Will this trend lead to fewer and fewer people joining law enforcement, which would further weaken the government?
Regarding whether this constitutes a "failed state", I'd say it depends on how bad this gets.
Similar to the concept of "peaceful transfer of power", there also needs to be a relatively peaceful maintenance of power.
Politicians, judges and law enforcement are the very people who constitute a functional government. If, going forward, a certain threshold of the "good guys" start to opt out of joining their own governing system (in one of those capacities) for fear of having themselves and their families murdered, then the country becomes a failed state.
How can other countries prevent that from happening to them, especially Mexico's neighbors?
Which kinda reminds me of “defund the police” and “ACAB” movements in the US, promoting that all cops are bad and no good person should join police force.
I don’t think it does any good for future crime rates.
Well, its a problem yeah. But its not a few bad apples. Police abuse people pretty systematically. Its no good having a police force that is basically unaccountable. Which is what we've got now. Also, police are called in to do things that really they shouldn't be, like resolving disputes between spouses, dealing with people having mental health issues, etc. And they carry guns all the time which just means that the chance of them using a gun in a casual encounter goes up massively.
> promoting that all cops are bad and no good person should join police force.
This is not what defund the police was about. This is misinformed. It was about reducing the amount of things police do and giving those responsibilities to people better trained for it. Also getting rid of things like military equipment.
50% of black Americans agree that MORE police are needed on the street, according to a 2020 study. [1]
To campaign for their reduction is to campaign against the interests of black people. In fact, it sounds incredibly racist to suggest black people can't decide this and their voice needs to be trampled upon.
Why do you think you can decide what black communities need more than the majority of black people? They want more police. You are advocating for them to get less, against their wishes, no?
> Which kinda reminds me of “defund the police” and “ACAB” movements in the US, promoting that all cops are bad and no good person should join police force.
This sounds like a huge mischaracterization of the movements to me. From what I've seen it seems the movement mainly has two goals:
- Demilitarize the police, i.e. don't let them buy toys that are overpowered for the work they're supposed to do.
- Don't make the police do tasks that are better handled by others. Like, don't put all the responsibility of dealing with mentally ill people. Move money from the police to various departments/institutes that can help and treat people with mental illness.
> I don’t think it does any good for future crime rates.
It's much worse to neglect mental health, to remove social security systems, and to let income inequality get out of hand. That's the point of "defund the police". Invest in policies that reduce the need for a militarized police, by treating the illness rather than spending money on dealing with the symptoms.
Yeah, this is exactly the opposite of reality. It is not "company's access to their phone", it is "company's control of their phone". I think you misunderstand what's being required of many people in exchange for access corporate information from their phone.
Thank you. We need to think about these things because if we are just satisfied with "no emissions from the tailpipe" we are doomed. Buying a Tesla is not buying an fossil fuel free product. Teslas require fossil fuels to make and the more Teslas we buy, the more fossil fuels we emit.
Its not ideal, so I dont recommend it to anyone. It just so happens I am super tired after work, so I need to give my brain a rest. But because I’m sleeping so early (like 7pm - 9pm), I inevitably wake up during the late evening. Then i try not to waste the remainder of the evening and end up staying up late for math and programming. Programming is easy to stay up, math is hard to do consistently.
Then I sleep 3.30am or so to 8.30am, am cranky for the whole morning, but that is okay since I can do my work in autopilot most of the time.
The end result is I am definitely getting a solid few hours each day for my studies, whilst maintaining a job.
Thanks. I was just curious because I don't seem to have the mental focus at night for such endeavors, but that is the only time I have for such things.
I struggle a lot without that small nap. Would recommend trying that, alternatively maybe wake up early and spend the first hour on your chosen personal field before work. That way, you can be happy the rest of the day, knowing you accomplished the most important thing for you (your personal endeavours), and spend the day at work more relaxingly :)
I've kept my phone on silent via the physical toggle switch for the last four years and it's been a real game changer. I'm still notified via vibrations but receive zero audible notifications. It seems very odd at first but I'd have it no other way at this point.
Absolutely this. Not sure if it's 1-2 seconds but the delay is enough to make it unusable. I've missed turns and exits because of it. Google Maps seems to have some predictive ability that allows it to appear to be "real-time".
For those in the same boat, any tips you can provide to overcome the commonly cited barriers?
For example: maintaining the required mental agility needed to do the job, learning new technologies that come and go, overcoming relevant biases, staying relevant as "less experienced" workers seem sufficient to do the same job, etc.
>> ... highlighting search results in the scroll bar...
This. I find any browser that doesn't do that to be unusable. The alternative, in long documents or source code, is to blindly hit NEXT and visit all locations where a search term is found rather than scrolling quickly to see the different context regions.
I tried a plug-in or two but they were not nearly as functional as the native Chrome experience.
Glad I’m not insane, or not the only one insane. Whenever I read one of these highly-voted “I switched to Firefox and nothing’s degraded” post I wonder if I’m the only one searching on web pages, or if I’m the only one whose productivity is massively boosted by knowing where search results are located and how they are clustered at a glance. But then, modern code editors do tend to have this feature, so apparently it is important to a non-negligible audience.
One thing no browsers I'm aware of does right is re-highlighting matches after clicking a link. Firefox keeps the search bar open, but you still need to re-trigger it to update the match count and highlight. Chrome just closes it, sigh, although that is a more accurate UI for the behavior.
> modern code editors do tend to have this feature, so apparently it is important to a non-negligible audience
Sorry, but as far as the modern browsers are concerned, we coders are a negligible market to cater for. The number of non-coder browser-users is orders magnitude higher than the number of coders.
Not saying coders are a non-negligible audience (although I’d say coders are a non-negligible segment of Firefox user base). My assumption is that the percentage of coders who value scroll bar highlighting is comparable to the percentage of those among all web users who read and search web pages of nontrivial length, since there’s hardly anything about this feature that’s specifically beneficial to coding.
This and the fact that I heard all the “switched to Firefox and nothing’s degraded” comments from coders, and upvoted by coders.
On a super long page (like forum post or comment thread, etc.), highlighting keywords on the scroll bar shows clustering of the find target and help you jump to the relevant conversation.
And if the system works sans-ethics, is that a problem beyond moralistic gatekeeping?
Since the main objection in the article was the military coopting the practice - The basic tenants of mindfulness, as I understand them, are not anybody's property - no matter how compelling the publisher's advances are.
And let's be honest with ourselves - the stationary and toilet paper the military buy have the implicit eventual aim of making them better at making things dead. I'm not convinced mindfulness training for troops is the problem here.
Sure, there are rogue teachers, but that has applied to everything from spurious gurus through to homebrew religions. At trial of sounding callous, caveat emptor surely?
Nothing Mindfulness (as a brand) teaches is a super-secret arcane mystery fercryinoutloud! If nothing else, the government spending time and money on it can only do wonders to validate it and cement it in the public conscious.
Regarding whether this constitutes a "failed state", I'd say it depends on how bad this gets.
Similar to the concept of "peaceful transfer of power", there also needs to be a relatively peaceful maintenance of power.
Politicians, judges and law enforcement are the very people who constitute a functional government. If, going forward, a certain threshold of the "good guys" start to opt out of joining their own governing system (in one of those capacities) for fear of having themselves and their families murdered, then the country becomes a failed state.
How can other countries prevent that from happening to them, especially Mexico's neighbors?