I had the exact same question. This seems like a much bigger crime than the story is letting on. Also, shouldn't this be handled at least jointly by a federal agency? I didn't see any mention of federal charges.
I feel like fucking with the Post Office is one of those things that sounds minor but can be a big fucking deal. Your petty theft just became a literal federal case, complete with a police force whose whole job is to protect the integrity of the mail.
You're mixing beliefs with tactics/behavior. The behavior you described is "toxic" no matter what your beliefs are. I agree that the lack of repercussions and social feedback online lead to an increase in people acting like this and it is a problem for pretty much all public forums. However, it is neither constructive, nor is it truthful, in my opinion, to attach this behavior to a single group, side, or set of beliefs. All you'll end up doing is driving moderates of said group further to the extremes. You can call out ideas you think are bad and you can call out behavior you think is bad, but "other-ing" an entire group based on the worst actions at the fringes of their membership just isn't going to change any minds. It only widens the divide.
Edit: The exception, of course, is if the behavior that is at issue is actually encouraged by a foundational belief of the group.
>Edit: The exception, of course, is if the behavior that is at issue is actually encouraged by a foundational belief of the group.
I'm glad you added this, I agree with you in general. I'm not interested in "other-ing" right-wing people, Republicans, moderates, conservatives, but I'm very interested in "other-ing", e.g. neo-nazis or Klan members. I am not worried about neo-nazis becoming more extreme (? is this possible?) and I also am not willing to let their sensibilities or concern for their feelings dictate any part of my or society's behavior.
Who knows. Their point is that they now have control over the content and aren't subject to the whims of an external body. I have felt the pain of this as about 25% (!) of the videos in my youtube favorites list have been removed either by Google or the original uploader over the years.
I do both simultaneously. Both have saved me. There have been times where I immediately hit the brakes and horn when I saw someone doing something stupid (about to pull out into traffic, about to merge into me from another lane, etc) In some of these situations, the horn causes the other person to stop what they're doing and a collision that could not have been avoided solely by me braking, is avoided.
Are you making hiring decisions at the company you're at now? Can you share the name of that company either here, or via e-mail? I, and I'm sure others, would like to avoid applying there.
The algorithm would probably contain a dummy variable representing isYoungerThanXDays where X is the median number of time it takes to create a new account after it has been banned.
I doubt accounts that are Y days old vs. Z years old have different probabilities of being spammers.
> I don't think the drone plan was ever a serious short term consideration for 99.999% of Amazon's business
Right, but where would it be a serious short term consideration? Where's that .001%? If it's not in dense urban areas like Seattle and Chicago, I'm not sure where it would work, and those are the very areas where they're launching Flex.
1. His own engineering teacher "suggested that he not show the invention to other teachers." He should have listened, but...
2. During his English class the case made beeping noises. Not smart bringing it to English.
3. When questioned, he didn't explain what it was all about, and was described as playing "passive aggressive".
4. He calls it an "invention", but a digital clock in a case is not an invention. He's 14 years old, not 8. There's nothing inventive about it.
5. Admitted in the video he chose a "simple cable" to lock the case so it "wouldn't look threatening". So let's be clear, he did think about the possibility of it looking threatening, and his own teacher warned him about it.
Are the pieces coming together for you?
if he's smart, which apparently he is, then he should move on from clocks in cases to something that approaches an actual invention.
"Ahmed, for his part, wanted to bring the clock to show an engineering teacher. Because it consisted of a board with a digital display and a tiger hologram on the front, the teacher recommended he hide it from the rest of the staff."
This statement implies there was a conversation with the teacher before bringing it in and that the teacher told him to bring it, but to not bring it out in other classes/in front of other teachers.
Your other points are not even worth replying to and border on trolling. You're upset that he didn't invent something new at 14? Building a homemade clock is too simple for his age and only 8 year olds should do it? This is one of the most insane posts I've ever seen on HN.
Not asserting fact here but merely providing my interpretation:
The engineering teacher may have advised the student to bring the device to school but to not pull it out in any other class. This could have been done to avoid distracting other students or attracting unwanted attention from other teachers. This seems like a straight forward request that may have been taken out of context. I have not seen a quote that uses the word "hide", which really changes the connotation of the statement. I highly doubt the engineering teacher thought specifically that the device could be seen as a bomb.
the teacher recommended he hide it from the rest of the staff.
However it's not a direct quote so I don't know the wording the teacher used. Regardless, this teacher seems to have known enough to step in at any time before this child was escorted from the school in handcuffs.
Perhaps he did and was shot down. I don't know but the details as shared stuck out to me.
