They could have expressed themselves in a way that aligns with your sensibilities, but they exercised their freedom of expression.
I personally found that additional detail to be very valuable, because it conveyed disdain without triggering justification for people like you to censor the comment completely.
I have no interest in censoring the comment (what?). That’s nearly as far fetched as people calling renaming branches brain washing and propaganda.
It’s a rhetorical flourish pointing that in my opinion most people here are actually change averse, a trend which I personally notice more and more here.
I have no sensibilities. I am neither American nor interested in American politics. I am however deeply convinced that people having strong opinions about the names of branches have issues. An opinion I apply equally to people strongly advocating for the change and to people strongly against the change.
Ironically, I just spent a day last weekend writing my own version control system for large files
I dislike git-annex that much.
- it converts your files into blobs and bloats your file system
- As others have previously alluded, my primary use case is to ensure sync between distributed files, not version them (why would anyone possibly need that??)
- You can use AI to build a python based solution that will hash your files and put them into a lookup table, then create some helper methods to sync sources using rclone
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Surfingkeys https://github.com/brookhong/Surfingkeys. I switched over from Vimium a couple years ago. I think its more performant than Vimium and also allows you quite a bit more flexibility in your configuration.
I prefer and recommend browser add-ons over Nyxt. You'll get more compatibility by being able to use Chrome/Firefox. You'll also have a much higher chance of being able to use the same environment at work - since you can typically still install browser add-ons in developer mode even if you aren't able to get rights to install apps.
If I don't do anything about this, I am the problem. Government is us. Our responsibility to design, implement, and hold accountable.
Talking about what happened isn't enough. Carlos Jaile lost his entire adult life because of systemic failures in the justice system. This needs to be fixed not only for Carlos but for everyone.
The first thing that I think needs to be changed, is your mind: the government convincing us that it represents our will is one of the biggest cons in history.
The government is just an evolution of the strongest gang winning in an anarchy. That's what we live in, an anarchy where the strongest group has already taken power. They only consider our desires and needs as much as they have to to preserve their power. The truth is that collectively we are stronger than them, but if they can convince us that they are equivalent to our collective will they can pick on us in small groups or individually, because if we identify that they are not our collective will then we might enact our true will, and they can't stand to that.
So what to do about this? Acknowledge that the machine doesn't represent you, that it's not your fault, and take legitimacy from a system that abuses you by withdrawing your faith in it.
In the US we must stop referring to drug addicts as "homeless" when they have been turned away from public or temporary housing because they have elected to do drugs instead.
It's obvious that this creates a misleading perception among the public about the causes of people living outside the social norm of paying for the right to stay in a private space.
The danger of that is that when unchecked, the public votes and government acts based on this misconception. That converts to public policy which aims to solve the wrong problem at the cost of the wrong people.
What would be particularly useful is if it saved token values and then (through search) joined them on the response of the auth call to get the initial token.
That way you could easily determine what auth call was needed to get you a token to use the endpoint.
Challenge accepted. This article is an emotional rant (true or false) is not well grounded in facts and causality. There fundamental claim is that
> The simple fact is that this State and County have set themselves on a course to disaster. And the worst part is that the agency for whom I work has backed literally every policy change that had the predictable, and predicted, outcome of more crime and more people getting hurt.
So the claim is that his state, county, and agency are all backing policies that predictably lead to more crime.
Those policies are then characterized as:
* bond/bail reform
* reduced parole and sentences in some cases
* "malicious" prosecution of law officers
* not prosecuting some crimes that are on the books
Unfortunately the author makes zero references, citations, or arguments for why these policies are harmful, as enacted, and why they might have led to the negative experiences of their family.
So it's an emotional content (nearly) free emotional rant that doesn't move the discussion forward in any helpful way.
Analysis that showed even correlation would be interesting/useful. This is not.
But he hears gun shots sometimes and saw a drug dealer. That surely proves everything has gotten out of hand. Time to lock people up before they're proven guilty of committing any crimes, put non-violent criminals in cages, and permanently ruin peoples lives, preventing them from gainful employment!
Oh no, the poor fascists that hurt the community, and ruin innocent lives to protect their egos. Who will be left to fire teargas at peaceful protestors and lock them up on false charges?
That’s not his point. It shows the policies are failing and enabling violence.
Who is he to want a safe place to live in, when there are no repercussions for gangbangers for their actions
No it was. I don't think you read his letter. He specifically mentioned bail reforms that are meant to prevent poor people from rotting in jail without being convicted of anything. Also, deferment programs that are intended to prevent people from having damaging charges on their record and falling deeper into crime. Finally, you have complaints about "malicious prosecution of officers", which is clearly nonsense, considering what you can get away with as a LEO.
None of this has anything to do with "no repercussions for gangbangers".
Can’t say what the effects will be on my career but I doubt there will be any.
There’s not much content here. The author is a prosecutor who is upset that policies have been introduced that put fewer people behind bars. They think that we need “tough on crime” laws that keep their kids safe. I am not surprised in the least.
Most people I know would bracket you as right-leaning if you attack a left-wing position without balancing it by simultaneously attacking a right-wing position. It is usually acceptable to attack right-wing issues without a balancing act.
I find it quite troubling, but that's where we are. I don't care about my reputation.
That's just basic probabilistic reasoning. If, say, 90% of people attacking position X belong to group A, and 10% belong to group B, it's safe to guess based merely on the observable "So-and-So is attacking X" that So-and-So is probably a member of group A (P(A|X)=90%). If 90% of people attacking position Y are members of group B, and 10% are members of group A, then observing someone attack both changes the probability to even odds (P(A|X,Y)=50%).
So, yeah, if I see someone attacking a view popular among the left, my first assumption is going to be that the person in question leans right.
Certainly couldn't be someone in government trying to pin the NDX100 index.