Honestly, when I was in the Navy training in a security squadron, we were basically taught to deescalate, use the lowest force we could, be it hands, mace, a baton, a pistol, the machine gun, etc. We were drilled never to use deadly force unless it was very clear we were in danger, were told to shoot second, because it's better to risk ourselves than risk killing an innocent person, that our backup would ensure the security of the ship or base so we didn't need to get trigger happy. I remember, strongly, the great fear I had about accidentally hurting the wrong person whenever we had live security events and i had to unholster my pistol.
I just don't get the way police are trained, they are there to risk themselves to ensure others are safe, even the criminals. Instead, they're trained to treat them worse than i was trained to treat literal terrorists.
The parent post was censored. I "vouched" it so it becomes visible again.
The censorship that HN readers bring to the forum disgusts me. To those responsible for censoring the parent post: get bent. You cowards have no place here.
Correct. Go into settings, search for "lockdown" and enable. On my Pixel 3 XL, I can then hold down the power button and while holding it a menu comes up that includes the option to shut it down, reboot, lockdown, or emergency.
Not everyone likes to work on code in their free time, though, and code from work is often not public. How do you suggest people like that get jobs then?
Shit 40 hours is already 35% of my waking hours in a week, including weekends. Factor in that a lot of places extend hours by 30-60min to account for lunch ("9-5" my ass) and then commute time for most folks, and tons of people are already giving half their waking hours to their job.
How much more time am I supposed to spend clickety-clacking code into a computer while ruining my health? Zero. Zero should be the answer. Because 40 hours is already a hell of a lot.
Social dynamics are subtle. For example, group SMS doesn’t support contact names. If you add someone to a group SMS, the other people only see a phone number unless they go out of their way to add the new guy to their contact list. Likewise, the new person has to add everyone else to see names. Decades of research in behavioral economics show just how powerful defaults are, so most people probably won’t bother to add names. Without names, the new person will have a more difficult time connecting with the group.
This isn’t stupid. It’s the natural consequences of tech that doesn’t conform to real human behaviors and social norms.
Your argument fails when you consider Whatsapp - the biggest messaging platform, where you need to add people's number in your contact to be able to see their names.
I agree with power of defaults though. Only reason iMessage took off, and so did other Apple services.
You definitely don't... Unknown contacts show as e.g. "+1234567890 ~Bob" (their WhatsApp display name). When you save them to your contacts it switches to the name you added instead.
Exactly this about excluding names. I was sent a group message and didn’t reply because I didn’t recognize the number. I started another chat, deleted the number and then responded.
Australia is already taking steps to eliminate negative pricing and some of the volatility, which will make it harder to profit on this type of installation as quickly. Most of the profit was made in ways that won't be as available in the future. Batteries are still important for other reasons, but don't think another 10 of these batteries will get the same returns.
I'd like to see some evidence of this, it seems surprising that a company like Apple or Google would do this for the government without some fight back.
I'd also like to see some evidence of this. But my understanding is that the purported mechanism is some sort of infrared beacon shone into the camera (like the eurion constellation, but live); it's something that could be activated without Apple or Google's involvement in the moment.
My point is more that this seems like a feature that no phone company would install without a law requiring it, if it's really in there, this feature would be really, really dangerous because any criminal could then just use the same equipment to disable cameras. It's also pretty bad to be depriving people of the use of their property against the 4th amendment and probably the 1st as well considering it's limiting photography and free expression as such.
I vouched you, so don't start spamming; sorry I can't help with the career question, I'm a developer who also doesn't really know what I want to do from here.
I just don't get the way police are trained, they are there to risk themselves to ensure others are safe, even the criminals. Instead, they're trained to treat them worse than i was trained to treat literal terrorists.