deleted by creator

Yeah, I’m not a Texan but I also disagree about this. Also, Austin has produced some amazing music over the years (for example, random Austin band I’ve been in love with recently is Being Dead).

Lol, yeah, I’m really good at being nuanced and understanding right up until somebody starts talking about a person or subject that hits one of my angry buttons, and then I’m all “Bill Clinton will pay for his many crimes when the revolutionary vanguard takes power!”

But, yeah, when I’m not pissed beyond reason the thought I keep coming back to is that we all need each other to keep fascism at bay

Yeah, say what you will about free market acolytes, they know how to jump on to a successful brand

I already dropped one wall of text on this post, but something you might find interesting - there was a history podcast called Revolutions that looked at revolutionary periods in history, when it wrapped up the host did a whole series of appendix episodes on different recurring themes he saw in the different periods he looked at, and in one of those he talked about how the word “radical” can be hard to define because throughout history there were people who had radical goals they wanted to achieve through moderate means and people who had moderate goals they wanted to achieve through radical means and the inverse of both of those

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=0nukt_9HmLE&t=2m21s

So yeah, I think it’s helpful to separate out how big a transformation in society you want to see from how far you’re willing to go to get them

So, this is a very complex topic I don’t have the time to give the treatment it deserves, but to try to give a very summarized historical viewpoint on it -

Liberalism was a set of ideas that cohered around the 18th century as a reaction to monarchism that emphasized universal civil rights and free markets (there were a ton of weird things going on with noble privileges and state monopolies issued by royal administrations and mercantile economics this was a response to)

Socialism was a set of ideas that cohered around the 19th century as a reaction to liberalism (and the whole industrial revolution) that said universal civil rights didn’t go far enough and we needed to establish universal economic rights. Some socialists think the only way to achieve these things is by overthrowing or limiting the power of governments and ripping up contracts between private parties, which liberals tend not to like.

Progressivism was (sort of, I’m being very reductive here) an attempted synthesis of these traditions that cohered around the early 20th century, and (essentially) argued “ok, free markets but restricted by regulations (e.g. you can’t sell snake oil, you can’t condition the sale of property on the purchaser being a specific race), and open elections for whoever the voters want but with restrictions on the kinda of laws that can be passed” (e.g. no poll taxes).

Like I said, I’m simplifying a lot here and I’d encourage reading Wikipedia pages and other sources on all of these things (like, I’m eliding a whole very dark history progressives have where their attempts to perfect society had them advocating for eugenics and segregation early on because there was academic support for those ideas at the time, and there’s a lot more to be said on how a lot of the first anti-racist voices were socialist ones and why it took progressives and liberals time to get on the right side of that issue, and how fights for colonial independence tended to be led by socialists and against liberals), but the fact that liberals progressives and socialists are all ostensibly “on the left” is a big cause of the infighting we see.

I mean, academically speaking you’re totally right, but because Americans discuss politics in extremely simplistic terms a lot of people use the word “liberal” when they mean progressive or socialist or just anything to the left of center, so it would probably be helpful to define these terms a bit

The devices should be returned to inmates immediately, prison administrators should then slap themselves in the face one time for implementing them poorly to begin with, slap themselves in the face several times for overreacting to a viral story without having any reason to believe there was an active or imminent problem with any of their inmates, and deliver a tooth-loosening punch to their own faces for thinking they could punish these inmates by taking away their education to cover their screw up.

After that, hire a real IT person who knows what they’re doing by paying them decently allowing remote work and not drug testing, and then listen to them.

Not victimizing all of the student inmates because the prison invested in a poorly designed system that could potentially be exploited when none of the students have attempted that exploit or were likely even aware of it

Every prisoner who knew about that password

Meanwhile, back in reality

Wright confirmed no one incarcerated in Washington prisons had attempted to unlock their devices but said the decision was “made out of an abundance of caution.”

They were taken for reasons that inmates had nothing to do with, they have not been replaced, and it’s unclear when they’ll be returned. Inmates who are enrolled in college courses are having to handwrite papers that are due soon.

Maybe this mirror of it will?

https://archive.is/nB7Db

But I’m guessing it talking about the claim only ~9% of the time officers were able to confirm a firearm was present on the scene.

Don’t think that shows up, this article is previously unpublished stuff I believe

For at least nine months, between October 2017 and July 2018, Scott DeDore tracked ShotSpotter’s accuracy in identifying confirmed gunshots. DeDore regularly shared his findings with Chicago police and ShotSpotter, and even attempted to hone the tool’s precision by working alongside the company to install additional sensors, documents obtained through public records requests show. Over the course of those nine months, according to the records, ShotSpotter correctly detected a gunshot in 63 of 135 instances in which a person was struck, an accuracy rate of about 47 percent.

One month after DeDore sent his last available report, then mayor Rahm Emanuel signed a new three-year, $33 million contract with ShotSpotter (the company has since rebranded as SoundThinking). It covered 12 police districts—100 square miles—and made Chicago the company’s largest customer at the time.

These records represent a look into a small corner of Chicago’s southwest side from more than half a decade ago. But they offer a unique window into ShotSpotter and its role in an increasingly surveilled city. And they came at a time when the city was reinventing its policing strategy. Six years later, Chicago is again at a crossroad, as a new mayoral administration “reimagines” public safety and mulls the fate of ShotSpotter when its contract expires in mid-February.

Fair enough, but I think this article is reasonably critical

But critics warn the system is unproven at best — and at worst, providing a technological justification for the killing of thousands of Palestinian civilians.

“It appears to be an attack aimed at maximum devastation of the Gaza Strip,” says Lucy Suchman, an anthropologist and professor emeritus at Lancaster University in England who studies military technology. If the AI system is really working as claimed by Israel’s military, “how do you explain that?” she asks

…

The Israeli military did not respond directly to NPR’s inquiries about the Gospel. In the November 2 post, it said the system allows the military to “produce targets for precise attacks on infrastructures associated with Hamas, while causing great damage to the enemy and minimal harm to those not involved,” according to an unnamed spokesperson.

But critics question whether the Gospel and other associated AI systems are in fact performing as the military claims. Khlaaf notes that artificial intelligence depends entirely on training data to make its decisions.

“The nature of AI systems is to provide outcomes based on statistical and probabilistic inferences and correlations from historical data, and not any type of reasoning, factual evidence, or ‘causation,’” she says. “Given the track record of high error-rates of AI systems, imprecisely and biasedly automating targets is really not far from indiscriminate targeting.”

Some accusations about the Gospel go further. A report by the Israeli publication +972 Magazine and the Hebrew-language outlet Local Call asserts that the system is being used to manufacture targets so that Israeli military forces can continue to bombard Gaza at an enormous rate, punishing the general Palestinian population.