theultdev

Man the critics here about deadlines is astounding.

I wonder how many deadlines that people miss here, and that's usually just pure software, no materials.

You don't always die instantly when you're shot, especially in quick drive-bys.

A quicker response could mean the difference between someone surviving and someone bleeding out.

That article is extremely biased.

Basically it's accusing Meta of should have knowing that their algorithm and their user generated stickers was spreading this content.

Yes in an ideal world they should catch any campaign of this sort, but global moderation is difficult and they offer no proof that Meta knew about this.

It's disingenuous to say that Meta agitated this event. Those specific users of Meta agitated it and Meta did not catch it.

fun violence related?

gangs make money by selling drugs. they use that money to buy guns.

they then have turf wars over where they can sell drugs.

that leads to shootings which strike innocent civilians.

what do you suggest the police do? allow those gangs to sell the drugs and kill each other and other innocent bystanders?

also this thread is about whether they should monitor shootings...

Devices are installed where shootings are frequently reported by civilians.

The shootings are usually gang related, not at the police, so I don't see how your theory of heightened policing causes a loop.

The best way to protect the innocent civilians in the area is to increase surveillance and police presence.

Removing police presence is a disservice to the people who are victims of the gang violence in the area. Those people are the ones who call the police and want them there.

Only if you remove the police in areas do you get a feedback loop (no protection, so you join a gang for protection, which leads to more gang violence)

I believe in praise for any company that finds a way to profit and do the right thing.

If they don't profit, then they don't have resources to do those things in addition to not being able to provide a livelihood for their workers.

> and we call them “cowboys” because it was originally applied to Black slaves who worked with cattle.

source?

I said nothing of my political leaning, only that you shouldn't rely on some sort of "meter" of bias from an outlet. It's circular reasoning.

There's no "authority of bias" you can trust. You have to view many sides and perspectives and judge for yourself the truth in the middle.

But judging from your hyperbolic, unsolicited statements you do seem to have some biases yourself that you may want to even out.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

It was covered quite well in Texas, the entire 7th grade year history is dedicated to it.

Though recently the coverage has shifted to alternative points of views I've heard, but I don't have a kid so I don't know exactly how they cover it now.

If you would like to pick a "sound argument" from one of those historians I'd like to hear it and cross-examine it.

Which point of view is the myth?

I guess it depends on the number of outlets repeating it?

And yes it does to answer your question about Time Magazine, one in the same really.

At one point Time Magazine was a good publication, not in the last decade though. (in my opinion incase that needs to be stated)

It might be plausible if any evidence was presented, otherwise it's very loose speculation.

Many of the cowhands working side by side vaqueros were literal boys (15-17) and very young men.

In Texas it's very common to call a young man a boy.

Currently it's a baseless accusation that it was a derogatory term, even moreso that it's racial.

It's never been mentioned as such until now, well past the high days of cowboys.

Yeah and the Patriot Act was about patriotism.

I just gave an example of them making up an origin of the term "cowboy" being related to slavery with no supporting evidence.

I did not deny racial aspects of American history.

I just dispute that it has anything to do with this event.

I welcome you to expand on your linkage between the two though.

That's your own prejudice coming out. The word boy may have a negative connotation in some usages, but in this case it's referring to literal boys.

The term was used for family and community farms, not for large ranches / plantations.

The fathers and sons would tend to a small head of cattle used to feed their family and the community. They did not and could not afford to own slaves.

Plus the term was used well after Britain outlawed slavery.

I am not ignoring it nor did I say to ignore it. I simply dispute what they said.

If anything I want people to read it and see how trash it is.

Just don't be caught off guard if you use a "fact" of theirs and get embarrassed for being wrong.

I cannot provide a criticism against their theory of origin as they did not provide any evidence.

Judging from the theme and tones of their articles and their lack of evidence in their claims it is of my opinion they are race-baiting.

That is a subjective view so feel free to interpret their motives as you wish, I will interpret them how I view them based on my evaluations.

Sure, if you provide valid historical and linguistic evidence.

I don't think there is a lineage it's believed to be the literal anglicized version of vaquero. It was another branching of the word vaquero.

The term cowboy seems to have occurred naturally as a less literal transition of the word vaquero.

I am not a linguistics expert though, there may be someone else that has more details on the transition.

I will also accept a fortification of the article's attempt at explaining the origin, but I don't see any evidence or attempt at providing any.

Also as I noted in earlier comments the word "cowboy" was being used in print in 1725 by that time and used heavily in the British Isles in the mid 1800s

Well, the term "buckaroo" is believed to be an anglicized version of "vaquero" showing phonological characteristics compatible with its Spanish origin. The word "buckaroo" first appeared in American English in 1827. It's still used to refer to a certain style of cowboys and horsemanship, particularly in the Great Basin region of the United States, which retains characteristics of the traditional vaquero.

But to your criticism, the transition from "vaquero" to "cowboy" just reflects the influence of Spanish culture on American ranching practices.

Vaqueros and cowboys worked side by side so it seems to be a natural transition between the two and has much more support historically and linguistically than the complete lack of evidence provided by the article.

Words don't appear out of nowhere, they naturally evolve and generally are based on imported words and root words, and it makes sense that Spain, the ones who created this practice and imported these cows and horses were the root of the evolution, beginning from the latin root word "vacca".

That's completely false, but I wouldn't put any stock in anything that comes out of Texas Monthly, it's usually just race-bait...

The word "cowboy" originates from the Spanish term "vaquero" which refers to an individual who manages cattle while mounted on horseback.

The Spanish word "vaquero" is derived from "vaca" meaning "cow" which comes from the Latin word "vacca".

The term "cowboy" was first used in print by Jonathan Swift in 1725 and was used in the British Isles from 1820 to 1850 to describe young boys who tended the family or community cows.

Before "cowboy" the English word "cowherd" was used to describe a cattle herder, often referring to a pre-adolescent or early adolescent boy who usually worked on foot. This term is very old in the English language, originating prior to the year 1000.

The term "cowboy" was in use by 1849, although it was not used in all locations. The men who drove cattle for a living in the southwest were usually called cowhands, drovers, or stockmen.

Variations on the word appeared later, such as "cowhand" in about 1852 and "cowpoke" in 1881, originally restricted to individuals who prodded cattle with long poles to load them onto railroad cars for shipping.

To this day, cowhand and ranchhand are mainly used in America. The term cowboy is now generally used in the rodeo and a catch-all term.

The people who work at them do.

We were talking about windmills, that's the main topic incase you don't remember.

Nice deflection trying to pick one irrelevant point though.

It seems neither of us will know what will happen when a hurricane hits a windmill.

Unless you have something?

> Cite something.

I was asking. I don't know what a hurricane will do to a wind turbine blade.

You seem to be very sure, so I assume you have something to cite, could you link it?

> Yeah, across land.

You do know hurricanes lose power when they hit land right?

> From a hurricane, not a tornado?

Tornadoes do. Hurricanes do as well. Why do you think there would be any difference? Hurricanes are generally more powerful.

I don't know, do you know how far it can carry them?

It can carry roofs of trailer homes over miles after ripping them off, I believe it can carry wind turbine blade multiple miles.

Have you never heard of massive schools of fish, including sharks, being sucked up and carried miles away onto land?

I think you underestimate the power of a hurricane.

Regardless, it's a reasonable concern to have, is it not?

It should be proven to be safe, not the other way around.

Don't assume something isn't hazardous.

I'm aware of the current built in protections we deploy for land installations.

Those prototypes for hurricane prone sea installations do look promising though, especially the downwind blades.

Looking forward to seeing successful test data for these blades, it's certainly not going to be easy to withstand these forces.

I was talking about page rank, it disappeared from the first 20+ pages of HN.

If you didn't see it within the 20 minutes it was there, you would never find it unless you had that handy direct link of yours.

And this one is currently flagged. It was flagged when I vouched for it (that's how I was able to vouch for it)