just for the chatbot, it's trivial to switch, create a new account and start asking questions from deepseek instead. There is nothing holding the users in chatgpt.
If you look how many white people are killed by blacks versus blacks killed by white people, you will have a shock. Even when you account for whites being a few times more than blacks in the general population.
I really don't buy this "minorities" are being killed story.
This is how to lie with statistics. Two things can be true without contradiction. Does a black gang member randomly killing an innocent white person cancel a white cop randomly killing an innocent black man?
The original comment made it sound like minorities are just hunted down by random whites, lynching style.
But even if you look at police murders on civilians, they are killing more whites than blacks. You might argue that whites are 5x more than blacks, but police has more interaction with blacks than with whites. https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
The Earth is warming, but how much of it is caused by humans is under debate. The Earth is still coming out of an ice age, so it would be warming even without humans.
Also, the more important question is: how much will it accelerate based on our emissions? If there are no positive feedback loops, it would only warm up 1C maximum, no matter how much more CO2 we will emit. But because of the positive feedback loops (warmer earth -> more water evaporating -> more warming), this warming can trigger a 4-5C further warming. The feedback loops are just theoretical(you can't measure them empirically) and the quality of the estimations is based on our understanding and modelling of the climate.
We've had in the last 100 years a temperature swing that usually takes a thousand years or more. We've already seen greater than +1C of temperature increase compared to before widespread use of fossil fuels.
Is that caused by humans? Sure that's up for debate, in the same way whether tobacco causes cancer is. People are willing to be wrong when being wrong gives them money/status/utility.
> We've had in the last 100 years a temperature swing that usually takes a thousand years or more.
A cute xkcd is not a time machine. You rely here on indirect measurements of tree ring measurements or ocean sediments. You can't verify if there were any other factors at play over the millennia, and I seriously doubt that these methods can even be theoretically +/- 0.5 degree C accurate. You may believe that, but you can't verify unless you travel into the past. Besides, 1000 years are NOTHING on the scale we are looking at. If you live anywhere north of the 40th degree, the place you now sit was probably covered by an ice sheet without a living thing in sight, only 10000 years ago. And a 100000 years ago. There is no way that you can divide that timescale into thousands and measure every one of them with a high enough precision to compare it with the present. The bold claims of climate science have lost any scientific humility.
What about them, and how was your debate class?
Can you measure the time of day an organism died with radiocarbon dating? This rhethorical question is meant as a hint.
Did you know how they calibrated radiocarbon at first? They used wine bottles from french cellars, because they have a year printed on them. That's scientific verification, because believe doesn't do it.
> If there are no positive feedback loops, it would only warm up 1C maximum, no matter how much more CO2 we will emit.
GHG emissions are still increasing. If we assume that temperature increase is only linear in the amount of atmospheric GHGs, that means temperature will continue to increase, not remain flat.
Little known fact (I am still amazed how people don't know the mechanics of global warming...): CO2 effect in the atmosphere is logarithmic, increasing with concentration. That is because CO2 can only block one band of light, so at one point, you're approaching asymptotic effect. That's why we keep talking about "doubling of CO2", because it's a logarithmic function....
But yes, the temperature will increase slightly because of CO2 emissions. That triggers more warming due to feedback effects though, and those are hard to quantify, and more scary.
It was viable only because we were shipping "recyclables" that had to be "recycled" by contract, not pure garbage that could have just been buried. Sorting through that whole mess of "recyclables" was more expensive than shipping it to China and letting them just burn or bury it.
>Sorting through that whole mess of "recyclables" was more expensive than shipping it to China and letting them just burn or bury it.
I thought they didn't bother and just buried it if it wasn't profitable.
>GONZALEZ: Whoa. Oh, I've been doing that one wrong. So the city of Nogales went around to everyone's house this morning and picked up their recyclables. [...] And they brought them here. And where is all this going to go?
>GALLEGO: Trash.
>GONZALEZ: The recycling is going into the trash. I am watching pristine beer bottles and juice cartons and cardboard boxes get smushed into a pile of wet, gooey, dripping food waste and soggy diapers.
> I thought they didn't bother and just buried it if it wasn't profitable.
In my county, they are obliged by the contract to NOT bury the mixed recyclables. So they used to offload it to some companies that would then also promise not to bury them (pinky promise), and ship them to China. Contracts in China are then not so easy to follow and enforce and voila, problem is now somewhere else.
> I thought they didn't bother and just buried it if it wasn't profitable.
The point is to cheat. Say you recycle and ensure that there are enough links in the chain nobody can follow it to the end and prove the stuff you ship to China wasn't recycled. China did recycle some stuff, but most of it wasn't. China decided to stop participating in that scam though.
Geoengineering could maybe bring temperatures back down, but you can't just replant an old growth forest and out all the old plants, fungi and animals back.
If microplastics are behind the fertility drop, reverse flynn effect or obesity crisis they would also be more important in the ~100 year timeline.
GPS can be jammed (see Russia-UKraine war), so inertial systems are still very important for rockets, for example some HIMARS rockets start with GPS and then rely only on inertial while getting close to target.
Himars relies on inertial navigation the entire flight and uses GPS updates to course correct. If the GPS is blocked for a sufficient amount of flightime, even with the intertial navigation, the accuracy can become unusably low.
This is how the Russians have been throwing double digit percentages of launches off course.
Terminal guidance since ~1995 on higher-end weapons has switched to hybrid inertial + scene matching (various sensor types).
F.ex. the 90s Tomahawk used terrain contour matching to orient itself
For more details see https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA315439.pdf (US translation of a mid-90s Chinese survey of the guidance space, but it covers the material and is publicly available)
Afaik, most modern systems use infrared target matching for final course correction. (Initially developed to allow anti-shipping missiles to autonomously prioritize targets, but now advanced enough to use in land scenarios as well)
I don't think ATACMS or GMLRS missiles have any terminal guidance apart from their aim point. The GMLRS missiles that carry german SMART munitions do, technically, since the SMART munition has it's own targeting system.
It wouldn't make much sense to me, as most ATACMS warheads are area based, not point target based, so they wouldn't expect to aim at a single target. Also these systems are relatively cheap compared to things that DO have such guidance
I remember seeing one of those computers on Wisconsin, but I only saw it after decommission, as a museum piece. Those computers are truly mind boggling, if you're reading this and you're close to Norfolk you should visit battleship Wisconsin.
same goes for being in SoCal and going to visit the USS Iowa in San Pedro. it also has similar mechanical computers, it's a fantastic day spent clambering around the ship. sometimes they do "stay overnight in the bunks" nights, I can highly recommend it!
They also sell broken parts of the ship that they fix up as souvenirs, like the entire deck's worth of wooden planking, and for $1000 you can take a tour where the mildly charismatic head curator takes you into the smallest and hardest to reach parts of the ship!
Or fire a 5 inch gun, you know, if that's more your speed.
There was a warrant in this case. That type of warrant is now deficient and electronic data holders like Google with easily refute future attempts to get data with a clearly deficient warrant. Parallel construction typically means a warrant was not given on the first pass.
Without speaking of the general case, this specific legal precedent does prevent parallel construction for this particular source of data.
In order to obtain the data that law enforcement would have to "discover" through parallel construction, they need Google to cooperate and run the analysis to give them the required data. They can try to make this request through informal channels, but Google will say that they need a warrant. They can't make the request through formal channels because no judge will give them a warrant. So that's pretty much it.
So now we just have to rely on Google/Apple/cell-carriers to not hand over all the geofence data without a warrant. I'm sure the cops will be leaning _heavily_ on 3rd Party Doctrine next time they call up Google with their warrantless geofence data requests.
Interestingly, Google has recently started to shift their entire infrastructure for location tracking off their servers and onto users’ devices. Motivated in part by geofence warrants (and, in this commenter’s opinion, perhaps by anti-abortion laws in the US too).
It’s actually rather frustrating for me as I used to export and keep the GPS logs, for geotagging photos from a camera, which will need to be done per day now. Nonetheless, a smart move as they simply won’t hold this information anymore - even for those who opt-in to the feature.
While I'm in favor of restricting warrants in this way, it is important to realize that it will result in some crimes being unpunished, and potentially even deaths.
There is a cost to living in a free society that needs to be recognized, even though it is still a cost worth paying.
Parallel construction is this huge phantom menace on the internet but something that in real life occurs less frequently than a person being struck by lightning.
Law enforcement faces a very high burden to show that parallel construction would apply. (Not "could." Would.) This generally requires law enforcement to show that they were pursuing multiple parallel paths of investigation, and that basic investigatory work in one of the other paths of investigation would have legally led to the excluded evidence as a matter of course. To put it perspective how difficult this is, a former co-worker that is still with the public defender has seen the prosecutor succeed exactly once in 15 years in making a parallel construction argument.
The DEA is the only agency that successfully makes parallel construction arguments on a regular basis, and this is primarily because the DEA has the resources to actively pursue multiple parallel paths of investigation, and because in many cases the reason for using parallel construction is that key witnesses have a tendency to get murdered....
Well they need the warrant to get Google to give them the information in the first place, so they would not have the data to create the parallel construction.
I'm confused how parallel construction plays in here, nonsense adds another layer of confusion, but an attempt to help, tl;dr: the 5th Circuit has held that requesting a list of people/IPs/devices in a location is not permissible.
I'm just trying to guess a gap: engineers tend to see law as more iron, like code, and judge law based on inverse programming: if you can find some set of circumstances that creates a gap where the law isn't obeyed.
Ex. here, you might mean that this doesn't technically stop police from requesting geofenced data anyway, using it to get suspects, then not mentioning it at trial. Yes, technically, the police could ignore this, and request a warrant, then the judge could ignore it, then the tech companies could ignore it, the DA could collude with the police to hide that happened, and pretend they found the suspect a different way.
But it's impractical.
It's hard to spell out why, exactly, tl;dr: death penalty for your career if any of this is discovered by anyone, you can't do it by yourself, and these people are generally on the same team in our distanced analysis, people are tribal, and gov't attorneys/tech companies/judges/police can't rely on eachother's silence.
You're reading things into my comment that I never said. I'm not the same person you were previously replying to, in case that confused you.
> parallel construction ever happening has nothing to do with what we're talking about
I never said the two cases have anything to do with each other.
What I see is similarities between the two regarding your reasoning. That is, they both require the government agents doing something that you'd think would jeopardize their careers, and yet they're getting away with it all the time... because they actually do manage to successfully hide the practice from the courts when trial time comes.
If just reading "parallel construction" is inducing a knee-jerk reaction from you, look at other examples of perjury and how many careers ended over them. Here [1] is one article I'll quote for you: A former San Francisco Police commissioner [said] "One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. [...] It is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America." ... Justice [...] of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn condemned a widespread culture of lying and corruption in the department’s drug enforcement units: “I thought I was not naïve [...] but even this court was shocked, not only by the seeming pervasive scope of misconduct but even more distressingly by the seeming casualness by which such conduct is employed.”
If you're going to claim the "engineers" here are "lazy" or otherwise ignorant about the robustness of the US legal system, you'll need to do more to enlighten them than wave your hands around saying "it's hard to spell out why it's impractical" with vague game-theoretical explanations. Because to a lot of folks here, this kind of stuff is clearly still happening, regardless of what you believe about the difficulty of distributed coordination or the explanatory power of game theory.
> The world was wrong to expect that climate change would trigger rapid and widespread desertification in the world’s arid lands
The science never said that. It was popsci, magazines and attention brokers that pushed that narrative. A warming world looks like Jurassic park, not Mad Max, but that doesn't sell, so they had to make it scary to sell it, hence the desertification narrative.
In this case the "greening" is not mutually exclusive with "Mad Max". One of the major points of the article is that the greening arid areas are also highly vulnerable to brush fires. CO2 is captured temporarily but then released back into the atmosphere again every time it burns.
Exactly, if you look at it from a thermodynamic standpoint a warming world means increased evaporation which leads to increased rainfall. There's simply more water in the air. So the threat isn't so much expanding deserts as it is more severe flooding events.
These effects can already be seen with many insurance companies abandoning low lying states like Florida and Louisiana. There are few instances of people more willing to put their money where their mouth is than insurance company actuaries.
The even more annoying fact is that the whole global warming crisis is BECAUSE of that thermodynamic effect. With increased CO2 alone, if we emit as much as we could, would only warm the Earth 1C at the most. CO2 has a narrow band of light that is obstructs, and once that is filled, there no more heat it can trap. The scientists believe that global warming will be as high as it will because of the positive feedback loop a little warming from CO2 causes with water vapor(which is a more potent greenhouse gas): you heat up 1C, which means more water evaporates, which means more heat trapped, which means more water evaporates etc.
If it wasn't for more water in the atmosphere, just CO2 warming, there would be no Global Warming crisis, it would be just a blip. And still, somehow people widely believe we'll overall be in desert-like conditions?
I don't understand how Microsoft gets under fire so easily, but Google bundles everything in Android, and you can't even uninstall most of them (maps, gmail etc.). Same with iphones. This is regulatory tipping the balance.
