This is an old story about an old investigation. It is old news dredged up to try to win sympathy for DHS/ICE. It is propaganda resurrected to make DHS look useful.
They cherry-picked a story that they knew would win public sympathy since no one wants a child molester to run free. Lets show a time when an agent solved a case for an excellent outcome.
Pick a DHS/ICE story from this year and see what kind of dystopic shitshow you report on.
This is propaganda. Gullible people fall for this shit every day. Put some thought into the context before you swallow the turd.
The BBC spent 5 years making a documentary and just finished. They had no idea that the US would in its current state when they started. That doesn't free them from criticism of the content, but the timing is a coincidence.
I haven't watched the video (linked from the article) and I certainly hope the current events caused them to reflect on whether pushing for DHS to have more power is wise, but the last line in the article doesn't give me much optimism.
Although the past couple of years have been an even more stark descent into incompetence and malice, there has not been a moment in DHS's 24-year history at which it was worth defending, let alone with this pattern of propaganda.
It is perfectly possible to investigate and prevent child abuse without this particular configuration.
I'd argue the DHS is incidental and the real story is "law enforcement deserves open access to social media feeds." In this light, the BBC's angle becomes much clearer.
A cynic is simply a realist who has seen too much shit. I am a firm realist. I see the world as it is and hope that others will come along to help make it better but I don't naively hold my breath.
DHS needs a win in the public's eyes. BBC has the air of a trusted platform. It is no big stretch to make the connection that dredging up an old story about tracking down and capturing a pedo using an elite DHS unit would be a useful tool to win back some public support. You notice that there are no dates given in the article so the reader has no way to know that this went down years ago. It looks new and fresh.
Propaganda. I don't have to be gullible so I choose not to be.
And also to drege up "think of the children" rage that makes some people demand expansion of surveillance and free exchange of serveillance data with governments. Manufacturing consent.
Submitter is Canadian and re: America, posted "I read recently that Patrimonialism is a good way of describing the current regime" about 10 months ago.
Doesn't sound like paid DHS/ICE psyopper.
Any reason to think it is?
EDIT: Got the "you're posting too fast", so in reply to OP below:
> Submitter's nationality has nothing to do with it nor does his post history. WTF
Well, yes it does, its exculpatory evidence for a stranger you publicly accused of dredging up the news to try and win sympathy for DHS/ICE. (twice now)
Original post, by you: "It is old news dredged up to try to win sympathy for DHS/ICE."
This post, by you: "why do they need to dredge it up today?"
Are you suggesting that the BBC, the world service arm of a British public broadcaster (that is editorially independent from the state and even the wider BBC), began spending five years filming a documentary across the US, Portugal, Brazil, and Russia, just so that they could secretly support a US government agency half a decade before it became embroiled in controversy?
The claim is that an article was submitted intentionally to manipulate public perception of DHS.
We can't relax the claim to "well, it says DHS found a pedo, so it's propaganda ipso facto, because DHS did something good": they specifically argue the submission was the propaganda, specifically because it'd be absurd to claim it was published as DHS propaganda. (it's an article by the BBC)
You are wrong, this same story was not reported more than ten years ago. The article is not a report of a man being arrested, tried, and sentenced (doubtless the extent of reporting in local news when it happened). This article is about the wider background of one story, of many, from a behind-the-scenes documentary that has been filmed over the last five years and just released.
Did Britain's public broadcaster decide, half a decade ago, to begin making this documentary so that they could secretly and nefariously support a US government agency long before it was embroiled in its current controversies?
...and the SAE system like me (older American here) then you would be able to provide the answers that confuse your audience the most when they ask about volumes, velocities, dimensions, etc. and you would have as much fun in life as I have had. Your metric system is for people who need to have things simplified in order for them to be understandable and relatable. It's about as dumbed down as you can make something. Lowest common denominator type stuff. Americans have always thrived on challenge and that is why we stupidly cling to the complexity of the SAE system of units. It fits so we sits.
...and if one layer is meat and the other is a perfect meat vehicle, like a tortilla, you can simply fold it over the meat and wrap all the meat goodness is the proper warmth of a tortilla. Food, the way food was intended.
>A pecan tree purchased from a nursery will reach its full height of four to six feet in 8 to 10 years if planted in the right spot.
That has to be a dwarf variety. I have seen pecan trees that are more than 80' tall or about half as tall as an Olympic swimming pool is long, with a crown diameter of over 110' or about 2/3 as long as an Olympic swimming pool. The trunk at chest height was more than 3 grown men wide, or about 1/10 the width of an Olympic swimming pool.
These trees get large and if they were solid objects their volume could store nearly as much water as an Olympic sized swimming pool. That is just the part above ground that we can see. Remarkable trees.
Pecan is furniture grade wood like black walnut and commands a premium. It is also prizes for smoking meats as it lends a nutty flavor to the brisket. It's my favorite.
When a pecan nut sprouts it sends all of its initial energy burst into growing a tap root, looking for the best source of dependable water, before you see any top growth at all above ground. Typically if your pecan tree seedling is 1' tall the tap root will already be more than 3' long. This is why nursery pecans are sold in planters that are about 3X taller than they are wide, so that the root is less likely to be coiling inside the pot. You don't want to strangle the tree by letting it become pot-bound.
This is why pecans need relatively deep soil with near surface water. If they have a dependable water supply they can stab that root through any crack and you will eventually have a huge, very productive nut tree.
Pecans are awesome trees. Mine have fed a murder of crows for several crow generations. They show up on the pecans every year about 2 weeks before the nuts are ripe enough to harvest and they strip my trees from the bottom up so that over the years, I have been able to harvest less than 5 buckets of pecans from 5 trees. Very efficient. I think they start at the bottom specifically to deprive me of the ones that are easiest for me to harvest. I surrendered the pecans to the crows a long time ago since they had a much more efficient system of exploitation than any I could conjure. I know the man who planted the trees had fought the same battles with them as I found the rubber snakes and the sad remains of a plastic owl in the trees while climbing them to assess their health right after we bought the place.
I'm on pretty good terms with the crows now. One has learned to ask for peanuts and I'm accommodating enough to provide them, almost on demand.
Thanks for this post. Sometimes you need a relatively simple tool for controlling a problem. I think this is something that I need to employ here on my place.
I have a problem with deer. My property is effectively an interstate highway for them with lots of delicious grazing available in my native grass pasture and in my orchards and gardens. I have fenced the important areas where we grow our food using deer fencing and it is effective. It does not stop the traffic though, it merely redirects it. I want the deer to avoid my property and using the scented repellent products is ineffective.
I bought a slingshot with a bunch of mudball ammunition and started using that every time I found them over the fence on my property. It is effective enough that you can make them leave if you tag one of them. After a while, they recognize the sound of the slingshot release and will trot off a little ways to buy time to determine whether there is an issue. Aiming and hitting targets is not hard and your skills improve over time so that it is pretty easy to score on 80% of targets in no time. The real problem is the effective range of the slingshot. For deer more than 50m from you the ball has lost most of the energy and when it thumps on the deer the usual result is that the deer raises its head from the grazing and looks around to locate the source.
I think a sling will be the next tool that I employ to make them graze someone else's property. The improved range should help me keep them on the other side of the fence.
The sling seems like it has a steeper learning curve and colorful failure modes, like breaking a sliding glass door or somesuch. You might have better luck with a fairly low draw-weight bow and some blunt rubber-tipped arrows.
My guess is that deer wouldn't be frightened by a drone but the sound is pretty annoying. Maybe it would be a good Pavlovian conditioning trigger to pair with some other deterrent.
I'm lucky enough to be in a semi-rural area with only one neighbor within 200m. The deer come from a large area that is currently under development for an encroaching subdivision. That subdivision is about about 350m at the closest point today though it will eventually extend to my back fence. That sucks but the newest construction has taken more than 20 years to reach that point.
I have a bow and have considered that option but I think the lethality could be a problem or the possibility of injuring a fawn. I just want to keep them on the other side of the fence. I would employ a drone to chase them since that would be fun but my place is in a no-fly radius near a small airport so that isn't an option without assuming some risk.
There is too much ground to cover for sprinklers to be effective even though the paths are well-established. I have tried path modification but that just shifts the crossings back and forth along the fence line. I have nice native grasses and plants and some really tasty fruit trees so my place is attractive.
The slingshot does the trick for the times when they are less than 35m away. Farther than that it gets dicey and they will just stand still until one is hit before they amble off into the trees.
This sling has better range though there is a learning curve. That will be the fun part.
Because it's based on no evidence, and framed to imply a government official openly breaking the law is somehow the victim here (The files are already meant to be released by law, many of the redactions are illegal).
If Bondi doesn't want to execute the duties of the office she can resign.
I'm not arguing anything is okay, that is you in your political anger shoving words into my mouth. I am simply saying that it is easy to understand.
And again, you're being incredibly naive - there's no chance you'd be doing anything different in her position unless you are totally fine with sacrificing yourself, your parents, wife, children etc.
It seems that you think "criminal threats" from elites are something that only happen in TV shows, not real life. I'm not sure why this is your perspective because the Panama Papers murders were real, whistleblowers are killed all the time, etc.
She’s won so far, already got away with this twice as Florida AG, didn’t try to go after Epstein when he lived there and after Trump donated 25000 to her, she stopped the prosecution of his TrumpU fraud in Florida. GOP owns Justice Department for three more years and Dems were pretty toothless in previous administration.
But think about it this way: something simple like Slack charges $9/month/person and companies already pay that on many behalf. How hard would it be to imagine all those same companies (and lots more) would pay $30/month/employee for something something AI? Generating an extra $400 per year in value, per employee, isn't that much extra.
$35/head is possible but it has to provide tangible value to the user (beyond coding) which many pro-AI people will fail to recognize. People pay a lot for other stuff (ie: like their phone plan). Being digital or physical is not the issue here but the value perceived by the user.
The world IS responsible for handling the people. Thats the whole fucking reason we made society to take care of children. Nothing is inevitable. It serves the interests of the few.
I think they meant “society.” Society does, in fact, owe the people something, especially if we, the people, are expected to live by the rules, social norms, and expectations imposed by society.
Parent was talking about children (npi) — they don’t get out of society what they put into it. Society owes them care for bringing them into it, and if society defaults on this debt then society ends.
What your describing is a low trust society. If you disregard the social contract like that, then people wont owe the "the world" anythign either. Collaboration and civics goes out the window. If you want to look at what kind of a shithole that libertarian nonsense leads to, then try taking a stroll in SF at night
This is an important framing - we talk so much of "rights" but if you have a right to something, that means someone or someones have a duty to provide it.
No, no it does not. If we say everyone has a right to clean air and water, no one else has a duty to provide it. Those are given to us for free by the planet. The issue is that rich assholes (and poor assholes who only think of getting rich) take that away from everyone else by polluting what is common to everyone.
> I don't consider that to be saying that society "owes" me something. I regard it mutually beneficial, not some kind of debt/debtor relationship.
You know, in phrases like "you owe it to your spouse/sibling/friend/self to...", people aren't talking about formal debt. Please try to keep that kind of meaning in mind when people say that society owes its people.
humans collectively are responsible for the end results of innovations and achievements , otherwise who are you doing all this for. Wars are a extreme form of disagreements amongst a large body of opposing opinions or perspective IMHO. Earth (world!) simply exists, with or without you. You as Byorganism/Byproduct of this planet you have an obligation to this planet in good deeds. Have you not watched Star-Wars?
> * it’s a safe bet that labor will have lower value in 2031 than it has today
If AI makes workers more productive, labor will have higher value than it has today. Which specific workers are winning in that scenario may vary tremendously, of course, but I don't think anyone is seriously claiming AI will make everyone less productive.
The value of labor i.e. wages depend on labor demand (the marginal product of labor) and bargaining power, not output per worker. If AI is a substitute for many tasks, the marginal value of an additional worker, and what a company is willing to pay for their work can fall even if each remaining worker is more productive.
What you're forecasting is a scenario where total output has substantially increased but no one's hiring or able to start their own business. Instant massive recession is by no means a "sure bet" with technological improvements, especially those that make more kinds of work possible than before.
I'm not forecasting that, and it's a virtual strawman in the face of my much narrower claim: that wages depend on marginal labor demand and bargaining power, not average output per worker. If AI substitutes for labor, the marginal value of adding another worker in many roles can fall. That can mean fewer hires or lower wages in some categories, not 'no hiring' or an instant massive recession. I have no idea what the addressable market or demand for our more productive economy is, but for the record I do hope it's high to support new businesses and a bigger pie in general!
> My statement reflects that increased productivity means that fewer people are required to generate the same amount of economic output.
People have been singing that since the industrial revolution started.
What makes you think it's different this time? Other times increased productivity yielded fewer people doing what a machine suddenly can do. But never fewer people employed or smaller overall economy.
You can argue that our populations are older than ever before. There aren't enough kids, and consumers are saturated with consumption opportunities.
That's maybe never happened before during the industrial revolution. But it's orthogonal to AI.
Most people in the economy do not use Slack. That tool may be most beneficial to those people who stand to lose jobs to AI displacement. Maybe after everyone is pink-slipped for an LLM or AI chatbot tool the total cost to the employer is reduced enough that they are willing to spend part of the money they saved eliminating warm bodies on AI tools and willing to pay a higher per employee price.
I think with a smaller employee pool though it is unlikely that it all evens out without the AI providers holding the users hostage for quarterly profits' sake.
That AI will have to be significantly preferable to the baseline of open models running on cheap third-party inference providers, or even on-prem. This is a bit of a challenge for the big proprietary firms.
> the baseline of open models running on cheap third-party inference providers, or even on-prem. This is a bit of a challenge for the big proprietary firms.
It’s not a challenge at all.
To win, all you need is to starve your competitors of RAM.
RAM is the lifeblood of AI, without RAM, AI doesn’t work.
HBF is NAND and integrated in-package like HBM. 3D XPoint or Optane would be extremely valuable today as part of the overall system architecture, but they were power-intensive enough that this particular use probably wouldn't be feasible.
(Though maybe it ends up being better if you're doing lots of random tiny 4k reads. It's hard to tell because the technology is discontinued as GP said, whereas NAND has kept progressing.)
They will pay it but lay off the number of employees needed to balance it out, and just expect the remaining ones to make up for it with their new AI subscriptions.
This is true though I think even if the employer provides all this on a per employee basis, the number of eligible employees, after everyone who stands to lose a job because of a shift to AI tools, will be low enough that each employee will need to add a lot of value for this to be worth it to an employer so the stated number is probably way too low. Ordinary people may just migrate from Apple products to something that is more affordable or, in the extreme case, walk away from the whole surveillance economy. Those people would not buy into any of this.
This is true but unfortunately for Apple I don't buy anything from the app store except for a minimal iCloud subscription for temporary photo storage. I am in the process of unwinding that subscription in favor of local storage and periodic sync. I haven't been diligent about syncing things in the past so I did buy a subscription for photo storage to avoid losing photos. I know that lots of people buy apps for all kinds of things. I'm not one of those people though.
>Both that inequality increases but also prosperity for the lower class? I don’t mind that trade off.
This sounds like it is written from the perspective of someone who sees their own prosperity increase dramatically so that they end up on the prosperous side of the worsening inequality gap. The fact that those on the other side of the gap see marginal gains in prosperity makes them feel that it all worked out okay for everyone.
I think this is greed typical of the current players in the AI/tech economy. You all saw others getting abundant wealth by landing high-paying jobs with tech companies and you want to not only to do the same, but to one-up your peers. It's really a shame that so much tech-bro identity revolves around personal wealth with zero accountability for the tools that you are building to set yourselves in control of lives of those you have chosen to either leave behind or to wield as tools for further wealth creation through alternate income SaaS subscription streams or other bullshit scams.
There really is not much difference between tech-bros, prosperity gospel grifters or other religious nuts whose only goal is to be more wealthy today than yesterday. It's created a generation of greedy, selfish narcissists who feel that in order to succeed in their industry, they need to be high-functioning autists so they take the path of self-diagnosis and become, as a group, resistant to peer review since anyone who would challenge their bullshit is doing the same thing and unlikely to want too much light shed on their own shady shit. It is funny to me that many of these tech-bros have no problem admitting their drug experimentation since they need to maintain an aura of enlightenment amongst their peers.
It's gonna be a really shitty world when the dopeheads run everything. As someone who grew up back in the day when smoking dope was something hidden and paranoia was a survival instinct for those who chose that path I can see lots of problems for society in the pipeline.
EDIT: Link to old but good joke [0] provided for context.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/16imt2f/long_an_old_...
reply