One thing I always notice after trips abroad is the extent to which American newscasters are practically yelling at their audience. This is a stark contrast to many European countries, where the tone is calmer and more measured.
Even if true, it would only be for one of the narrowest possible definitions of "crime". What can Flock do about mail fraud? About domestic violence? About wage theft? About falsified studies that lead to substances being misclassified as harmless? About price fixing? Does the majority of criminal activity even take place in "public" spaces?
It's common for people to talk about "crime" when what they really mean is something like "street crime" or "stranger crime" - some random person I don't know hurting me or taking my stuff. It's true that other kinds of crime are common, but the solutions to them probably look pretty different than the solutions to let me safely walk around anywhere in my city after dark.
> safely walk around anywhere in my city after dark
For that use case, the crimes to worry about the most would be speeding or distracted driving. But people are usually more focused on e.g. someone doing drugs on the sidewalk than speeding cars; in fact speeding is hardly considered a crime at all despite the danger to pedestrians.
I just don't understand the point of this kind of argument. I suspect you and I would agree on the reason why people focus this way - they see the guy doing drugs on the sidewalk (or the shooting on the news, or their friend who got mugged, or...), think it's spooky, and decide without looking up any numbers that it shouldn't happen again. It's true that a statistical analysis of mortality or injury risk would focus on other things, but they didn't run that analysis and don't agree that it should dictate their focus.
Similarly, buildings 40 and 41 were (at least pre-remodel) roughly mirror images of each other. Roughly a week after moving from 41 to 40 -- long enough to start navigating based on "caveman memory" but not long enough to override a year's worth of previous memories -- I accidentally went into the women's restroom instead of the men's because they too were mirrored.
After working late, I decided to cut through building 17. I had to wash my hands so I went to the men's washroom, assuming the same layout in 17 as in 16.
Hmmm... They painted the washroom walls pink for some reason.
Oh. They've got a condom dispenser in the washroom?!
Ooooh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. That's NOT a condom dispenser!
I looked around wildly for any indications besides the dispenser of which washroom I was in. Quickly scrambled for the exit and looked at the door on my way out to discover that building 17 did NOT have the same exact layout as building 16.
These were taken between 2014 and 2018, because I seem to recall that the "accent walls" were painted in fall of 2014 and the buildings were emptied for demolition in 2018.
reply