Given that police routinely assault peaceful demonstrators, journalists and random bystanders, wearing body armor if you might be anywhere near a protest (whether as a protestor or just because you live, work or transit through such an area) seems like common sense.
Body armor is the most obviously genuine "self defense" item a person could have. A gun, knife or pepper spray might be used for self defense or attack, but armor is purely defensive.
Your whole argument makes no sense. You just hate liberals and are happy to have your perceived enemy behind bars, no matter what degree of authoritarian police state it requires to achieve that end.
As soon as FAANG starts hiring people in Utah, Arkansas and Minnesota for the same roles at the same wages as they hire in the Bay, then people will move. As soon as VCs start funding founders in Boise, Kansas City and Chattanooga, then people will move.
Until then, maybe we work to improve the places where most of us are required to live by our jobs. (And yes, in parallel we can work to reduce the employer-mandated dependence on those areas).
What you are misleadingly calling "evidence" here is constitutionally protected free speech political materials. It's only "evidence" that he disagreed with the president on immigration, not anything related to a crime.
Take a step back and be honest about this situation, even if you dislike the people or disagree with their political views. This is an authoritarian attack on political opponents.
Everyone, regardless of political views or party affiliation should be outraged and horrified by this. This is the type of government violence against dissidents and opposition that we decry when it happens in other countries, and we shouldn't tolerate it here.
> when the effects of climate change are undeniable
I understand your meaning, but kind of a tragically funny statement given that really that's just... now.
So, it'll just be a continuation of the same insane talking points as today - "Weather has always changed" or "There have always been hurricanes/droughts/floods" while ignoring or denying or not understanding increasing frequency or intensity.
Also a lot of nonsense that because someone somewhere was still polluting (china, billionaires, whoever) that there was no benefit in decreasing pollution where we could, as if the problem was a binary where the only options were "zero pollution" and "unlimited pollution".
> A CC-BY license permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the work, including for commercial purposes, so long as appropriate attribution is given
This is a good thing. Building upon the published research of others is the entire foundation of academic publications. The "appropriate attribution" is the citations which are often the primary metric by which work is recognized as impactful and important.
My guess is the author is primarily unhappy about the making explicit that everyone, not just other academic researchers in the same field, can participate in this. But again, this is normal and good. As a society, we want people to turn research into real commercial products or to incorporate research into policies, regulations & best practices.
I'm a hiring manager. We post jobs on our website, along with LinkedIn and probably some others. We review applications from that, and interview and hire those people.
We get a lot of bots, but the software itself filters out 99% of that and then our recruiters filter out the rest. Referrals push candidates to the top of the queue for interviews, but otherwise it's literally just hiring people who cold applied to a job posting they saw online.
That's not to say it's not still terrible to be interviewing, just my point is, don't write off applying just because it sucks.
Police could switch to using VIN for tracking of warrants and such, which can be obtained after a car is pulled over.
Modern technology allows for every citizen to be tracked more comprehensively than the most wanted mob bosses or suspected soviet spies just a few decades ago.
Or simply outlaw the mass collection and sale or sharing of the data. We already outlaw sharing copies of music or movies, so I don't want to hear any complaints about enforcement- sure there'd still be some data floating around from random photos with a car in the background, but you wouldn't have repo tow truck drivers scanning 20,000 license plates a night or cameras in parking lots and such.
Peter Attia is a graduate of Stanford medical school and spent 5 years in surgical residency at Johns Hopkins, and his podcast is largely using his expertise to give context to recently published research. His opinions are always pretty directly linked to peer reviewed research and he updates his stances as new research becomes available and explains why (eg, his shift away from fasting).
He really shouldn't be lumped in with the general "health and fitness Youtubers".
Often, there's a recruiter or HR person (or piece of software) that's doing an initial screening against those "requirements" though, often with zero understanding or context.
Recruiters hiring for a Java role will pass on a candidate with 10 years of C# experience, or other similar tech-stack-swapping scenarios where the skill set is 95% transferable because they don't know anything about the actual technologies or understand the work.
And of course, the lack of honest feedback makes the whole system inscrutable. Did you get ghosted because the job was fake? Because your resume lacked some key words? Because they had a referral? Because they preferred more diverse applicants? Because they never even looked at your resume? Because you have too many years of experience? Too few? Who knows!
As a non-aphantasia person, this just seems like a really, really bad "test".
Famously, there's a psychology experiment where a person in a gorilla costume walks through the middle of a scene and beats their chest before walking off the other side of the screen, but people who've been given a challenge of tracking a ball being passed around will completely miss the gorilla. They'll laugh in shock on watching the same video a second time, amazed that they didn't "see" the gorilla on first viewing when their attention was on the ball.
In your simple test, focus is going to be drawn to other components - "fast", "zipping" and "windy" make me pay attention to the curves of the road, the wheels, the trees or cliffs causing the road to wind. The color of the car is irrelevant, so I don't pay attention to it.
I can't tell you what color the car was, but when I watched the gorilla video (without knowing in advance about it) I didn't know a gorilla had walked through the video either.
You might want to read up on how interactions between police and various groups in the US tend to go. Sending the cops after someone is always going to be dangerous and often harmful.
If the suicidal person is female, white and sitting in a nice house in the suburbs, they'll likely survive with just a slightly traumatizing experience.
If the suicidal person is male, black or has any appearance of being lower class, the police are likely to treat them as a threat, and they're more likely to be assaulted, arrested, harassed or killed than they are to receive helpful medical treatment.
If I'm ever in a near-suicidal state, I hope no one calls the cops on me, that's a worst nightmare situation.
As a naturally curious person, who reads a lot and looks up a lot of things, I've learned to be cautious when talking to regular people.
While considering buying a house I did extensive research about fires. To do my job, I often read about computer security, data exfiltration, hackers and ransomware.
If I watch a WWI documentary, I'll end up reading about mustard gas and trench foot and how to aim artillery afterwards. If I read a sci-fi novel about a lab leak virus, I'll end up researching how real virus safety works and about bioterrorism. If I listen to a podcast about psychedelic-assisted therapy, I'll end up researching how drugs work and how they were discovered.
If I'm ever accused of a crime, of almost any variety or circumstance, I'm sure that prosecutors would be able to find suspicious searches related to it in my history. And then leaked out to the press or mentioned to the jury as just a vague "suspect had searches related to..."
The average juror, or the average person who's just scrolling past a headline, could pretty trivially be convinced that my search history is nefarious for almost any accusation.
I'd imagine for most of us, our professional lives are less interesting to the general public than other things.
If I were writing about my life, there'd be roughly a single line saying "I worked in tech, which gave me the disposable income and free time to ..." and then a description of all the things I've done which are actually interesting, unique or worth sharing for the sake of advice. If I waste my final days talking about my jobs, that's a clear sign that my mind is already gone.
There are probably some HN users who are working as research scientists on clean energy or vaccines, or at Doctors without Borders or similar, who have interesting things to say about their career. For 99% of us though, we sat at a computer and did meaningless drudgery in exchange for a paycheck.
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but both your comments in this thread really, really scream that you need to step away from the internet and go interact with real humans in the real world.
Nobody except you is talking about woke communism. Nobody except you is talking about "owning the libs". You're making paranoid, nonsensical arguments against people on your side by imagining they're some sort of alt-right strawman.
It's obviously the "you're backing me up with documentary proof that this is a boring sensible thing" interpretation. The original comment had similar intent.
Maybe don't send your money to an unregulated startup in the Bahamas to gamble on cryptocurrencies if losing that money is going to cause you to commit suicide?
The "victims" knew they were intentionally avoiding government oversight of securities law, banking regulators, etc. When they lost money we should have collectively shrugged our shoulders and said that's the risk they chose to take.
The USA has an incredibly robust, tightly monitored and regulated financial market. The SEC, FDIC and associated regulators and auditors carefully control bank reserves, prosecute insider trading, prevent and insure against fraud.
Some people decided to opt-out of that system and send their money to an unregulated entity in the Bahamas to buy imaginary money without government oversight.
Honestly the government shouldn't have intervened here at all. The people who lost money should have been laughed at and told that's why you put your money in the regulated market. If you intentionally try to avoid taxes, anti-money laundering regulations, audits and securities law by buying crypto overseas, then taxpayer resources don't go bail you out.
Body armor is the most obviously genuine "self defense" item a person could have. A gun, knife or pepper spray might be used for self defense or attack, but armor is purely defensive.
Your whole argument makes no sense. You just hate liberals and are happy to have your perceived enemy behind bars, no matter what degree of authoritarian police state it requires to achieve that end.