Fantastic project. I have an itch to turn a fax machine into a "facts machine" by pairing it with Alexa and programming it to only print out factual statements.
Flipping a house in gentrifying neighborhood. House burglarized a total of 3 times.
After first time, installed cameras covering every possible angle.
Both 2nd and 3rd time - They wore masks and did so in the early morning hours (3am-5am) Had several people case the house without masks. Either they didn't notice the cameras or they didn't care.
3rd time I had some choice words for the foe through my Video doorbell and let him know I would be there before the police and suggested he be gone before I get there. I got there in 10 minutes flat ready to beat him to a pulp with a tire iron.
I wish we instituted harsher punishments for thieves when they get caught. It may be unpopular opinion, but I am glad I have the right to kill someone and defend my property if I see fit if they're in a ski mask ready to take my things.
I sympathize with your mentality, but you most certainly do not have that right. With a few very limited exceptions in Texas, in the US you have to be defending against a deadly threat. Breaking into your home with ski masks is usually seen as a deadly threat, but that doesn't apply to a flipper house when you aren't even inside.
If you arrived to the house and killed them with a tire iron you would likely have been charged with murder.
I strongly recommend reading The Law of Self Defense by Andrew Branca.
Will do. I actually started staying in the house just prior to the sale to prevent any further issues. With my vehicle onsite, had a lot less activity going on.
Between my vehicle and the “I’ll shoot you” signs, no one disturbed the residence.
It was a pain sleeping on a blow up mattress for two weeks.
I’m not sure you have that right.
Killing somebody for taking your things is murder.
If you want to lie and say you feared for your life you could get away with it. But it’s still murder. And you’d be getting away with murder.
So Mr law and order. Might want to bone up on the whole law thing.
If you feel in danger, the most logical action is to flee, not fight. You might think that acting violently would be warranted and a good solution but it is only if you are 100% sure of winning. In any other case it can cause escalation and harm to your family.
It's instinctive. Your looking at living with PTSD the rest of your life after a home invasion. Should defo be more harsher punishments.
Love and aggression live very close in the brain, so if you ever get kids you'll know what kind of feelings get stirred up
The big problems with cameras is police don’t care about the videos because they don’t care about property crimes anymore. Maybe the police will care later after enough home owners get fed up?
You are making stuff up. Please show me where police or the law on burglaries is being handled differently. It’s a felony and always has been. These cases are investigated.
Here's a fact for you. I handed police the video evidence of the bonehead showing up earlier without a mask to case my house then came back 30 minutes later with a mask on but same clothes in full HD glory.
In a stroke of luck, I also saw him a few minutes after I arrived onsite (did a drive around the neighborhood) and he took off. I literally saw which apartment building he disappeared into.
Lets say there are 12 units in a building (it's a smaller complex built in the 90s) it would not take them long to catch this guy.
They did nothing. I gave them his face in HD and where he was located.
Your understanding of how policing works is pretty flawed. Cops need warrants to go into any apartment. Also just because someone ran into an apt complex does not mean they live there. You need more probable cause to justify a warrant. What did you want the police to do pull everyone out of there apartments and hand search.
They did nothing because "the victim saw the perp run into that apartment building" doesn't give them probable cause to do anything except walk the halls if someone lets them in and hope to run across the guy.
What did you expect them to do? Search all twelve apartments without warrants?
I am pretty sure it depends on the neighbourhoods, the frequency of these cases, staffing, frequency of other kind of crimes and your own ethnicity as a victim.
This post couldn't be any more timely. I dropped out of school years ago (16 years ago to be exact) to take care of my sick mother when she was dying.
I never went back. I just started working.
I am happy to report I am back in school and will be FINALLY finishing my Computer Science degree but I have a very long 4 years ahead of me. Math is going to be hard.
What is encouraging is the thrill of when I get the answer right and most importantly knowing HOW I got there. It's (almost) better than sex.
This is inspiring to me, as I'm in a similar boat and while I'm pretty okay at my job in practical terms, I often feel as if I lack a certain mathematical foundation. May I ask how old you are, whether you are enrolled in a full-time course (w/ much younger other students, I suppose?) and how that has been for you?
I've been looking into getting my pilot's license and taking a serious look at the training required for quite some time. Talking with other pilots and students, asking a lot of questions.
They are starting to reduce some of the strict requirements and encumbrances placed on Pilots such as this because of the shortages.
I'm in the unfortunate position of having a DWI from 2009 and have been told by multiple people in the industry that would hinder my career prospects as a pilot. Essentially, I've got no shot at getting hired by American or any other major airline because of something stupid I did when I was in college 14 years ago.
I don't have a drinking problem and am a completely different person. It sucks.
I never understood why in some countries the system never forgets - it's like they want to punish you till death, even after you already served your sentence.
In Estonia, no matter how horrific the crime, your record gets wiped after 7 years since you finished serving the sentence (got out of prison / probation ended / paid a fine), allowing for people to move on with their lives.
I like the idea of this but wonder if a better system would be record gets wiped after 7 clear years.
So if someone is committing crimes every 3 or 4 years, the previous records show to reflect ongoing behaviour type, but if you have 7 'clear' years then all is wiped.
It's 7 years after the punishment ends, which, yeah, if it's been 10-15 years since you've committed a crime, it's unlikely you've somehow been biding your time, waiting to commit the next one.
Here in Denmark criminal records becomes inaccessible to non-government actors 2-5 years after sentence served, depending on the severity of the crime, and 10 years for the government/public sector. In theory it's never wiped and keeps being accessible to the Danish Security and Intelligence Service, so it may still affect your ability to get a security clearance.
There is the caveat though that names are allowed to be published in some cases of more severe crime, so in cases like murder an employer might still be able to find out about it with a google search.
Because it would damage the reputation of the airline if, in a future incident, the media reports that "and record show he had a previous arrest for DWI". The media would spin it to look like the airline took the risk. I'm not defending that take, just explaining it.
Especially if you’re a corrupt politician, child abuser etc. it’s really helpful for that sort of people. Not so much for everyone else, but why would that ever be an issue?
I would think that, especially in a everything-online world, this is very useful for regular people. I for sure have removed some links to embarrassing posts I made as a teen, to which I've long lost account access to, to remove manually. And now with everybody's kids being on Tik Tok etc since very early age, I assume it will be used more and more.
So newspapers will be afraid to report on things like that even when it clearly is in the in interest of the society for them to do that?
Criminal records don’t exist just to punish people and penalize them for the rest of their lives but also to inform other what those people are capable of. Expungement should only be possible for non-serious crimes and/or on a case by case basis
What crimes should be expunged, when it should be done, and how to do it are all debates worth having. There are lots of other details worth debating. However once the crime has been expunged it shouldn't be brought back again - that is the whole point: let people who have reformed get on with their life as best as possible.
I mentioned in another comment here, but if you are in EU, the "right to be forgotten" makes it quite easy to remove results you do not like about yourself from search engines. Google for example provides a simple form to fill out, and from what i recall in about a month or so those links are gone from results.
Right, and the point is to shape a society where the plebian morons don't have influence on anything of importance, voting being the notable exception.
I know you're not defending the point. I'm just saying.
Even the courts? If someone is convicted of murder, serves their sentence then 8 years later they do it again, do the courts know of the previous crime?
Yes, the courts will know (and possibly also police, I'm not sure). However anyone else will get back a criminal record report that's empty. Like if you need to provide a criminal record for visa purposes, or when an employer requests one, or if a bank wants to decide whether or not to give you mortgage. So it's not that your status as a human being in the eyes of the law are reset, it's that for the purposes of opportunities given to you, you are equal to everyone else.
What about child abusers? People convicted of fraud or other types of corruption? etc. Basically people that never should never be allowed to do certain types of work because it wouldn’t be in the public interest?
I'm not sure, actually. The law doesn't seem to specify, although it does say exceptions can be made, so I figure that's what happens. Estonia has also been known to deport its own citizens when they truly are a menace to our society.
I will never forget that scene in los Soprano in which, after a car crash, a character asks another one to just kill him before having to deal with the consequences of his DWI
Or perhaps it's not about punishment but about protecting the public from potentially irresponsible people. Driving and piloting a plane should be considered privileges that come after training and demonstration of ability and understanding of responsibility. These aren't things that should be rights and considered a punishment to take away.
While possibly still not true, in many places these are actually special crimes that can be never forgotten (driving crimes)... not even true for sex offenses, of the lowest levels.
We have this in Norway as well. The chief of police explained it when someone wanted to change it: "We have a tradition here that the court sentences you, and that's it. When you're done with the court's sentence, you've paid your dues to society." It's a good thing.
And that's also why the newspapers will generally write that "a 27-year old from X" did this and that instead of using a full name. People widely known for a crime by their full name can apply to change their name at some point.
In California juvenile criminal records get wiped when the person turns 18. You can also petition to get your record expunged. Can be done but not automatic. Easier for minor douchey crimes and unlikely to impossible to serious ones.
An estimated 1/4 of all registered sex offenders were minors at the time that they became offenders. The single year of your life when you're most likely to become one is 14.
There are a lot of horror stories like a guy whose 13 year old girlfriend send him a nude photo, her parents found out and reported it, and now he can't live within a certain distance of an elementary school for the rest of his life.
Yeah, if a 24 year old man has pictures of a 13 year old, that's a problem. But a 14 year old boy having pictures of a 13 year old girl?
As a society, we really don't believe in forgiveness.
The issue here is not the registered offenders list but that things like this are considered crimes and somebody could be convicted for them.
It’s not about forgiveness, it’s about minimizing future harm. If you are an actual (and there should be a sufficiently high bar for that) convicted child abuser you should never be allowed to be employed in any job which allows you to have authority over children etc. in such cases “forgiveness” would certainly be against the public interest.
I don't disagree with you. And I don't disagree with you for the simple reason that, according to all evidence, "pedophile" is not a characteristic that people can change. Any more than "gay" is.
The point is that we, as a society, sometimes punish people severely forever. Even when there is no reason to believe that that person is a risk to society.
They aren't in a category called juvenile sex offenders. They are simply registered sex offenders. For the rest of their lives. Randomly punished forever for doing normal stupid kid things.
I wanted to be a pilot but am tall (> 6 feet) and poor eye sight (< -10).
I was told at a young age that it would be nearly impossible for me. I accepted my fate for better or worse. Yet you have a better chance than me. Hard to say if it’s worth pursuing.
Nevertheless, I sympathize with you because people can make big mistakes and learn from it but the categorization and stigma remains.
I’m curious how these aspects are not considered discriminatory - eyesight is commonly fixed by glasses and height is fixed by not squeezing every last dollar out of floorspace - which I would compare to wheelchair accessible buildings (acknowledging the latter is typically more restrictive due to scale).
I’m not trying to go woke here, there are disabilities that prevent performing certain tasks such as flying (total blindness or colour blindness) but there are others which are easily worked around.
Corrected vision is not disqualifying for even first class medicals (what’s needed to fly for an airline).
Height or correctable vision can still be disqualifying for military aviators (my vision was disqualifying from flying pointy military jets at the time and might still be).
In many airplanes, there are legitimate restrictions on how tall you can be as a pilot -- there simply isn't enough room up there for taller pilots to fit.
As for eyesight, I'd imagine it's for the case when the pilot loses/breaks/forgets their glasses. You don't want a pilot who suddenly can't see in midair.
> In many airplanes, there are legitimate restrictions on how tall you can be as a pilot -- there simply isn't enough room up there for taller pilots to fit.
Right, but they were designed that way. It was likely known at design time that there was a maximum height.
Standard bathroom stalls won't fit wheelchairs, but that doesn't absolve companies from a duty to provide ones that are.
There are obviously different physical constraints here than bathrooms, but I'd be surprised if there was a physical constraint limiting this.
As for the eyesight, this strikes me as the kind of things copilots and backup glasses are for. Require every pilot with glasses to carry a backup pair in their shirt pocket. Or maybe contacts in and a pair of glasses (turbulence may be an issue with glasses).
I'd be curious if they're equally cautious with people who are diabetic or have cardiac risk factors.
> Right, but they were designed that way. It was likely known at design time that there was a maximum height.
Airplane cockpits aren't built the way they are for shiggles. Pilots need to be able to reach controls, and if you design a cockpit for fitting people over 6ft tall, it might become unergonomic, if not downright dangerous for shorter pilots. There are actual safety issues at play here.
Similar for eyesight -- yes they can carry a backup, until they forget it. The safest thing is to require pilots to have adequate uncorrected vision, though some are loosening that to allow lenses. Do you want to fly on an airplane where there's a nonzero chance the pilot is effectively incapacitated because he forgot his glasses?
> I'd be curious if they're equally cautious with people who are diabetic or have cardiac risk factors.
To different degrees, but yes, they are. Some airlines will require their pilots to get regular medical checkups.
> Airplane cockpits aren't built the way they are for shiggles. Pilots need to be able to reach controls, and if you design a cockpit for fitting people over 6ft tall, it might become unergonomic, if not downright dangerous for shorter pilots. There are actual safety issues at play here.
If they can build a thin metal tube that can safely ascend and descend 30k feet, I'm pretty sure they can build controls that are ergonomic for people outside of a 6" height span. Of all the issues airplane engineers face, I refuse to believe that adjustable controls are the one hill they can't conquer.
> Similar for eyesight -- yes they can carry a backup, until they forget it.
This is how practically every part of the plane is. There are redundant parts, until maintenance forgets about it. Except here there's a redundancy of a redundancy; the copilot can take over if the other pilot forgot their backup glasses and their contacts broke or whatever.
Just put it on the pre-flight checklist. If it's good enough for the mechanical parts, it should be good enough for an already-redundant piece of human equipment.
> Do you want to fly on an airplane where there's a nonzero chance the pilot is effectively incapacitated because he forgot his glasses?
Every flight you get on has a non-zero chance of a pilot being incapacitated. That's why there are two. Heart attacks, sudden onset of a seizure disorder, bad medication interactions, etc, etc. There are dozens of reasons why a pilot could be incapacitated mid-air.
If my options are a pilot with glasses or a pilot with high blood pressure, I'm taking the glasses. An effectively blind pilot doesn't cause a distraction, and could be helpful to their copilot (doing radio comms, talking to passengers, maybe watching a gauge or two if they squint). A pilot in cardiac arrest is both incapable of helping and distracting.
I wouldn't worry that much about a pilot with glasses. The glasses are unlikely to spontaneously break, if they do they should have backups, if they don't have backups then the copilot takes over like anything else that incapacitates a pilot. Hell, if it really came down to the wire, there's probably a decent chance that one of the passengers on the plane has a prescription close enough to make a shoddy landing.
> If they can build a thin metal tube that can safely ascend and descend 30k feet, I'm pretty sure they can build controls that are ergonomic for people outside of a 6" height span. Of all the issues airplane engineers face, I refuse to believe that adjustable controls are the one hill they can't conquer.
How many accidents have there been before we figured out the edge cases with doing this? How many planes _still_ crash due to metal fatigue from pressurization cycles? How many souls are you willing to sacrifice for adjustable controls?
> This is how practically every part of the plane is. There are redundant parts, until maintenance forgets about it.
And just like when maintenance forgets it and there's an incident, it's a big deal. Why accept that risk when there's an easy way to avoid it, especially with potentially hundreds of souls onboard?
> Except here there's a redundancy of a redundancy; the copilot can take over if the other pilot forgot their backup glasses and their contacts broke or whatever.
A copilot is not a redundancy, they're a partial backup. Usually the pilot/copilot split responsibilities. If you push all that onto one person, there are some tasks that they will be less efficient at, if not incapable of performing at all. Yes, most modern airlines can probably be successfully flown by just one pilot, but that pilot is going to have an increased cognitive load to deal with which may reduce their efficiency. In an emergency situation, this can especially be dangerous.
The mantra is "aviate, navigate, communicate" -- when those are split up between two pilots, all three can be accomplished at the same time. When you only have one pilot, something ends up suffering. Hopefully it's just the 'communicate' aspect, but we know in reality it's most often all three that suffer.
Plus the copilot is a human too. Most humans will be a little distracted if the guy they were were working with for the last few hours suddenly died or had a debilitating injury next to them.
> Just put it on the pre-flight checklist. If it's good enough for the mechanical parts, it should be good enough for an already-redundant piece of human equipment.
You'd also need to ensure that the glasses are in good working order, are still the correct prescription..etc. It would not be as simple as 'make sure pilot has extra pair of glasses'.
> If my options are a pilot with glasses or a pilot with high blood pressure, I'm taking the glasses. An effectively blind pilot doesn't cause a distraction, and could be helpful to their copilot (doing radio comms, talking to passengers, maybe watching a gauge or two if they squint). A pilot in cardiac arrest is both incapable of helping and distracting.
Which is incidentally why a lot of pilots are checked for the latter as well. Airlines definitely do require physical checkups for pilots, and that includes cardiovascular health.
> I wouldn't worry that much about a pilot with glasses. The glasses are unlikely to spontaneously break, if they do they should have backups, if they don't have backups then the copilot takes over like anything else that incapacitates a pilot. Hell, if it really came down to the wire, there's probably a decent chance that one of the passengers on the plane has a prescription close enough to make a shoddy landing.
Many, many aviation safety regulations are for edge cases that were written and proved in blood. You do not want your aviation safety regulations to be the equivalent of an italian mechanic going "itsa good!"
I don't know about Type II but Type I can be extremely limiting. A friend's spouse was diagnosed somewhere between 9 and 12 and it completely ended their dream of becoming a military aviator (also hoped to be an astronaut).
They now work at NASA but have had to fight tooth and nail to go on longer expeditions related to search and rescue and it's really only the advent of CGM that have made it possible, to be honest.
Thanks for the link, that was an interesting read. As a T1 I'd say this disease should bar you from a license to fly passengers. An emergency situation in the air can go on for hours, and you don't want diabetes creating extra issues. The pilot has an additional "aviate navigate communicate" thread running but for their diabetes.
On the other hand, I do tell people that a well managed diabetes still lets you do most anything, so I'll reflect on the commercial flying where I think one shouldn't.
> there simply isn't enough room up there for taller pilots to fit.
Under the ADA "there simply isn't a wheelchair ramp up to our building" isn't a legitimate restriction on hiring someone who uses a wheelchair—you put a wheelchair ramp in.
OP's point is that arguably the same should apply to other traits like height. The space constraints are somewhat arbitrary and could be remedied.
That's not correct. The ADA requires reasonable accommodation, not accommodation at all costs. So yes, "there simply isn't a wheelchair ramp up to our building" is not legitimate, but "there simply isn't a wheelchair ramp up to our building and it would be prohibitively expensive or impossible to change that" does work.
The ADA doesn't allow new buildings to not comply, unless the job itself couldn't be done. Thus the roof can be not accessable, but only maintanence goes there and job has many parts that cannot be done in a wheelchair
It doesn't seem irrelevant to me. It means there's a broken system and the regulations aren't hitting the right spot. Responsibility is being split in a way that allows the accomodation to never happen.
It's irrelevant because it has no relation to what ADA says about accommodations being made. Even if the ADA proscribed that new constructions had to have reasonable accommodations, it wouldn't really change anything about the fact that the ADA doesn't mandate accommodations in all circumstances, reasonable or not.
Please explain how the fact that the ADA only requires reasonable accommodations is a failure of the ADA model? It's just a model. You're talking about it's implementation and practice in the world, I am just correcting a common misconception about what the ADA actually requires as it currently exists.
The failure is that the accomodations would be reasonable, but the disconnect between builder and buyer lets the bad design get solidified.
And someone else already replied saying the ADA forces new buildings to comply. So if we did that with planes in this comparison, new models would fit more people out of the factory. Would have done so for decades.
Again, if reasonable to comply. Say I am building a new building on steep terrain where in order to get a compliant wheelchair ramp in with the maximum allowed grade that it can be, and all the appropriate flat spots for it. Let's say that wheelchair ramp would occupy 3/4ths of the whole property, making it impossible to build a code-compliant building on that property. The only alternative would be to purchase adjacent property but the owners refuse to sell. It can then be argued that making the new building wheelchair accessible is impossible without undue burden on the owner of the property.
In fact, this sort of thing is _explicitly_ called out in 28 CFR 35.151:
"(i) Full compliance with the requirements of this section is not required where a public entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements. Full compliance will be considered structurally impracticable only in those rare circumstances when the unique characteristics of terrain prevent the incorporation of accessibility features."
You also only need to provide accommodations for places the public accesses. A mechanical walkway that is only used by maintenance workers, for example, need not be accessible. Incidentally, airplane cockpits are pretty much a textbook example of 'not public space' and thus are also not subject to accessibility requirements.
Point is, the ADA is not as black and white as many perceive it to be.
That's not a legitimate reason for airlines. They keep ordering cockpits without an extra couple inches on purpose.
And there's a ton of ways a pilot can become incapacitated. Having an extra pair of glasses is one of the easiest mitigations around, if the odds are actually that bad.
Planes can be customized, and the baseline design is based on what the majority of airlines want.
It's the fault of airlines. Nitpicking is fine if you want to add more details but doesn't change that.
And taller people on average can reach more controls, not less.
For glasses, how often does that make them come off compared to any other random reason for incapacitation? And what if there's a strap trying to keep them on? Acting like this is the only risk factor in isolation is bad.
There's plenty of scope for customization, but generally not in changing the shape of the cockpit.
Airliners are good at fitting 99%+ of the population well. But, in the end, airliner cockpits have switches and indicators up "high" and stuff down low that has to be easily within reach, but also not crowd your movement. There's a lot of adjustability, but adjustability (seat rails, etc) has been causes of accidents.
If you're within 5'2 to 6'3, odds are you can easily clamber in, fit, reach all the controls. That's all that's required. Even if you're outside of that range it might be OK (there is a 4'11 787 captain out there...)
As to glasses, there's no problem with having poor vision if it can be corrected with lenses. Aviation is not perfectly inclusive or accommodating of every disability, but it's not needlessly restrictive, either.
Just because it was built that way doesn’t mean it’s not discriminatory. An aircraft being half a foot larger wouldn’t have been a big deal if they were built to accomodate tall people in the first place. 6’2 is not an uncommon height.
I am 6’4 and I am baffled by that argument. Not being “discriminatory” against pilot height is not the most important design choice in an airplane.
What about a 7 feet tall person? Would it also be “discriminatory” if they can’t be a pilot?
How difficult is an extra foot? People only get so tall.
But there is a pretty big difference between accommodating 93 percentile for men and 99.96 percentile, and that's only 5 inches in height between 6'1" and 6'6".
I think if you're in the 99.96 percentile for low height in women, that additional foot would be pretty difficult. You'd have a very hard time reaching all of the controls, and it's not like you can stand up to do so.
It's definitely harder to compensate for having a shorter reach. But it's not a competition. You don't need to put controls further apart to allow a taller person to fit, you can make it happen with chair adjustments.
> need to put controls further apart to allow a taller
You know that how exactly?
Maybe that the case but if it’s not maximizing safety and minimizing failure risk (so by extension any unnecessary complexity) should be prioritized over any accessibility concerns under any circumstances
Half a foot larger in what way? Length won't help much. Height? Then you're adding _a lot_ of additional weight because you have to increase the radius of the fuselage.
For what it's worth, I'm only an enthusiast but would be surprised to hear either of those are significant issues, unless you're saying that your corrected eyesight is also poor.
Not an airline pilot / medical examiner, but I do read r/flying quite regularly.
Your story is not uncommon. The general wisdom on DWIs is that yes it does hurt your chances of getting into airlines, but if it was (1) minor/borderline, (2) a long time ago, and (3) you have shown a pattern of recovery, it is not a career ender.
I am still going to go through the motions and earn my hours, criminal history be damned. I was under .15 at the time, which as I understand it, helps me significantly.
Also looking at helicopter/flight medic but for now I am starting back to school in January to finish my AAS in Cybersecurity followed by BS in CS.
You've "been told?" Don't take it as gospel. Move forward and get your license. At the very least, you'll be able to take satisfaction in having achieved something most people haven't.
You can call AMAS (Aviation Medicine Advisory Service) for an opinion.
But ultimately you'll discuss your situation with an AME when applying for a medical certificate, including whether you're best off with 3rd class now and 1st class later. Or just aiming for 1st class right away.
It’s hard to say what the policies of the majors will be 5 years from now when you’re ready, but Delta’s current policy is “no DUI in the past 10 years”.
I think the structure of the pilot market is such that tightening of voluntary restrictions is unlikely.
I flip houses on the side. I can tell you, it's definitely a cultural thing.
I've given my guys PPE, only to come back an hour later, respirator off, working with paint, insulation, you name it. They only put it on "when the boss is around" and sometimes not even then.
