I don't really know what you mean by "big entertainment" trying to get leverage against tech companies. Tech companies are behemoths. Most of the artists I know fretting about AI don't earn half a junior engineer's salary. And this is coming from someone who is relatively bullish on AI. I just don't think the framing of "big entertainment" makes any sense at all.
I disagree with this sentiment. It is entirely possible that there will be people who are regulars on one platform who are just unable (actually unable or perceives themselves unable) to migrate and the morale lost from losing their regulars is huge. Or a subset who insist on staying, forming their own sub-community, and neither the migrating group nor the people who insist on staying produce enough engagement for the members and so the community as a whole fizzles out. This is all squishiness. There is a reason why deplatforming appears to work in reducing the effectiveness of political groups, even if the people who remain in the community post-deplatforming are hardened in their loyalty to the political policy of the group.
Busking and live music is definitely still around. Especially in larger cities. I agree that the neighborhood bar scene sucks but that's more an issue that everyone has to drive home. Once you get to a place with good transportation or a downtown hub it all comes roaring back.
This is about posting license plates (presumably not of personal vehicles), facial images, and names of federal officers.
I mean I thought we already make federal employees and vehicles public knowledge. The national guard currently deployed in Minneapolis are unmasked as far as I know to compare. I'm not understanding why DHS federal employees are exempt from this standard.
They don't magically gain more privacy protection in public over what your average person has just because they clock out after a hard day of work by virtue of being a government employee.
They are constantly and consistently reminded that people have the right to record in public and they chose to ignore that as there are no consequences if they violate the law. Or that people have a right to peacefully assemble. Or freedom of the press...
I agree they don't gain more privacy protection in public than the average person. I also agree they shouldn't gain more privacy protection in public than the average public employee, either!
I'm merely assuming that the license plates being listed are ones they use for their official work, since the rest of their info is being tied to what's available for any other public work.
> I'm not understanding why DHS federal employees are exempt from this standard.
Because the aim of ICE is to terrorize local communities that either have a lot of immigrants/non-white people in general or that vote heavily Democrat like Minneapolis.
And terror doesn't work when you can reliably identify the terrorists and hold them accountable, or do the same to the terrorists as they dish out on their victims.
If a law enforcement agency is so incredibly unpopular that they feel the need to hide their faces, they should not exist. Nobody likes LAPD, and they almost exclusively piss people off close to where they and their families live. Yet, no covering their faces.
ICE exclusively deals with targets who are not dangerous in of themselves (because when an illegal immigrant breaks other laws, the real cops respond), so they're not hiding their faces from them. They're hiding their faces from the general public, who, you might note, are the root of authority in a democracy. That is an unambiguous message that they are not acting in the best interest of the people, and should fuck off.
When I was growing up, cities weren't under siege from militarized Federal agencies hiding their faces and acting with no accountability because the state supports the opposition party, which is Democratic, certainly not communist.
What you suggest needs to happen is in violation of the Constitution and deeply un-American.
It is not possible to "dox" a public employee because that information is legally public information. Don't become a public employee if you want your job to be private.
All federal officers are at risk of being doxxed and their families being targeted. The national guard deployed currently has their faces uncovered to the public and no doubt have the same risk to them. Again, I don't understand how DHS is special in this regard. All credible threats to individual officers and their families should be pursued through the court of law exactly the same as threats to every other federal officer.
If I'm being dumb then please explain with stupid-speak to me.
> What would be different about these people if their faces were visible?
I mean, if you agree there's no difference, then we should prefer transparency? You're going to have to make the case for why they should cover their face, since the default for law enforcement for the last 200+ years has been to show their face.
> Answers this question from 9 year ago, so it predates (well probably when you were born)
In case you're wondering why you're getting downvoted and flagged, it's probably to do with the fact that you're throwing around insults like this rather than just answering people's questions.
Accidents happening does not equate to being extremely untrained. Obviously, also, there will be variance in the amount of training across departments/jurisdictions. On average, though, they certainly are highly trained.
lol, I missed the part where she is advocating for killing people in the streets, recruiting militias with no training to be officers, ignoring the fourth amendment and busting into homes, kidnapping people without due process, kidnapping people who did everything legally and are about to take their citizenship oaths...
> Every single one of the tens of millions of people who have illegally immigrated to the United States over the past few decades is a criminal who can be legally deported.
I 100% agree with this sentiment and that is why I strongly support speeding the asylum application process through redirecting immigration enforcement funding to bolstering the courts. Our backlog should be 0 before we start knocking door to door and stopping people for the suspicious behavior of being brown at Home Depot.
Yeah, I agree. The emphasis on expanded field enforcement is backwards. If millions of people are "illegal" primarily because they are stuck in multi-year backlogs, then the failure is in the court and asylum system, not in a lack of raids.
From a systems perspective, we're heavily funding the most expensive and disruptive part of the pipeline (identification and removal) while starving the part that actually resolves legal status (adjudication, asylum review, work authorization). Though maybe that's a feature of this administration, not a bug.
If the goal is public safety, prioritizing people who commit violent crimes makes sense. If the goal is restoring legal order, then yeah, the obvious first step is to drive the backlog toward zero. I don't think that's the administration's goal though.
I agree the administration's goal is not to restore legal order or even public safety. Hate makes you stupid. Hating a people makes you really stupid. I don't think it really has a goal, not even Project 2025 or whatever. It's too stupid. It's like a teenager breaking its own xbox because its gf didn't text it fast enough. Nonsensical anger directed towards random innocents.
I disagree others don't matter that much. Attention means influence. If your tears garner attention, you prove your influence. Those seeking to influence to their benefit will see your proof and react accordingly.
I am a non-h1b engineer and I declare it is in my best interest to advocate for h1-b engineers. Otherwise management would simply calculate why would they hire me and treat me well when they can hire a more desperate h1b holder and treat them like trash.
This sort of tracks for me. The smartest people I know as adults mostly fucked around a lot and had wide interests that all culminated in them doing a great thing greatly. The smartest people I know as kids spent hours grinding on something and crashed out in college and are mostly average well-to-dos now.
I'm reminded of a meme on Facebook my wife showed me that was a two-dimensional graph of SAT score vs. GPA. The corner with the highest SAT scores but the lowest GPAs was shaded in and labelled "These are the people I want to hang out with."
I'm not sure we should romanticize ADHD, which is what you call that region. If those people could be high SAT and high GPA they would prefer it. Signed, someone in that region.
Nah. There are plenty of intelligent students who don't have ADHD but are either lazy or rebellious enough to not care about conventional measures of academic success.
I annihilated the SATs. My grades were only good in high school because I was just "gifted" enough to get As without studying. I do not have and never had ADHD. I also never learned how to study.
I almost failed out of college. I didn't know how to study. I didn't have the habits. I sure had a lot of fun in high school and college though.
> In 1933, while overseeing the writing of Truppenführung, the manual for leading combined arms formations, Hammerstein-Equord made one of the most historically prescient observations on leadership. During the writing effort, he offered his personal view of officers, classifying them in a way only he could:
> “I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent — their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy — they make up 90% of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.”
I'm not actually sure that's true. Theres plenty of controversy now that books that are popular and beloved now are actually not very well written. I mean I've been hearing this complaint since Twilight was popular.
I haven't read Twilight, but I've read a few beloved and popular books that are atrociously written from a literary standpoint. That does not mean they are not popular for a reason.
One I did read, out of morbid curiosity, is 50 Shades. It's utter dreck in terms of writing quality. It's trite, it's full of clichees, and formulaic to the extreme (and incidentally a repurposed Twilight fanfic; if you wonder about the weird references to hunger, there's the reason), but if you look at why it became popular, you might notice that it is extremely well crafted for its niche.
If you don't want a "billionaire romance" (yes, this is a well defined niche; there's a reason Grey is described as one) melded with the "danger" of vampire-transformed-into-traumatised-man-with-a-dark-side, it's easy to tear it apart (I couldn't get all the way through it - it was awful along the axes I care about), but as a study in flawlessly merging two niches popular with one of the biggest book-buying demographics that have extremely predictable and rigid expectations, it's really well executed.
I'd struggle to accept it as art, but as a particular kind of craft, it is a masterpiece even if I dislike the craft in question.
You will undoubtedly find poorly executed dreck that is popular just because it happened to strike a chord out of sheer luck as well, but a lot of the time I tend to realise that if I look at something I dislike and ask what made it resonate with its audience, it turns out that a lot of it resonated with its audience because it was crafted to hit all the notes that specific audience likes.
At the same time, it's never been the case that great pieces of literature was assured doing well on release. Moby Dick, for example, only sold 3,000 copies during Melville's lifetime (makes me feel a lot better about the sales of my own novels, though I don't hold out any hope of posthumous popularity) and was one of his least successful novels when it was first published. A lot of the most popular media of the time is long since forgotten for good reason. And so we end up with a survivorship bias towards the past, where we see centuries of great classics that have stood the test of time and none of the dreck, and measure them up against dreck and art alike of contemporary media.
reply