After reading the article above as well as TechCrunch the past few days, does anyone have another link or two detailing AOL's point of view in all of this? Arrington branded this as needing journalistic independence, and per the linked article, it seems to be bad execution of whatever it was AOL was trying to do. Drama and secret motivations aside, anyone give credibility to Arrington's call for journalistic independence of TC and what I'm perceiving of his belief that one can still be called a 'journalist' if you're transparent enough about what you're doing outside of the journalism job? To take a quote from one of the people he interviewed at TC Disrupt in NY, "transparency is the new objectivity" - any thoughts?
Do we know if she took into account population migration / movement? Looking at the description it doesn't look like it, but I'd be really curious to see how that affects the stat. Or how the stat changes if the zip code is tied to the person's DOB. In that scenario it probably drops a lot, because (I'm assuming) most people are born in a hospital, and there isn't a hospital in every zip code. So to my first comment on population movement, maybe that's actually a representation of the effect of population migration / movement. Cool.
It sounds like a different degree of phony. Phonies are all over the place and show up in many social situations. Many times it arises due to wanting to fit in.
In my weekly RPG, we had a new person join who claimed some experience with the gaming system, but didn't oversell herself and was eager and knew her competencies well enough to pick it up fairly quickly. That's pretty much the trick. Too bad the phonies you encountered (it sounds like) oversold themselves too much and couldn't keep it up.
I can't imagine anyone at a small startup refusing to do something unless it would be seriously detrimental due to their lack of experience on the task at hand. I know the article is geared towards CEOs, but being able to touch so many different areas is one of the best things for anyone to be a part of at a startup, including the customer support aspect. There's so much you can learn.
But it's not impossible to be powerful without turning your immediate work into money. You might be able to help others make/turn their work into money, which makes me go off on a tangent in my head about an algorithm that could calculate how much power one truly had based on n degrees of separation out from their work.
> You might be able to help others make/turn their work into money
Of course it's possible but it introduces a level of indirectness. Once you have indirectness, it becomes harder to measure your impact. Fields where one's impact is hard to measure tend to attract BS artists who use the ambiguity to their advantage, to claim that they are worth more than they really are.
The algorithm you are thinking of will fail unless it has some way to empirically measure impact, in which case the algorithm would be trivial.
Apparently most of the police do not carry guns as well. I saw that it was questioned earlier if some of the forces being used to maintain order are now carrying guns, but I don't think there was a definitive answer. The Metropolitan police might(?)
Firearms are only carried by limited numbers of specially trained units, and will likely only be deployed if there is reason to suspect that they're going against other armed individuals.
Tasers have recently been more widely issued across most forces.
Considering this whole situation was sparked off by armed police firing on a man who (apparently) hadn't fired on them, things could get real ugly if more armed police are added to the equation.
