Actually, the case law seems pretty clear in the other direction. Deadly force is not justified once an officer has evaded a vehicle that might hit them.
It shows no such thing. The officer got out of the way and was fine afterwards in both videos. This is a man who was angry and possibly traumatized by a prior incident involving a car. He should not have been allowed to carry a weapon
I share the author's perspective that LLMs are not fun for programming. I don't use them to generate code, save for small snippets to demonstrate some concept or do something rote that I wouldn't enjoy writing myself.
However - and maybe I'm just an easily entertained simpleton - I find them really fun for exploring those random, not trivially Google-able questions that pop into my head on a daily basis, technical and otherwise. Most of my chats with ChatGPT begin with questions of this form. I keep my critical thinking cap on during the dialogue and always verify the output if it's to be used for anything serious, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the process.
I'm a naturally socially awkward person, due partly to personality and partly to social anxiety disorder. I don't think I have the social intelligence/agility to pull off half of these maneuvers. Just reading about the author playing different characters with tables and imagining myself in that position made me want to throw up, I'd fuck it up so badly.
You sound a little like me. I wasn't aware people thought like that until my partner told me her thoughts took the form of a constant stream of well-formed English. My default mode of thinking isn't natural language (though I can force myself to think this way, it's laborious, as the article mentions), nor images (I struggle with visualization), but more like abstract sequences of both logical connections and intuitive feelings.
Adding a data point here for posterity, in hopes that someone researches this topic deeper. I recognise myself from the above, apart from "intuitive feelings" as I don't quite get what shi.. the person meant by that. My mother noted that from a very young age I was fascinated by books and indeed did an unreasonable amount of reading growing up. My sibling thinks with words. Visualisation of real things is a challenge for me, but I think I'm reasonably adept at solving more abstract things (e.g. mechanical linkages) in a somewhat visual-adjacent way that I call my "imagination". This extends to memories, as if you were to task me to picture a dog, I would feel much more comfortable picking a non-existing, imagined dog than any the dogs that I've actually seen or met, such as family members' pets. I do some painting and could wireframe-sketch this imagined subject for you and "fill in the blanks", but trying to remember any actual moment spent with those beasts is laborious and results in something akin to one-frame flashes that are immediately gone and can't be recalled at will. Inadequate memory formation/recall have caused me grief, but I have no trouble remembering for example number sequences.
This is part of it, but everyone to some degree has discomfort with being disliked and will do things to avoid it. At least in my experience, social anxiety is much more about the cognitive distortions that convince you others dislike you, when they may in fact be neutral or even have a positive view of you.
Just as one example, when I'm interacting with someone who I haven't reached a certain level of comfortability with, I'm highly aware of and sensitive to their reactions to me in terms of what they're saying, their tone, their micro facial expressions, etc., and I perceive any small negative reaction as a sign that they don't like me. This usually isn't true! But it ironically has the effect of inducing self-sabotaging avoidant behaviors in me, such as over-censoring of what I say and just general awkwardness around them, which makes it much more likely they will end up disliking me.
You probably shouldn't accuse others of being ungrounded in reality if you don't keep up with reality.
Regardless of what it is called, it is unconstitutional and illegal; however, that does not seem to matter to this administration. Trump is currently defying a 9-0 SCOTUS ruling that he facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the US. His administration has even admitted Garcia was deported in error but still isn't doing anything about it. Now we have ICE holding provable US citizens. Maybe with that context you can understand why some might be concerned that citizens will be "accidentally" disappeared.
The news is both literally reality, and, more substantively, an important means of accessing the more distant reality that seems to be your concern. Individual news stories often contain inaccuracies and even the accurate bits may be cherry-picked to suit an agenda, which is one reason that accessing the underlying reality requires wide reading of diverse news sources and critical engagement with other information sources. But avoiding the news does not improve your access to reality,
By your own admission, you have no reasonable basis from which to draw any general conclusion about the news, having only incidental and accidental contact with it.
> You guys think citizens are getting deported because of sensational reporting.
Literally no one has said that they think citizens are getting deported at this time.
Several people have expressed concerns that the executive failing to observe the law and obey judicial orders with regard to the treatment of non-citizens, combined with the executives overtly stated intent to deport non-citizen dissenters to the same Salvadoran prison that non-citizens have been deported to in defiance of court orders, raises an imminent near-future concern of the same kind of lawless deportation of citizens as has already taken place or noncitizens
> Have you forgotten about the justice system and the constitution?
The justice system and constitution are not magic, and they only constrain executive action if (1) the executive chooses to observe the constitution and present people to the justice system before taking action, or (2) the executive chooses to observe the Constitution and obeys orders from the justice system to correct the resulting improper state of affairs after failing #1, or (3) the Congress exercises its impeachment power to remove the executive in consequence of the failures of #1 and #2, or (4) some outside force, itself acting extraconstitutionally, responds to the failure of #1-#3 by forcibly constraining or removing the executive.
Were one paying attention to the news -- even ignoring the claims presented in the news and only using it as a source to find links to official government statements, judicial decisions, and similar non-media sources -- one might be aware that #1 and #2 is precisely what is not happening that is at the center of recent controversies in which the executive branch is embroiled, and there is no immediate sign of #3 or #4, either.
I imagine the conversation between the CEO and his reports included something about "it's no biggie, the passwords were hashed using bcrypt, that's like irreversible encryption" without contextualizing that and mentioning that plaintext auth tokens were also exposed.
I think it was downplayed even more. Supposedly the initial email by the researcher only had evidence for leaking database sizes, and I think it's likely that the CEO only got confirmation for this evidence internally and nothing more.
"This server contains over 3,8GB of data exposed including the logins for 16,500 of your users and a lot of PII and credentials, you need to secure access to the server as soon as possible."
After all that transpired after etc I believe it's possible someone downplayed the severity of this to the CEO and he took that as an opportunity to ignore everything I wrote on the emails and reply that way to me assuming I was some cybersecurity vendor working for "Proton" trying to push something for the company to buy.
reply