You wouldn’t want it in the CI pipeline, because any model clever enough to find real issues is also going to find plenty of false positives. That seems like too much friction for most open source projects.
I’m not one of the downvoters, but you’ve linked to a list of forty or fifty different projects, many of which don’t seem relevant to this use-case. It’s not too surprising people have nothing to say besides “ugh, more AI hype.”
It’s Manhattan below 60th, not all of Manhattan, so maybe half the island, and it doesn’t include the FDR. Most of the ways to get to Queens, Brooklyn or Staten Island by car won’t be affected — same for the Bronx obviously.
> Most of the ways to get to Queens, Brooklyn or Staten Island by car won’t be affected — same for the Bronx obviously.
That's incorrect. All of the bridges and tunnels other than GW and Randall's Island (RFK) enter or exit from this new zone. With this new plan, literally all of the ways to get to Manhattan by vehicle will now have a toll. Some will have two.
I suppose if you're willing to take the tiny bridges from the Bronx into Harlem you can still get around tolls, but good luck with that.
Not sure why you’re fighting this so hard, but: GW, Triboro, Whitestone, Throgs Neck, Goethals, Outerbridge, Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel. Only the last two land in the toll zone. So yes, “most,” and it’s not especially close.
I’m not counting the Brooklyn Bridge, etc, because I was replying to your “ways to enter the city.” The topic as I understood it was “will you pay this toll if your final destination isn’t Manhattan,” and the answer is “Not unless you’re coming from certain parts of New Jersey, and even then you’ve got choices.”
Have a goal, and measure your progress towards that goal. If "get stronger" is enough, great; but if not, find some challenging activity you enjoy and want to improve at, and do the resistance training that will help you get better. Personally I find that much more motivating; just knowing there are health benefits never really did it for me.
Really really important to write down what you do. Progress is not always fast, but if you keep records, you'll see it, and that really helps with motivation.
IMO podcasts and such are not so good for strength training specifically, though for endurance work they're fine. You really want to give full intensity to getting through that last rep (with good form). You're training your ability to push through discomfort as much as you are your muscle's theoretical inherent strength.
Counterpoint from someone better informed about bipolar would be interesting and valuable. That said, it’s a discussion of an article asking “why is this guy like this?” One potential partial explanation is a mental health condition. Certainly it crosses my mind any time there’s a consistent and self-destructive pattern of behavior that it’s not clear the person involved can control.
I don’t know what’s served by pretending otherwise. If mental health challenges are real and important, and they are, then they’ll have observable effects outside a doctor’s office, and we should be able to talk about that.
I didn't remember that act before you posted it, did you think my "thanks" was snark?
in any case, although I like the government's distributed approach to merely incentivizing competition in the semiconductor supply chain in the CHIPS Act, I think a parallel more direct approach is still useful with direct construction and direct ownership of the entire supply chain - a public option if you will - in parallel to the private sector efforts. the way the US government works would still enable all sorts of private sector competition from contracting bids, as opposed to a really nationalized industry, which we tend to avoid in the US.
with that view, all of the world police funding, while our infrastructure is decrepit, is untenable. especially when our world police efforts are stated specifically to deter other actions from occurring, amongst other reasons, while all reasons are selective outrage.
Can't speak for what the person you're replying to meant (lol), but no, of course it's not nearly that stark. There's a continuum. Concrete everyday topic that comes up frequently? Everyone's going to know what they mean by what they say there. But we've all been in business meetings where people were just putting words together in a plausible way; we've probably all been the people speaking at those meetings.
The fact that it's possible to say things that make no sense, without knowing that they make no sense, proves the point. You or I can come up with a phrase like "the barber of Seville shaves all the people who do not shave themselves," and we can come up with paradoxical phrases without realizing that they are nonsensical. Neither of those would be possible if there were always a strict, one-to-one relationship between speech utterances and facts about the world.
Sometimes we have a specific idea of what we mean by what we say, sometimes we're just putting words together, often it's somewhere in between.
Thanks for the link to the paper. But I don't think that 10-20 seizures per prevented suicide estimate you mention can tell us anything about probable cause or the lack thereof. It's a guess at the rate of prevented deaths from suicide attempts, when the subject used a something other than a gun, but would have used a gun if the cops hadn't taken it from them. It's not an estimate of how many suicide attempts were prevented: it's just a measure of how much less deadly the suicide attempts that happened anyway were. A gun seizure is a big dramatic intervention; it's pretty plausible that it sometimes interrupts a bad moment that's essentially a one-off, and sometimes leads to people getting the help they need. Neither of those effects play into the estimate you cited.
Just on the legal standard: it's probable cause that there's a risk, not probable cause that the risky event will happen. If you have 51% certainty that the subject has a 25% chance of harming themselves or someone else, that is likely to be good enough. And while it gives me no joy to defend the US criminal justice system, to me that's appropriate here. Living with someone who's making violent threats towards you or themselves is no fun at all, even if there's only a 1 in 4 chance that they'll follow through.
"Just on the legal standard: it's probable cause that there's a risk, not probable cause that the risky event will happen. If you have 51% certainty that the subject has a 25% chance of harming themselves or someone else, that is likely to be good enough."
Do you have some citation on that? Frankly, if it's so ill defined that we don't know what level of risk justifies restrictions under the law, then we should all be opposing it as it can be used against anyone. Perhaps you play violent videos and that's enough risk?
"Living with someone who's making violent threats towards you or themselves is no fun at all, even if there's only a 1 in 4 chance that they'll follow through."
There are criminal charges that can be filed against this type of behavior. This does not require a hookie workaround. That's how we end up with things like civil assest forfeiture.
If it's a one-off then it's unlikely a red flag will matter. It will either have already been done or will not be done, the flag comes too late to intervene.
I don't know what the response time usually is in urgent cases, do you? There's a quote on pg 16 of the study that makes same-day sound unremarkable. It starts:
> A lot of times the people who have their weapons seized are not having a bad life—they’re having a bad moment.
It's an ex-prosecutor's illustrative hypothetical, so take it for what it's worth. Still the same logic applies if we're talking about bad weeks instead of bad evenings.
I’m not one of the downvoters, but you’ve linked to a list of forty or fifty different projects, many of which don’t seem relevant to this use-case. It’s not too surprising people have nothing to say besides “ugh, more AI hype.”