> It is kind of nuts that less than half of society accepts that
I'm not seeing any evidence of the other half of the US society not accepting school shootings.
If people truly cared about it, you'd go out on the street and protest, and waging a general strike in school and related areas until something is being done about it.
Instead 99% of the population seems complacent, and do mostly nothing about it, everyone (mostly) is still sending their kids to schools, teachers are still going to work and everything is business as usual.
Everyone is realistically able to though, if they're willing to sacrifice temporary pain. Many countries been through it before, and general strikes seems to have been the only non-violent way of getting wide-scale change enacted, and many of the people participating in those strikes "wasn't realistically able to participate" yet did so regardless.
It helps that other countries have some solid foundation for doing general strikes, particularly when they have strong unions that make people able to strike yet survive and get food and shelter.
But the upper-class seems to have anticipated this and fostered a really strong anti-union culture in the US, so now people have to suffer because there is no way of protesting, and there is no way of changing the status quo.
I don't think anybody accepts school shootings, and anybody accusing half of the population of "accepting" this obvious problem is likely making a bad faith argument attempting to paint their political opposition in a bad light.
I'm not attempting to paint any political opposition in a bad light, I was trying to paint the entire population at large in a bad light, as most of the people living there doesn't seem to do anything, not even weekly protests, even less a general strike.
I'm sure most of the population wants it to end, but also most of the population isn't doing anything about it, that's why I say most of them are complacent.
61% of people according to Pew research center think that guns are too easy to obtain. That includes some conservatives/republicans.
The group of people least likely to think guns are too easy to obtain are firearm owners, but even so 38% of them think it's too easy. 34% of Republican/Republican leaning people think it's too easy.
What we can say is most people think it's too easy to obtain firearms. And yet - the issue persists. I'm not trying to make it a partisan issue, I'm suggesting it's (as I wrote) an emergent property of our political system. Majorities can't get laws changed for various reasons.
American does not agree on what to do about school shootings, but to claim we accept it is a sever distortion trying to shut down the voice of others who do find guns useful (and would never shoot in a school).
The majority of gun owners use them for hunting animals that they eat. They also use them for putting holes in paper targets. Only a tiny minority use them for killing humans.
> Only a tiny minority use them for killing humans
Ephedrine, anhydrous ammonia, syringes, drones/UAVs, fireworks, high powered laser pointers are just a few things that are misused by a small minority but are restricted because the bad actors create outsized harm
I think you'll find societies are incredibly inconsistent in what they will and will not accept. For instance Europe is currently accepting constant death toll due to drownings of African refugees [1]. Hell, Europe accepted, without much complaint, that North African countries drove refugees into the desert and abandoned them to die, including children [2].
A TOR dev gave a recent talk at DEFCON [1], and described this as one of the ways that attempts at nationwide blocks to the TOR network are implemented. I'm not sure that it's exactly the same as domain fronting, since that might involve a CDN, but the technique is very close.
Functional programming exists in any reputable computer science course. Standard is haskel, For a true "unlearning" it might need to be a third or forth year subject
The likelihood function returns a probability. Specifically it tells you, for some parametric model, how the joint probability of the data in your data set varies as a function of changing the parameters in the model.
If that sentence doesn't make sense, then it's helpful to just write out the likelihood function. You will notice that that it is in fact just the joint probability density of your model.
The only thing that makes it a "likelihood function" is that you fix the data and vary the parameters, whereas normally probability is a function of the data.
I don't think you know how policing works in America. To cops, there are sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves; they are sheepdogs protecting us sheep from the criminals. Nobody needs to watch the sheepdogs!
But lets think about their analogy a little more: sheepdogs and wolves are both canines. Hmm.
Also "funny" how quickly they can reclassify any person as a "wolf", like this student. Hmm.
reply