Exactly, also, if this were the case, it implies that every other dash camera of the same make is unsuitable for use as evidence & not fit for purpose.
He asked her nicely if she could put out her cigarette for his benefit. She in return started ranting about how it was her car etc.
I don't care if she has the right to remain smoking in her car or not. Someone asked kindly for her to put it out, and she went full rant in return.
I'm sure statistically speaking, if someone is a complete asshole and "resists" any attempt to be nice to the police, they're likely to be breaking other laws - carrying drugs, no car insurance, etc etc.
If you get pulled over by the police, starting an argument and forcing them to escalate things isn't the best idea.
If you get (illegally) pulled over by the (racist) police, what should you do? Submit to their power trip instead?
Given that there's a lot of questions about the audio in general, I'm not sure how nicely he really asked - the entire veracity of the audio stream is under question here: the video skips around but the audio doesn't. That certainly lends credence to the "he was being nice" argument, except for the part where the "nice" could well have been added in post-processing.
Ultimately, a racist institution staffed by racists most likely murdered a woman whose only crimes were (a) not signaling to pull over after the officer signaled her to pull over, for some other reason, and (b) not being polite to the officer in question.
Until and unless you show me that police deserve politeness, the only reason to be polite to them is "because otherwise they may kill you". That is not only f'd up, it's literally terrorism. As in: these acts make us terrified and we are less likely to resist their authority. So, yeah.
" the only reason to be polite to them is "because otherwise they may kill you". "
Spot on. Everyone saying "she should have been nicer" are effectively saying that you should submit to the police or they'll kill you. Nobody is saying "he deserved politeness and she was rude" because it's very obvious that he was not polite to her. "How are you doing? You seem upset?" Well she just got pulled over and is getting a ticket bozo, what do you think?
I'm not sure if this is the place to engage meaningfully around common-sense misconceptions about race, class, and so forth in the US.
That said: "the majority of crime is committed by Black people" is something that I'd like to call out. Can you provide sources? How do you define crime? For example: white people are far more likely to deal drugs, but Black people are far more likely to get arrested for dealing drugs. [0]. The same article, and its cited bits, digs further into the old "black people do more criming" canard.
Your re-exercising of the "black on black" meme is also pretty tired. First of all: there's a lot of people doing a lot of stuff to improve that (c.f., My Brother's Keeper [1], an initiative that President Obama started and the right conveniently forgets every time they blow their dog whistles about the President and black-on-black crime). Secondly: not relevant to the discussion about the fact that Police seem to kill Black people every day, for reasons that we would be screaming about to the rafters if those victims of homicide were White.
Finally, can we at least agree on the statistics? Actually, not really: Law Enforcement in the US is really reluctant (one can only wonder why) about how many people they kill every day. Some crowd-sourced attempts to stitch together local reports into a national database [2] indicate that in 2014, the number works out to be about three people per day killed by LEO. That number is ridiculously high. The vast majority of these people are not white. LEO in many other "western" countries don't do this - in the UK in 2014 police killed one person, total. In Germany: none.
So, should we be distracted by your handwavy "black people deserve killing by police" narrative (because that's what you're actually saying), or could we at least agree that the police seem to be a direct and active threat to the lives and safety of People of Color in this country? It's not like this is a surprise - it hasn't been that long since the 1960s, and you see what we did back then. It's just nowadays people get offended when you point out that our national institutions are largely racist, just ever so slightly less overt about it than before.
She responded just as politely as he asked. "I'm in my car why do I have to put out my cigarette?" To which he responded "Well you can step on out now" instead of anything about why she should put it out, such as it being for his benefit. After that is when the ranting about it being her car started.
While I agree knowing her rights certainly didn't work to her advantage in this situation. Your interpretation of events is not what I consider correct, and mine may not be either. I would encourage other people to watch it and determine for themselves what was ranting and what was polite.
"Someone asked kindly for her to put it out, and she went full rant in return."
Which is not illegal. If she has the right to smoke, he has the right to ask her to stop and she has the right to say no.
"If you get pulled over by the police, starting an argument and forcing them to escalate things isn't the best idea."
Yeah, much better to let them do what they want, bully you and find something to arrest you and meet their quotas.
One should not get arrested for being rude, being rude is a fucking right, period.
Sorry friend this is nonsense. One of the key pieces of negotiation is access to information. Organizations and managers respond well to rational appeals like "so and so has the same experience and does the same job but earns 10% more" or "I have an outstanding offer for X I am currently at (X-$10000), I know your position(BATNA) to imply a cost of (X-$1000) I think its reasonable to settle here for (X-$5000)"
The key is having information specifically to formulate your company's BATNA. The notion that salary sharing is bad for the employee is hogwash from unfair labor practices developed over decades.
Would you buy a car from a dealership if the dealer told you "you shouldn't comparison shop it will only make you resentful"? Yet we are willing to accept that claptrap from a company. Not in this lifetime.
In 2 previous jobs, I found out what others at the company were making. OK, they were managers, but still, it just made me pissed off. It didn't make me happy by any means.
As others note, people tend to generally think they're above average. Can you not see that exploding their delusion might not be such a great idea? Some of them have to be below average. A team who doesn't share salary info, can all be happy that they're all above average. If they start sharing salary, half will be below average and probably pretty pissed off.
The people who benefit, are people who are generally happy as they are. Would you like to know how much money your neighbours have? Why should it matter?
Stadiums benefit millions of people. Jet fighters save lives.
Finding out that there's water on mars, or some single cell organisms on pluto, does nothing apart from fill a few future text books.
Nailed it. That's why it matters - without a hunger for knowledge, our species would still be living in caves, pilfering scraps of flesh from carrion. Our desire to understand ourselves and the world we inhabit has lifted us out of the darkness.
I completely agree. But it's a pursuit individuals should pursue. If you want to go explore mars, go ahead! I'm sure it'd be great fun. But it should absolutely not be anything to do with public money, taxes, grants etc.
Leave it completely to rich people and companies to waste their money on.
Citizens of London would likely have felt the same way if they learned about Michael Faraday's experiments with electricity which were funded by the Royal Society, given that electricity was considered a party trick at the time. A government which spends public money on scientific exploration is doing its job to guard society against the cost of lost discoveries.
That's not necessarily true; some leaps are so obvious that it was only a matter of time before someone got to them, but there are critical jumps which are not so simple. If Newton hadn't invented Calculus, it's impossible to predict when another soul would have...so it's a damn good thing that he was supported by the Royal Society.
It would make it that much harder to justify many religious beliefs, which I predict would be a positive outcome. It's harder to be arrogant and self-righteous when you find out you're not an only child. Sure, some people would find a way to stay stuck in their ways, but not everyone.
However, the much more important thing for me is that we'd know we aren't necessarily going to run into some Great Filter [0]. I'd fret a little less about dangerous new technologies if I knew at least one case where a civilization survived.
Lastly, maybe we'd learn something from the signal itself! A new communications protocol, new music, new technologies, insight into how languages work - who knows? Finding out what we have in common with the beings who sent the signal and what we don't would teach us a great deal about what is arbitrary on our world and what's fundamental. It's like growing up in a society with extremely rigid gender roles and then traveling to a country where that's not the case - you get that "Oh I didn't realize women could even have jobs" moment, but potentially with problems that aren't self-imposed.
Just imagine what proof that we're not alone would mean for the world. I'm not positive it would galvanize everyone, but it would surely create new industry and untold number of jobs as we, as a world, decide to try to go and meet them.
Well, agree to disagree. The average person doesn't really care if there is or isn't water on mars, or if someone spent millions of their dollars taking a photo of pluto.
Year after year the news reports another big experiement which cost millions to setup, and which claims to "give us answers as to how the universe was created". I just couldn't be less interested. It's rich people (Or taxpayer funded people) playing with their toys.
It must be great fun if space exploration is your hobby, like explorers of days gone by, but for most people it won't have any impact at all on their lives (Apart from wasting their taxes).
Space travel and exploration have directly resulting in many commercial products, which themselves have generated billions in revenue and tens of thousands of jobs (if not more).
Not only is your statement disappointing to hear from anyone presuming to be technically literate, it is objectively wrong.
That's actually exactly my philosophy [1]. I agree with each of your examples (water on mars, photos of Pluto, early-universe cosmology). Nonetheless, the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence is in a completely different league. The random guys on the street will not only care about this tremendously, he will care for the same correct reasons that scientists care.
[1] Minus the part about it being a waste of taxes; just because people aren't interested doesn't mean it's not worthwhile, because people can be wrong.
So we find out there's some creatures on Pluto that are roughly the same as frogs. How does that impact anyones life? It'd be an interesting fact, and maybe fun if we could move some over here as pets, but beyond that, it's a colossal waste of energy and money.
Do you mean impacting their life materially? Why would it have to impact their life materially to be valuable? Sharing a joke with a friend at a bar doesn't have material benefit, but it's one of the valuable things in life.
Well, presumably any civilization advanced enough to communicate with us wouldn't be interested in being our pets. Civilization being sort of a prerequisite of communicating with us?
If you can't see how that would be one of the most impactful things in human history, I don't think there's any more to discuss.
An old Nokia 3210 or something, just works. It does everything fine. It works as a phone. It was designed from start to finish, and built.
Compare that with Android. Every update they seem to break or remove some functionality. Endless software updates, restarting, etc. It was shipped with bugs, it'll always have bugs.
I'm not convinced this is an improvement. Also obviously has some pretty big consequences if the update system is hacked, or if there's critical bugs etc.
What type of phone do you use? If it's an Android phone and not a Nokia 3210 I would suggest that you examine whether you actually value just working at the expense of lots of new features.
I have both. If I need maps/browser/camera, I use my android phone, and moan at all the crappy UI issues and endless updates etc.
One of my worst gripes with android is just how often it changes the UI just as I'm about to click on something, so that I click on something else. It's maddening.
If I need a phone, I use my Nokia 3210 (With its ridiculously long battery life and far superior reception).
Aslo battery life. I used to charge my phone once a week, tops. I could drop it, throw, it fit in my hand my pocket find. Now I have to charge it every day. My android is more of a portable computer that also knows how to make calls via the cell phone network.
If I run my Samsung Note 4 in it's extreme power saving mode, it's got a standby that is something like 17 days! I can easily go a few days, if I'm just talking on the phone, text, and the occasional web browser session.
If I want to play audio, it will do that for the better part of a week in that same mode. Just point Chrome at the files and go.
I've found I need to do a factory refresh every time there is an Android OS upgrade, because my battery life goes in the tank. ADB shows processes going crazy, trying and retrying to access things that are no longer there.
If it's done poorly, of course it's a terrible experience. Restarting my car and it's suddenly faster and smarter? Sounds like a positive experience to me.
"Old tech" often just works. Flawlessly. I have a dumper truck I borrow from next door. Crank handle, diesel. It just works. Starts every time. No battery, no crap to go wrong.
"new tech" is often designed to last 5 or 10 years maximum. After that is anyones guess as to whether it'll work.
Incidentally, mechanical diesels are also immune to EMP. All they need is fuel and air. Not true of newer electronically controlled ones, which is done mainly to reduce emissions.
You've a bit of survivor bias. Old tech that is still running is likely to last a while more. But all of the old tech that was designed with planned obsolescence in mind doesn't work any more, so you don't think of it. That is, "old tech" was once "new tech." There's also the old tech that wasn't designed to last long, like adobe mud walls.
Some old tech doesn't work flawlessly. Steam power vehicles, like locomotives, cars, and tractors, require more maintenance than their new tech replacements.
Look at sewing machines though. They used to be made of cast iron and wood. They were built properly, and it shows. They still work 50 or 60 years later.
Modern day sewing machines are made of cheap plastic and flimsy metal. They last 5 years.
Yeah there's some survivor bias, but the materials used to make things in the olden days was just better material. On the down side, sewing machines used to cost a months wages or something.
Some materials in "the olden days" were indeed better. We don't have the old growth timber to make cheap, high-quality wood like we did.
But not all materials are better. Celluloid is the first thermoplastic, and the first material used for movie films, but it's highly flammable and has been replaced by acetate film. Celluloid was also used to replace ivory in billiard balls, which was better than the clay and wood balls used earlier. All of those materials are worse for professional play than modern billiard balls made from composite plastics.
You brought up sewing machine. Sewing machines were made in the hundreds of millions. What you see are the ones that weren't trash and were maintained. Here's a page complaining about people complaining about people selling old sewing machines that mostly useful as "boat anchors" http://runningstitches-mkb.blogspot.se/2012/08/open-letter-t... . Quoting one example, "I'm not impressed when you tell me your 1950 Singer has "only been used twice to sew on patches" (note: I am not making this up!) If this machine has been sitting unused in an attic for half a century, it is most likely frozen or seized up."
Quite clearly a lot of old sewing machines do not "still work 50 or 60 years later."
A Singer 201, which is widely considered the classic sewing machine, cost 6 months wages, not the 1 month you think it was. See http://www.sewalot.com/singer_201k_sewalot.htm . (Also, Singer switched from cast iron to aluminum a bit over 60 years ago, so your timeline is a bit off.) There are a lot of crappy modern sewing machines in the <1 week's salary range. But that's hardly a fair comparison, is it? Plus, how many of those have an original motor that's been in use for 60+ years without wearing out?
My Mom has a cast iron Singer 201. Which she loves even though it only does straight stitches. She also has several other sewing machines. She still uses her Bernina from the 1980s. So at least some modern (less that 50 years old) machines can and do last longer than 5 years.
Finally, there are plenty of sewing machines on eBay from the 1950s and early, for cheap. What is the reason that they aren't scooped up if they are of significantly higher quality than modern machines?
Speaking of old diesel tech that just works and will be here forever, if you're in the U.S., it's still possible to pick up an M35A2 on the cheap (like ~$2000 cheap), and they'll run just about any fuel (multi-fuel Hercules diesel FTW), and are almost indestructible by normal means. They are also far less temperamental than many older trucks. You just need anchor arms to steer it and the ability to drive stick shift.
To add to your last statement, it seems like cars are engineered for the length of a typical lease. Afterwards, nondeterministic electric gremlins start showing themselves.
Rich people don't just swim in money you know. It's fairly likely they'll have far more expenses than poor people. So they might have a better pension plan, pay a gardener. Might send their kids to private school. etc etc
So someone earning $200k could well be less well off after expenses than someone earning $50k.
I agree. I'm just saying that just because someone is a lawyer, and has a reasonably high salary, doesn't necessarily follow that they're swimming in money.
When I charged $45/hour before I quit to go back to school, I was nominally making $90k a year. According to the rich list website, that puts me at 0.09% worldwide. No, I am by no means wealthy. I have loans I am not done with!
You probably should have mentioned taxes. In the US, if most of your income is employment income, the tax system is still very progressive. Not so much for investment income.
> Also if you sleep well, and live 25% longer, that 25% will be when you're old, senile, and unable to do anything useful.
That's assuming you do become senile and unable to do anything useful. Doesn't necessarily have to happen, and that doesn't mean you shouldn't live a good life.
> Studies about sleep are often just crazy. When did people stop using their common sense? Just have as much sleep as you think works for you.
What's considered "common sense" can vary greatly from person to person, and people aren't always aware of how their habits can have long-term negative consequences on them.
I've had that regulated dependable service drive me around the block, take longer distances that were necessary; practically stealing money from me. I have never had that happen with Uber. Not once. More expensive doesn't make it better. That's a nonsensical statement especially when government regulation actually makes markets less efficient and more subject to market distortions.
The taxi business as we know it ought to die. Let these thieving, exploitive 'mogels' go bankrupt.
It'll come full circle. People will start getting murdered / seriously hurt in Uber cars, maybe they'll be filmed without their consent while in the car, probably a few rapes along the way.
Then customers will cry out for regulation, insurance, etc. And it'll put the prices up.
I don't understand why you'd put your life completely in someone elses hands without any sort of vetting, regulation, insurance etc. Just so you can save a few $
Maybe a startup should disrupt the medical industry. Just provide "doctors" to patients based on online feedback scores. After all, all that regulation and training just pushes prices up.
Regulation doesn't stop murder, theft nor rape. If it did we wouldn't have prisons.
There are numerous events of murder and rape in regulated taxi cabs. (Google is helpful). If you have any evidence that Uber is more dangerous than a cab is love to see it.
As for your final question, yes. Regulation has artificially held back the medical industry and ridiculously inflated prices. People aren't stupid, they can decide what's best for themselves. Choice and free competition is the foundation of progress.
Do you really believe that no regulation is the answer?
Look at airbnb and the detrimental effects it has on cities. Residential areas are residential for a reason. It must be horrible to wake up one day and find that your neighbour has decided to turn into an unregulated hotel.
I have yet to see any evidence in regards to your claims about Uber or Airbnb.
Secondly if the prior taxi system is evidence of regulation i think it's a safe assumption to make that regulations helped neither the consumer or the providers. Uber in SF is doing 3-4x what the entire taxi system was doing prior, that's evidence of demand not being met.
Artificially restricting supply is never a good idea.
Uber is only doing so well because people prefer their service to the alternatives, people aren't stupid, they can do what is best for themselves.
Far more likely the recording software is crappy and sometimes skips back a second or two.
The problem is whatever they released, people would start picking apart and launching conspiracy theories about.