't be automated, where a human has to get involved for e.g. a phonecall.
Perhaps you haven't heard, but this can also be automated as well, cheaply. Works particularly well on the elderly!
>Economically, the scammer wants to do everything they can to get rid of smart or diligent people who might be harder to scam at the expensive part. It feels like it would cost scammers to not have typos.
I think you are giving too much credit to the spammers. Economically, the easiest thing to do is to send out endless emails and wait for responses. Those people, regardless of diligence or literacy, are already self-selecting and you can let them talk to LLMs to winnow the rest.
>Also, anecdotal, but the rise of autocorrect, spell checking and LLMs doesn't seem to have made any impact on the quality of spelling in my spam folder over the past 20 years.
I agree ... up until the rise of LLM's. Now (outside of more use of emojis) it is very good.
The misspellings and grammatical errors (used to?) continue on the fake sites that are created to steal credentials, and the excuses for most of the reasoning regarding emails do not hold there.
I am not engaged with her actual work, but here is a not-out-of-context clip[0] of her live art from MOMA. Perhaps you could give more insight into the artistry ?
>Should Israel be allowed to attack terrorist organizations in Palestine?
yes. I think actual terrorists should be eligible for being attacked anywhere. The real question you didn't ask is who gets to label what is and is not a terrorist? Black Panthers were considered terrorists in the US in the 60s and 70s but heros to the Black community now. In the US, again, our founding fathers were all considered terrorists by Britain.
>If so, is there an "acceptable" level of civilian casualties (collateral damage)?
The "acceptable" level of civilian casualties or collateral damage is zero. With the understanding that accidents happen, but all plans should be for zero.
>Does that level change if the terrorists intentionally use civilians as human shields
No. This routinely happens in the US over the years where criminals or even terrorists take hostages on a plane, bank, school, hospital, or other place with innocent people. We do not drop bombs on the building killing all the innocents to get at the evil-doers. Have you noticed that no country in the Western civilized world would even consider that? Modern military should be able to go in and do surgical strikes or a surrender. Hell, in the US, we have small towns with volunteer SWAT teams that do this routinely with basically 100% success rate.
I think the biggest problem, which is covered in most war-time conventions, is that you should treat civilians and innocent people the same as you would treat your own innocent civilians. This is somehow being argued that it does not apply in the middle East or Ukraine or Russia where people just remotely drop bombs and blame "human shields".
Not too long ago the US would be ashamed to admit it even did something like this, because it seems like incompetence or cowardice, but now we support it somehow?
[0]https://finance.yahoo.com/news/darker-dark-pool-welcome-wall...
Array programming languages smugly enter the chat
This is corporate speak for advertisements and telemetry
-Microsoft, apparently
... very interesting that the inputs to the model had nothing related to race or gender, but somehow it still was able to miss diagnose Black and female patients? I am curious of the mechanism for this. Can it just tell which x-rays belong to Black or female patients and then use some latent racism or misogyny to change the diagnosis? I do remember when it came out that AI could predict race from medical images with no other information[1], so that part seems possible. But where would it get the idea to do a worse diagnosis, even if it determines this? Surely there is no medical literature that recommends this!
[1]https://news.mit.edu/2022/artificial-intelligence-predicts-p...
Well, plenty of schools in the US used to cook food from scratch! They even had awesome cookbooks provided by the US government![1] (btw, it includes the recipe for that bomb-ass school pizza they used to have in the 80s and 90s! Credit to Max Miller from Tasting History for tracking it down.) That started getting privatized in the late 90s. Now they mostly just heat up things.
Unfortunately, due to the way politics and money work in the US, we have zero real choices...
>1. Raise wages to match global increased productivity
This is blocked by our two-party political system. Openly by Republicans (at the moment) and practically by Democrats. Both of our political parties seem to serve the people that actually pay them (ie. rich business owner donors) vs. people that vote for them. At least if it comes down to a problem between the two. This is shown in sharp relief in the famous chart by Martin Gilens showing which laws get passed in the US based on interest group.
>2. Democratize ownership
This is blocked by actual owners. Money equals ownership in the US. So, perhaps we can use our dollars and spend a certain way, one might think. Just BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity, and State Street combined have more assets under management than the entire United States GDP, and they are just 4 companies. Good luck!
>That's it.
That is probably not it, but if it is we are fucked!