I mean, it's not a very interesting research topic? People who are poor and young commit certain categories of crime more often. That has nothing to do with immigration or race or whatever.
It has everything to do with illegal immigration because illegal immigration is a constant influx of people that are within the "right" demographics for crime (young, male, less educated, less wealthy etc). If you change the demographics of a country to add poor young people every year, you get a higher incidence of crime by definition.
I mean, it is? It's the most divisive political topic at the moment and the reason why populisms are on the rise? If anything, I'd expect more and more detailed studies on that?
Trying to prove correlations between race and crime is literally the historical basis of criminology as a discipline. They failed, it's stupid, and now people know better.
You can commission as many studies as you like on astrology, and they'll all be meaningless.
If you read the thread, you will find that this is not about the correlation between race and crime, but about the correlation between illegal immigration and crime.
I've read that big pharma are primarily patent companies: most of the actual research is done by universities, then most of the production is outsourced.
Pharma companies spend 10x what universities and the NIH do.
The only grain of truth in it is if you compare a tiny subset of what pharma companies do, and look only are extremely early drug exploration, and ignore all of the subsequent development like drug screening, testing, formulation, and clinical trials.
I think even Russia and the US still do intelligence sharing on a lot of stuff - and that's before you consider that the US seems to be in everybody's networks anyhow, so non-sharing is probably just sharing with a bit more skullduggery.
I don't think they share on the bulk data. I would highly doubt they routinely cooperate on cyber crimes given Russia's stance on the matter (basically encouraging it).
The expectations for hostage-takers are pretty low, whereas the expectations for police are, if not sky-high, at least that they won't kill or injure you.
Disappointment is often proportionate to anger.
There's a second point which is, from a political perspective, police behaviour can be easily changed. Desperate criminal behaviour cannot.
These are all valid explanations or potentiators for what can cause the phenomena or syndrome, but it doesn't mean that the behavior is accurate to the truth.
She chose to spoke in a way that condemned the police who tried to help you and she chose to spoke kindly to the hostage takers - you can frame everything in anyway you want.
But reality is that police tried to do good for society while hostage takers were actively putting her in risk and trying to take from the society.
To be empathetic to the police, they were also under tremendous stress, and had never seen a situation like that, Sweden had never seen this, and like the article said they hadn't trained for that. They tried to make the best of the bad situation they could, and after managing to have everyone lives intact, they were still condemned by someone who they tried to save, and that someone was speaking kindly of the people who caused the situation in the first place.
I think I'm pretty good for a layperson at statistics + public health stuff, and a lot of the precautions we ended up taking in the pandemic were news to me: for instance, the effect of masks on protecting others, the relationship of infection surges to mass casualty events, and so on.
I figure a lot of people are just not used to following rules (they're office workers who don't wear PPE at work, etc) so when they had to follow rules, they freak out.
When the situation is "there is an epidemic of a disease transmitted from human to humans" that people do not go breathing in each other's face is not a matter of «follow[ing] rules» but following good common sense. If people freak out realizing and following good common sense, there is a massive societal problem.
And going to the matter of «freedoms ... curtailed», the instantiation of "treat them like retards" had been to forbid people in deserts to leave the house*. If the administrations arrive to absurd satanic ruling, there is again a massive societal problem.
The problem remains not with freedom per se but with (the absence of) intellectual light.
This post does not seem to have much relation to what I wrote.
The article writer wrote that during the epidemic freedoms where curtailed; I noted that more importantly, the citizens of democratic societies, that constitutionally see their members as empowered, in regulations became de facto elements regarded as fools. It is a paradox and reveals a bigger problem: liabilities should not be free to start with and the role of the state is to diminish their number in favour of the mature (reliable etc). So, the problem of freedom that the article author mentions so swiftly is shallowly treated.
There is no need to have any «requisite training», in this occasional context, to know that you cannot go around and sneeze on people, that you cannot risk people's health lightly, that "do not meet people" does not equate to "do not leave the house". It is just a matter of basic wits. When basics are supposed as missing a massive societal problem is revealed. Pointing the focus over freedom when the ground approach is regarding people as fools is missing a bigger point. In some territories people have been forbidden to live the house - not in New York or Singapore or Valletta, but in the remote countryside and mountainside; in some territories people have been forbidden to take a walk in the night. Beyond the limitation of freedom there is a labelling of the population as mentally underage. Technical-scientific-medical competence over e.g. the effectiveness of masks has nothing to do with it.
And for what «expertise» and «advice» are concerned - which were not at all part of my argument -, many administrations have made it very apparent that they had no credibility or substantial authority. This again, underlines a massive societal problem. Citizens are required to have basic wits and much more - and administrations with even more reason.
Democracy is not supposed to settle technical questions. It is supposed to settle questions about societal goals and moires.
As such, there's no need for anybody to know about anything technical. And they don't: the president of the US suggested injecting bleach. The prime minister of the UK bragged loudly about shaking hands with absolutely everyone.
The various interventions vis-a-vis night-time strolls were basically technical measures in the end of a widely-agreed upon goal: avoiding mass casualties. You can say you are fine with the casualties. You can become an expert and identify a mistake in the argumentation. You can't vote on what the facts are, and whether or not 'do not leave the house' moves case rates up or down is a fact.
> You can say you are fine with the casualties. You can become an expert and identify a mistake in the argumentation. You can't vote on what the facts are, and whether or not 'do not leave the house' moves case rates up or down is a fact
No, I have been trying to say since the original post that we cannot be fine with a system in which it is either practiced or plausible or both that people are or are deemed incapable of understanding proper behaviour, such as "virus spreading: stay far from people" - which cannot be considered technical, because it is not a matter of higher expertise but a very trivial idea. In light of people not understanding "collective risk: stay far" and of the de-dignification that embraced the former ("the population is imbecile and accident prone: do not touch any tool in the shed"), the point of "freedom" that the article writer proposed as first comes later.
Unless you mean: are you fine with car crashes casualties which could be prevented by forbidding transportation - in which case I would say that yes, such casualties in the general framework are overwhelmed by the benefit given by the opportunity that enables them as a possible side effect. So yes, if a citizen acted responsibly and all precautions seriosly taken the remote ugly case happened, then yes, "too bad". Forbidding cars to avoid accidents would be insane.
Only yesterday, by coincidence, I was told by an acquaintance of somebody fined 500e for having gone running in the woods - a guy exercising in mountain paths.
There is no need to gather any expertise beyond "primary school" level to highlight the expected behaviour I mentioned.
And sure "not leaving the house" avoids a class of accidents, just like "not using cars" avoids car accidents: but it is psychotic to reduce numbers that way. And it is absurd to confuse "do not meet people", direct, with "do not leave the house", indirect - and the absurd is satanic. So in front of psychopathology (taking goals as absolute), of satanistic absurd, of the prospect of a "citizenship of the mindless" etc., the goal about "mass casualties" goes in the background in importance and similarly for the mistaken issue of freedom.
No need to presume: you can read the article. "dissemination of defamatory fake news and another probe over possible obstruction, incitement and criminal organization."
Anyone who accuses X of hosting disinformation and fake news will 100% win in court. It’s at least 75%of the content I see when I dare to go to the “for you” algo feed.
Obviously there's a lot more detail in all the prosecutions and investigations. Most, or all of it, should be publicly available if you really care to understand the problem.
Laws have been broken, and this is the justice system's reaction to that. This is not censorship. Brazil (and most of the world) don't subscribe to the idea that freedom of expression and freedom of press are unbound.
This is censorship. Just because it's being done within a legal framework doesn't mean it's not censorship. The Brazilian people will have to decide whether they want their judiciary to have such excessive control over freedom of expression.
The rest of the world should subscribe to the idea that freedom of expression and freedom of expression are (nearly) unbound. The USA is the only major country which gets this right.
> The Brazilian people will have to decide whether they want their judiciary to have such excessive control over freedom of expression.
This is a very loaded comment, full of personal opinions. Which is fine, but let's not pretend it's factual truth.
In any case, we have. At least within the limits of our USA-inspired representative democracy. Federal law goes through 3 houses of elected representatives: the National Congress, the Senate and the Union Executive.
The Constitution goes through even more scrutiny.
> The rest of the world should
More personal opinions. Which, again, is fine. But it's not factual truth.
> The USA is the only major country which gets this right
I think this says it all. We have very little common basis for discussion. I would say the USA is the main major country that gets the _most_ things wrong.
When any party, either government or private, blocks free expression then that is literally censorship. It might be legally or morally justified in some circumstances, but it is still censorship.
Words mean things. You don't get to redefine words to support your argument.
Sure but you'd also have to define free expression.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act [0] says:
> 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
I will charitably assume that you aren't a native English speaker and are honestly confused about the nuances of the language rather than trying to derail the discussion with incorrect and irrelevant semantic arguments. Just because a particular act of censorship might be legal within a certain framework doesn't mean it isn't censorship.
Although I can't imagine why you would cite a UK law in a discussion about censorship in Brazil. It's sad how the UK has been growing ever more authoritarian and totalitarian, but that's an entirely separate discussion.
> Just because a particular act of censorship might be legal within a certain framework doesn't mean it isn't censorship.
For the record, I would like to note that this sort of censorship is utterly unconstitutional here in Brazil too.
Every single time this gets discussed, I cite the literal words from the constitution:
> Any and all censorship of political, ideological and artistic nature is prohibited
These are very simple words that any citizen can understand. There is no room for misinterpretation here. Yet every single time people respond with impressive mental gynmnastics to justify the judge-king's actions. I've had people argue with me by citing laws lower than the constitution, by getting into asinine arguments over the definition of free speech and censorship, by arguing about "isonomy" as if it somehow invalidated the very simple words written above, and also by calling me a moron for presuming to do the judge-king's job as if the contradictions weren't there in plain sight for all to see. The guy you're replying to once called me a sterotypical reactionary WhatsApp uncle right here on HN.
In the eve of the 2022 elections I witnessed this judge censor a documentary a priori. Without even watching it, before it was even released, he judged it was "fake news" and ordered its censorship. This is the sort of thing that used to happen in last century's military dictatorship. There is no justification for this whatsoever.
If a brazilian is harmed by someone's speech, they get to answer. They get to be made whole by legal means. They don't get to straight up censor the other guy or in any way prevent them from speaking. I see this all the time, even in politics. Some guy insults another, gets sued and is made to pay damages or whatever. That's all there is to it. The original insult is not censored. This is fine.
With these judges it's different. Some magazine ran some damning article on them back in 2019 and they granted themselves virtually limitless power to investigate, prosecute, judge and punish "fake news" of all kinds, with themselves as the victims. They determine what's fake of course. Their powers just kept expanding until they essentially usurped all power in this country. It got to the point the judge started proposing changes to laws directly to our representatives. The changes were rejected but he just rammed the "fake news" nonsense down our throats anyway via his "resolutions".
This is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship of the judiciary. Unelected judge-kings with lifetime mandates whose pens directly make the people with guns do their bidding. It's kind of ridiculous to even discuss "laws" at this point. These guys could write whatever they want on a piece of paper and it becomes law.
Well, ~50%[0] of microplastics is car tyres, so you know, good luck. Support public transport, support cycle lanes, campaign for pedestrianization, etc.
Maybe move to a low-car-density enviroment? Holland?
The Tony Blair Institute is perhaps the most powerful thinktank in the UK today, and Tony Blair loves AI in the way that only a man who peck-types can. The TBI put out a paper suggesting that 60% of public servants could be replaced with AI. The methodology? They asked ChatGPT. That's a portent for the policies of the future.
I think in many ways this is the real story of AI: we have convinced the decision-makers of the world of the power of computing, but they don't know anything about computers, so they are wildly enthusiastic about a technology they understand - a program that makes a computer behave a little like a person.
