What would be the point of releasing good numbers a year before the election and then forcing yourself to release worse numbers just a couple months before the election?
This observation should be really obvious. The people who think this is nefarious believe they are thinking critically. What they fail to realize is that they are skipping the part where they critically examine their own thought process.
I don't completely disagree with you, but the main factor is really speed. Golf carts top out at 15mph and at that speed pedestrians don't die when they are hit by trucks either.
Speed, tall and blunt hoods, and the piss poor visibility all affect how dangerous a vehicle is. That is why I singled out pickup trucks; not that they are the only problematic motor vehicle on the roads nowadays.
I would wager this is more a function of better/earlier detection than anything.
In general deaths from cancer are down considerably. I'm having trouble finding exact stats I want, but believe this is the case for young people as well.
Cases of cancer that result in fatality have been and will always be counted pretty close to 100%, since they will eventually seek medical help.
Cases of cancer that are less serious are more likely to be diagnosed when medical care is good.
I suppose some people believe it is relieving to merely be walking around maimed, reduced organ functionality, high levels of fatigue, various chronic conditions, and a stressor in the back of one's mind with that never-goes-away nag of "will I be here in 5 years?"
There is no modern improvement in screening process that would account for the increase in colon cancer we have been seeing in young adults. Colon cancer screening still does not begin until age 50
Is it only routine screening that would help account for increases or also better detection for symptomatic individuals? Maybe more easily available blood tests or more frequent referrals for colonoscopies for those outside of typical screening groups.
This shows that the colon cancer screening rate has quadrupled for ages 45-49 since 2020. It says official guidelines were changed in 2021.
I am not going to pretend to be an expert, but I also imagine there could be significant difference in how sensitive these screenings have been over the decades.
It's not available to anyone under 45 that it wasn't already (i.e. expressing symptoms, which indicated an advanced status, AKA not a "screening" use case but a diagnostic one)
I feel like the issue here is not necessarily that the surveillance happened, but it has the appearance of impropriety. I think a possible solution is to have a national law enforcement agency that can step in when local agencies run into issues that involve investigating their own.
The number of protests involved here that turned violent is rather large. It would be silly to insist that local police not monitor public channels where protestors are organizing. We don't even get from this report if this was necessarily more work compared to a counterfactual where sit-ins or violent protests were against local schools or other government agencies.
I get where people are skeptical, but that's why an outside agency could potentially be useful in doing the same exact work (if not more) while making it more clear there is no impropriety.
>On March 6, 2023, it was reported that 23 people who had thrown large rocks, bricks, Molotov cocktails, and fireworks at police, as well having set buildings and equipment on fire, had been charged with domestic terrorism. Only two of them were from Atlanta. One was from France, and one was from Canada.
>On January 18, 2023, Georgia State Troopers and other agencies launched another raid. During the raid a trooper was shot in the leg, and a protester, Manuel Terán, known also as "Tortuguita", was shot and killed by police.[24] Police stated that Terán fired on them without warning.[25] Multiple groups, including other protestors, two independent journalists who had previously interviewed Terán, and Terán's family, have questioned whether Terán fired first, pointing to the lack of body camera footage of the shooting and calling for an independent investigation.
Impropriety is taking a protest that has been ongoing for 4 years and seen some of the most egregious abuses of the state's monopoly on violence against protestors and selecting two anecdotes that tries to paint a "both sides" narrative
Not to mention there should be holding a much higher standard of "propriety" of those that we arm and give power to. The systemic abuse of power here affects all of us members of this society. Not just these specific protestors
> selecting two anecdotes that tries to paint a "both sides" narrative
If a person is throwing Molotov cocktails and lighting buildings on fire to advance a political cause, that's technically terrorism and should be pursued in the way we pursue domestic terrorism. (Though I'm unclear how one differentes riots from terrorism under this framework.)
We can, at the same time, be critical of Atlanta's policing methods. But that isn't both sidesing the problem. They're orthogonal issues. (I have difficulty believing someone torching buildings is seriously invested in police reform.)
If society is not able to rebel, no political action can happen, at least in some parts od the world. Technically this might be terrorism, practucally it is a safeguard
Political action is able to happen every couple years in Atlanta at the voting booth. Voting is the safeguard. The majority of people in Atlanta consistently vote for people who want to build a police training center.
Just because you think your side is just, it does not give you the right to overrule the will of voters.
Constitutional rights cannot be trampled on, but otherwise it's counterproductive to give extra care to the losing side of a political fight simply because they trespass and start fires.
Just to be extra cynical here, part of the alleged criminal conspiracy was collecting signatures for a referendum against cop city. And the state is seeking legal corner cases to prevent the referendum that has seemingly met all the requirements from appearing on the ballot.
These are what the article is referring to when it talked about police monitoring the signature collection protests.
As far as I can tell they generate a report like this for every single protest in the city and send to police so they know what's going and how many people they expect to be a different public place.
> In April 2024, students at Emory University organized a protest on the university lawn against Cop City and the university's ties to Israel. A statement from protest organizers accused the university of being “complicit in genocide and police militarization” and called for "total institutional divestment from Israeli apartheid and Cop City at all Atlanta colleges and universities." The protests were peaceful until Georgia State Patrol, Atlanta Police and University Police forcefully dispersed the protests. Law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets, and tasers during the crackdown. 28 people were arrested, including the university's philosophy department chair.
> The arrest warrant for the festival attendees stated that domestic terrorism charges were brought against those based on probable cause, such as having had mud on their feet, and that those with legal aid phone numbers written on their bodies were considered suspicious. According to The Intercept, there is no information contained in the warrants that directly connects any of the defendants to illegal actions. Atlanta police chief Darin Schierbaum refused to comment when confronted by journalists about this allegation.
> In May 2023, three activists were arrested and charged with felony intimidation of a police officer and misdemeanor stalking, with penalties up to 20 years in prison, for posting fliers and identifying the officer that shot Manuel Terán. That same month, three more activists were arrested and charged with charity fraud and money laundering for organizing a legal bail fund. Regarding the arrests, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr pledged to “not rest until we have held accountable every person who has funded, organized, or participated in” the protests.
> protests were peaceful until Georgia State Patrol, Atlanta Police and University Police forcefully dispersed the protests
Wikipedia cites two sources for this claim. The first doesn't appear to make it [1]. The second cites "a video posted online" by "a person who identified themself as Bella" [2]. This isn't credible evidence.
Followed it through because there is obviously a massive difference between Emory calling in the cops because stuff was being destroyed and the cops teargassing a peaceful protest.
The first source does indeed have a quote about it being a "peaceful demonstration". The second source (The Guardian) also says "Videos posted online showed students peacefully gathering" and the articles links through multiple videos, photos, and quotes throughout
There is no source that backs up your claim that "stuff was being destroyed"
They've made this situation hard for themselves because while there is a practical reason to keep track of at least some of these protest activities but they've also shown themselves incapable and untrustworthy in handling their own affairs.
Retaliation from police is a real and documented fear (I mean look at harassment of women who accuse a police officer of domestic violence) and incidents like not having any body camera footage is sadly much too common to believe the police can handle these situations in good faith themselves and ensure that first amendment rights are respected.
The trust between them and the populace is broken and, at least the cities I've lived it doesn't seem like they are going to repair it any time soon (specifically the police in Chicago were a dumpster fire when I lived there. I knew someone whose dad was on the force who described the Chicago police as simply "bad people").
Some monitoring of protests is necessary to ensure the safety of protestors and keep track of the potential for violence or other crimes from protestors or opportunists. For example I went to a BLM protest and it was pretty chaotic and there were counter-protestors and some minor vandalism of the local courthouse. Seeing how I was at a BLM protest I'm not a police fan but it was a chaotic situation with the potential to escalate so it so they should have a handle on what's happening and what the dangers are. It's an extreme example but January 6th is a good example of what happens when they misjudge those things.
Edit: to be clear in the case of the BLM protest I went to the organizers coordinated with the police so I'm not aware of any particular surveillance for it.
I agree the police should maintain public safety. I'm not convinced they should be monitoring public discourse or allocating resources based on that monitoring.
Atlanta PD even agrees with me on that last point:
> Moreover, throughout its intelligence reporting, the department acknowledges that public engagement with online postings does not necessarily correspond with the likely size of an event, suggesting that this monitoring is hardly useful for resource allocation.
If event organizers want to request police presence that's fine. But I see no reason police should be expected or even allowed to use surveillance to predict the needs of such an event.
"I'm not convinced they should be monitoring public discourse or allocating resources based on that monitoring." I have no desire to convince you of this and I definitely haven't been arguing for this at all.
I have no idea what monitoring they should do, just that they do have an interest in knowing major protests in their area.
Edit: put yourself in the shoes of a policeman trying to do your job in the best way you can then ask yourself "should I know when protests are happening in the area I work in and what the general situation is during one?" All I'm saying is that the answer to that question, to me at least, is yes. I don't think police need to entirely stick their heads in the sand in regards to protests. This argument is all stemming from a throwaway line in my original comment and I neither know enough to coherently argue nor care enough to argue specifics of implementation.
My litmus test for what sources to believe has narrowed to ones which declare both good and bad actions by any parties.
Nobody does things correctly all the time, so if I read an article that lauds one side and has crickets as to their failings... it's clear the author's intent was spin. In which case, why would I trust what they say?
It's statistically unlikely that any one side has a monopoly on righteousness and good ideas.
Cops can abuse surveillance authorities and protestors can be violent. There's no requirement that only one party does bad things.
> My litmus test for what sources to believe has narrowed to ones which declare both good and bad actions by any parties.
Doesn't pass the sniff test. There's no guarantee that any relevant impropriety took place on the part of both parties and even if it exists there is no requirement that it justifies the other's actions. This false balance just serves to blame victims and excuse abusers.
Consider: Is it important to note that a robbery victim also received a parking ticket in her past?
> Cops can abuse surveillance authorities and protestors can be violent. There's no requirement that only one party does bad things.
Ok but where is the evidence that both parties did something bad? And that the response of the cops was justified and appropriate?
The real problem here is that this is bad policing. They aren't improving public safety, they're harassing their political opponents.
This still sounds like faulty logic. The existence of bias in one case doesn't prove it in all cases. Sometimes there really is just an innocent victim. Further, there's no reason to believe there are two sides to any issue. Reality is messy. Your test is too simplistic and fails basic validation.
> It's statistically unlikely that any one side has a monopoly on righteousness and good ideas
It's statistically very likely that a "side" with power (economic, monopolies on violence, etc) is more likely to abuse power than a "side" without power...
Would you look at the Stanford Prison Experiment and say that the prisoners are just as likely to be doing "the bad stuff" as the guards?
Maybe both sides have an even distribution of shitty people, but that's not what matters. What matters is the shitty things that are being done. Its statistically much more likely that a side that has more power is doing more of the shitty things
> It's statistically very likely that a "side" with power (economic, monopolies on violence, etc) is more likely to abuse power than a "side" without power...
Isn't this tautology? Only the side with power can act on its abusive impulses.
In an actual prison where gangs and alliances are allowed to form, you'd damn well better bet shitty people on the inmate side would still abuse their power.
That's human nature, and there's power everywhere.
And the lowest hanging fruit doesn't even necessarily have to do with AI or robotic tech.
In the US you need a prescription within the last year to buy contact lenses. European countries do not require this. Not only does this mean contacts are more expensive and come from fewer suppliers, but demand for appointments with eye doctors would never go down, even though a test of vision could easily be done now by an automated machine where you choose a series of A/B options.
>In the US you need a prescription within the last year to buy contact lenses. European countries do not require this.
Same here in Japan. I just buy my contact lenses from a shop online; I don't need a prescription at all. The only reason to go to the optometrist is when I feel my lenses are no longer the correct prescription (since your eyes change over time).
And for the eye-health tests that eye doctors try to use to justify yearly visits, that's done for free at the annual health check that everyone gets. Unlike the US with its weird system that considers eyes and teeth to not be necessary for health, those are all covered by the same single health insurance that you normally get, either through your employer or from the government.
Maybe for a basic eye exam, but they're also checking for things like glaucoma. Glaucoma in particular is tricky because you may not notice early on, but any damage done to your eyes before treatment is permanent.
In my experience, the cost for glasses/contacts is mostly in actually buying them anyways. Therefore, I just go get my eye exam done and then just buy them online for much cheaper than any retail store. Supposedly the cheap online glasses aren't as good, but they're good enough in my experience and then I don't feel quite so bad when I inevitably lose them somewhere.
For what it's worth energy and electricity consumption are not the same. Fuel (for autos, planes, heating oil, etc.) would be included in energy consumption but not electrical.
I'm having trouble finding reliable data quickly, but looks like 35% of energy consumption in the world is electrical.
It's still an increasing fraction as you say, but it seems like a doubling or quadrupling of energy used for AI would probably have much less of an impact than the share of the population using ice-cars changing a few percentage points.
That's a good point, I'm not sure whether the energy use stats I linked really cover non-electricity fuel use. Maybe they do, but then there's the question of how much of _Google_'s energy use is non-electric, as opposed to everybody's consumption.
I can't think of any instance where the endangered species act would allow housing in some area near wildlife, but only if it didn't have a dividing wall between living spaces.
There was a controversy in curling a few years ago where some curling teams were using new brooms by a new company that had significantly better tech. It was so good it made it unnecessary to have two sweepers. The resolution was to ban it and only allow brooms from certain manufacturers.
It seems reasonable that these sports could narrow down the list of approved equipment down to a few approved suppliers every year.
Shoes had a similar issue when Nike released their first modern super-shoe (Vaporfly, IIRC). The track and field body had to limit shoe sole height and the other brands had a lot of catch-up to do.
Same for swimming with high tech, low drag, bouyant swimsuits. Again, the international body had to step in and ban some materials/designs to prevent domination by nations that could sink resources into the engineering.
same thing happens in cycling all the time too. the UCI bans new equipment all the time, and the rules for what is allowed are very strict, to the point where there's a limit on sock height. there is a limited list of frames that can be used in UCI races, including the olympics
but rules around the type of equipment you can use, and the race host supplying specific equipment to all riders, is a very different thing.
The supply and demand of housing would be very different if a YIMBY policy agenda was in place.
Right now, it may be possible a rental company could own a large amount of apartments without fear of new units being added.
If YIMBY policies were in place, new apartments could be added within a year or two and in the long-term this would mean housing prices are met by supply and demand. The landlords only have power when supply is artificially capped.
>The supply and demand of housing would be very different if a YIMBY policy agenda was in place
What about the investment in the house and the quality of life of those having the BY? Wouldn't that be very different also, if a serene place with fewer houses becomes a mass housing jungle?
Maybe cities could extend outwards instead of making existing BY hellishly dense?
> Maybe cities could extend outwards instead of making existing BY hellishly dense?
This is what we have been doing. It's not working
> What about the investment in the house and the quality of life of those having the BY?
As the neighborhood gets more dense you'll probably hit a point where the value of your land gets to a point where you can move somewhere slightly out of the city and have a chunk of money in your pocket.
> hellishly dense?
I dont see why you equate density with hellishness, with density comes more services, entertainment options, (ideally transit options) and unless you sell your land is still your land. And generally we're not talking about turning your suburban neighborhood into Manhattan usually more something akin to a european neighborhood.
On the density point - the natural observation is that most people tend to live in high density areas, because that is where most of the housing is. It is possible to have "hellish" density (the worst of a slum somewhere like Hong Kong), but most of the time dense living is simply the standard human option.
The most "hellishly dense" places in the US aren't even as dense as the city of Paris, half of which is parkland, and the other half mostly ordinary six-story apartment buildings.
I don't think hellishly dense cities even exist. There's only hellishly dense neighborhoods and slums. The stereotype some people have is the densest 12 square blocks of Hong Kong extrapolated to the overall size of Hong Kong. Yet if you visit Hong Kong you will find yourself taking a pleasant walk from your hotel, through a park, to a restaurant.
Click any link on the list of densest cities[1] and you will see a lot of low-rises and parks in every one. The ones that are actually hellish are the ones that are car-centric. Dense cities are quite pleasant when you're walking.
