He shot while only being a few feet away from the car, which had already started to drive off.
Why would a trained officer believe that shooting at the driver from only a few feet away would have a higher chance of improving his chances against being hit by the car (which was already well in motion), than trying to physically move out of its way? That makes no sense.
All of this happened in a split second. As explained in TFA, the relevant legal standards do not require the application of hindsight or sober second thought. They are only concerned with what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances, with the information available in the moment. Training does not and cannot possibly prevent instinctive actions that appear irrational or ineffective after the fact.
Wouldn't the proverbial reasonable person jump out of the way of a vehicle that's already nearly on the verge of colliding with them? Pulling out a gun seems to be the less instinctual thing to do in such a situation.
I also wonder if they'll ever find out who screamed "F*ing B*tch" at her in that moment.
For the record, I totally agree that you should have this ability.
But they are likely orienting themselves with GDPR and similar laws around the world, under which data exports and portability only include your own data, and specifically exclude that of other "data subjects".
This is one of the few areas where I think that GDPR may be too strict.
I wonder how they'd handle this under the GDPR, which has an explicit "Right to rectification".
The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller without undue delay the rectification of inaccurate personal data concerning him or her.
Taking into account the purposes of the processing, the data subject shall have the right to have incomplete personal data completed, including by means of providing a supplementary statement.
Raffles are meant to increase engagement and participation, and getting conference participants to interact with prize sponsors and remain until the closing remarks. If employers started to demand that any prizes won be considered property of the company instead of the person who won, participants would likely start paying less attention and probably skip raffle activities altogether.
I welcome the initiative. At the same time, there probably needs to be some kind of "freedom of panorama" exception to take and use pictures where someone's likeness just happens to be featured incidentally/in the background, like pictures of tourist attractions, public events, urban photography etc.
Otherwise everyday photography in public spaces would become legally risky or impractical, especially in crowded areas where avoiding all faces is nearly impossible and where the focus clearly isn't on the individuals but the landmark or scene itself.
The problem of filming/photographing in public is not new and this type of legislation already exists in many (all?) European countries and falls under existing privacy laws...
If a deepfake is made of someone, that person was clearly the subject of the image/video and thus violates his/her privacy.
This extra legislation would help protect in case the original image/video was taken with consent (so no privacy issue).
There are image processing techniques that can remove the people from a crowded shot, allowing you to take pictures of landmarks during the day as though there are no people around.
Taking the median pixel values of a set of photographs isn't particularly fake. You might end up with the shadows being a bit off, but not noticeably so.
Airlines have hugely benefited from moving travelers from paper tickets to the use of their phones, where everything is done in the airline's app. Even if a few flights get turned around now and then, that seems trivial compared to the benefits:
- No need to print/distribute physical tickets
- Check-ins via the app reduces the need for ground personnel
- They can push inflight menus, shopping items, promotions etc.
- Flight updates and other notifications can get pushed to your device
Paper tickets, yes. Paper boarding passes, no. Replacing a paper boarding pass has been easy since airlines switched to an electronic ticketing system where the actual ticket is an entry in the airline's database.
The person I was responding to was talking about tickets. I will print a paper boarding pass if I'm at home and I can print it easily when I check in in advance but I just do it at the airport if it's not convenient. (I don't like making myself more dependent on my phone than I need to be.)
That comment introduces some confusion with "moving travelers from paper tickets to the use of their phones" before giving a mixed list of benefits of e-tickets and mobile boarding passes.
E-tickets were introduced in the 1990s, and essentially all airlines were using them by 2008. They don't have anything to do with phones. Mobile boarding passes are a more recent development.
Take ad hominem. It’s true that there is no logical connection between who is saying something and whether it’s true.
But in practice, that’s one of the most relevant factors of whether you should be listening to someone. Does this person have a solid track record? Do they have your interest in mind?
So it is relevant information. It’s just that, “well once this guy kicked a dog” is usually done in bad faith.
So I wouldn’t consider it a non-sequitor, except in its most crude forms.
In this vein, one of the more insipid traps of these fallacies is that they do not lead to a conclusion, on their own.
Ad hominem continues to be a good example. If you know that someone is a liar, you don't know that everything they say is false. You just know that they lie and are likely saying something to affect listeners. Could be based on some truth. Could not.
That's true, but those safeguards can be disabled. ChatGPT on Azure for example, allows Azure account managers to disable filters/safeguards depending on the customer.
Given that this product is apparently used to give people with disabilities a voice, that should definitely qualify. Yes of course they should be able to swear, just like everyone else.
So is iMessage. Putting some processing elsewhere on the network doesn’t change the fact that a conversation between spouses (or any other utterances of a person, for that matter) should be private.
Why would a trained officer believe that shooting at the driver from only a few feet away would have a higher chance of improving his chances against being hit by the car (which was already well in motion), than trying to physically move out of its way? That makes no sense.