Some stands on the shoulders of TPUs that do 1 century worth of compute in a day. Other stands on the shoulders of C or Python libraries.
Also, is engineering "just a glorified wrapper around science"?, is physics "just a glorified wrapper around maths"?, and is litterature "just a glorified wrapper around words"?
No, it definitely won’t. In fact our card payment system has been updated to think alternative os and browsers are high-risk and even decline payment. We didn’t have any revenue loss.
That's why bots now mimic users beyond user agents, even going so far as loading page assets and javascript. Unless you're using something like recaptcha V3, it's going to be difficult to detect them, and even that requires some interactions first.
In 2018 and 2019, there were over 30,000 assaults on police officers in UK.[1] In 2017 and 2018, there were over 110,000 assults on police officers in US. You can't just adopt this in the US, policing is more dangerous in the US.
I know simple math, thank you. As I pointed out in the other reply, the rate of assult to US police, who are armed and more hostile to you is only about 25% lower than UK police where the majority of them don't carry a firearm. Actually we don't know the proseuction rate so we don't even know it's that lower.
The US population is more than 4x bigger than the UK, and seems to also have more police per capita, so those numbers would imply that policing is safer in the US. (Which I don't quite believe; more likely those assault numbers are incomparable or just wrong).
I wanted to point out that the rate of assult to US police, who are armed and more hostile to you is only about 25% lower than UK police where the majority of them don't carry a firearm.
Has anyone done any deep analysis of this kind of thing.
Of those assaults, what impact did the police officer's gun have on the situation?
You can imagine an example where the gun is an asset - for example if the officer encounters an ongoing potentially deadly assault and then can shoot the perpetrator.
But I feel like more often the gun is a liability, an unarmed person is held at gunpoint and becomes violent - the police officer is left with the option of shooting the person or letting them get away. If they were using a batton/cs spray/taser (options available to regular British police) they then have many more options available to them.
The stats I'm looking at say there are ~65m people in the UK and ~330m in the US. So about 5x the number of people. If that's true (5x people) and the assault stats are true (3.6x assaults), then policing more dangerous in the UK.
(this feels off to me.. am I doing my math wrong?)
I'm seriously wondering whether this is a form of sarcasm or a bait. 10.8% of sworn officers faced assult in 2018[1], while armed. Cops threatened by people with or without firearm is not that rare. In 2018, 2,116 sworn officers were not only threatened but actually got shot(!) by a firearm.[1]
2,116 officers were assaulted with a firearm, but only 6.1% of those 2,116 were injured in the assault. That's approximately 129 firearm injuries. That means the rate of non-fatal firearm injuries is approximately 16.1 per 100,000. In 2012 the rate of non-fatal firearm injuries from assault was approximately 15.67 per 100,000 for the general population. When adjusted for the sex demographics of the police (88% male) the rate is 24.93 per 100,000.
Edit: It looks like the non-fatal firearm injury rate for officers is actually 23.6 per 100k. I had the wrong number in the denominator because not all police stations responded to the FBI survey.
You know you're comparing people fully armed and cautious people versus the general population, right? Also it's a biased comparison because the 2,116 could have been shot where the rate of "could have been shot" is much lower in the general public because obvious reasons.
You know that you failed to understand your own source and therefore claimed a number of officer shootings ~16x higher than reality, right? And 'sacred_numbers was kind enough to correct you?
In most states, the legal definition of assault doesn't even require physical contact.
Trying to shove a police officer and miss? Assault. Stepping on their shoe while being arrested? Battery, and also probably assault. Spitting on a police officer? Battery, and probably aggravated assault.
It's very misleading to claim that 10% of police officers were assaulted in 2018. That might be true in a strict legal sense, but most of them probably walked away from their "assault" without so much as a bruise.
Can't believe people are citing this data. Comparing homicide statistics of people armed with guns being killed vs armed or unarmed regular people and thinking cops are safer than armed or unarmed regular people? Come on.
How about we account assults? In 2018, 10.8% of sworn officers faced assult. Of them, 30.6% sustained injuries. In 13.2% of the incident, the attacker was prosecuted.[1] But the rate of aggravated assult against regular people is 0.2%. Clearance rate is 52.5%. Prosecution rate is much lower.[2] I really don't care about your ideology or anything, but saying police is a safe job is just stupid. 10.8% of sworn officers faced assult while armed. Let's see how things changes when police is forced not to be armed.
10.8% faced “assault” is a very misleading statistic because “assault” as reported here is completely up to the discretion of the reporting officer.
Only ~1/10 of these “assaults” are even prosecuted. If prosecutors aren’t even willing to charge someone with assaulting an officer, it probably wasn’t worth calling an “assault”.
There was one famous case from Ferguson, where a guy was charged with destruction of property, because he bled on the uniform of the four officers who were beating him in the cell they've just thrown him in, after he complained about conditions.
(The reason why the victim was in jail in the first place was because they arrested him after incorrectly identifying him as a target of an outstanding arrest warrant. Filing the property damage charges allowed them to keep him in cell for another week, until he could procure the bond money.)
Even accounting for that rate, police faces 5x "prosecutable assults" more than a "reported assult" on a normal person. We don't know what "prosecutable assult" statistics on a normal person so we can't compare them directly, but the rate is approx. 67%[1]. Clearance rate is 52%, so it shows that while policing in US, you get approx. 15x more chance of facing "prosecutable assult".
1. Police are much more likely to report an assault than average citizen is. Just by the nature of their job, very nearly every single assault against a police officer is likely to be reported.
2. Once reported, an assault against a police officer is much more likely to be prosecuted because courts, prosecutors, and juries place much more weight on the testimony of a police officer than an average citizen.
3. "Assault" is a very broadly defined crime. Generally assault doesn't actually require a physical attack, so using it as a metric for "danger" is dubious.
Assault usually only requires someone to do something that makes the victim think they were in danger of being physically attacked. Police officers are trained to be hyper aware of threats, and they know that the legal definition of assault is different than the colloquial definition, so the police (and prosecutors) have a much broader view of what qualifies an "assault" than the general public does.
Cops are also looking to throw the book at a hookup, with the help of willing prosecutors. We've given cops the benefit of the doubt for decades, and only now with widespread phonecams are we seeing the truth.
Unfortunately, a police assaulting a civilian, wherein the civilian victim performs any act of self defense down to and including bleeding on an officer counts as a prosecutable assault on the officer.
Hmmn, I always thought "communications for the purpose of securing legal advice" was recognized more broadly.
If I send a copy of a document which can incriminate myself and was created before hiring a lawyer, to a lawyer for legal advice, can the government seize it? If so, if I outline a document after hiring a lawyer and then send it for legal advice, can the government seize it?
My understanding, based on what I've just read, is that it depends on whether the document was created in order to obtain legal advice.
If you start the document with "Dear Lawyer, here is my story so far including all the incriminating bits" then that is privileged. However if you write "Dear Joe, hide the money from the robbery in rented garage" and subsequently send a copy to your lawyer then it is not privileged. Both of these are true regardless of when you wrote the document or hired the lawyer.
This is always a tricky problem, especially with a computer which may contain both privileged information and unprivileged evidence of a crime. See https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/l... starting at page 109 for more on how the police are supposed to deal with this.
I think if you start contacting lawyers something like “hey I did a bank heist, I need your advice” before establishing client-lawyer privilege then that communication isn’t automatically privileged by “confidence”.
No you're fine in that situation. That communication is automatically privileged, even if the attorney doesn't take your case, because it was part of a communication soliciting legal advice.
That's irrelevant from the point of view of the privilege applying. What matters is that the communication was for the purposes of soliciting legal advice from an attorney, otherwise the DA could just subpoena an attorney that the defendant talked to but was unable to afford or who was too busy to handle the particulars of the defendant's case.
"The establishment of the attorney-client relationship involves two elements: a person seeks advice or assistance from an attorney; and the attorney appears to give, agrees to give or gives the advice or assistance[1]"
and
"That “special relationship” between an attorney and his/her client is generally established by mutual assent/consent. This is most often confirmed by a written “retainer”[2]"
I have read [1] (in an admittedly rather dated book) that many states in America use water bills to subsidise farmers.
Long ago, large landowners noticed you can build a big water project with a state bond issue, use 80% of the water for agriculture, then charge homeowners 50x as much as you charge farmers to pay off the bond.
Then a few years later you declare there's a water shortage, ban restaurants from bringing customers water without them asking, and ask voters to support another bond issue.
I live about 3 blocks from a friend of mine, I'm in township, he's in the city. His water bill is $120/month, mine is $90 every quarter. We get the same water/sewer from the same place.
How about garbage? We pay about $100 a month for water, sewer, and garbage. We get biweekly pickups and large trash hauled for free once a month. They even take fridges no question.
I don't pay anything extra for it being in the township, it must come out of property taxes or something. But the same company picks up the garbage (Waste Management)
Rates are vastly different depending on where you live, and can greatly increase depending on separate sewer charges. For example, many areas in Massachusetts have separate sewer fees assessed which is primarily paying back bonds for new infrastructure.
So for me, my rates are approximately:
* Water - $6.75 per 100 cubic feet
* Sewer - $14.25 per 100 cubic feet
Or, $21 per 748 gallons, which is $0.028 per gallon, and is ~7.75x as expensive as your water rates. I have about an $18/mo water bill, which is for ~640 gallons a month. 33,200 gallons would cost ~$930 a month.
Shit flows down hill putting New Orleans in a difficult position with regard to sewage as it is below sea level and all the sewage has to be pumped uphill eventually and on the level before that. Pumping sewage is a hard problem involving grinders, strainers, big pipes and big pumps. On top of all the other shit New Orleans has to deal with, it has to deal with a lot of literal shit.
I dont know about Austin, but my Water/Sewer Bill has more than just Water and Sewer on it, it also has Trash, Storm Drainage Maintenance Fee and a couple other multiplicity charges
I would say probably 40% of my Water / Sewer bill has nothing to do with Water or Sewer....
I'm at $450 twice a year. It seems every few weeks I get an email that "a main broke" somewhere and they have to go fix it, and while I appreciate still having water when the power goes out (thanks, gravity!) I don't particularly love having to pay $900 a year - and from the sounds of it, that will go up probably to $1k soon to pay for pipe replacement/repair
22 yrs. experience as a Texas licensed Irrigator here. It's true that the bureaucrats are using a "tiered" system to discourage lawn irrigation. Lawn or landscape irrigation uses tens of thousands of gallons of water each night it comes on, the usage of a house for a whole month in one night.
Those who installed water pumps for the wealthiest living along the lakes in Austin were fantastically profitable before covid19. Water is the new tax in Austin. Water front customers regularly speak of $1000 a month water bills before converting over to lake water . . . which is completely legal, the LCRA charges about $150 a YEAR for over 325,000 gallons of raw lake water.
Normal people have ability to filter out sodium from the bloodstream on high intakes without any problem. They might develop problems with the kidney but kidney problems due to sodium is doubtful. I'd say tea is more dangerous for kidney than sodium. But same does not apply for sugar. If you eat excess sugar it will turn into blood sugar, and it will cause insulin to spike. The body eventually stores the excess in fat, but the process is so harsh for the body that it will definitely cause cardiovascular problems and diabetes.
Sodium is problematic because it makes us easy to eat carbs (i.e. sugar) more. Try to eat excess sodium by itself or with protein or fat. You really can't. But with carb you can. Sodium isn't toxic per se. Carb is the problem. Thus the sugar tax.
Lots of innocent food ingredients have been blamed for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Fat's been exonerated. But I really dobut that sodium is bad for those two. Fat and sodium have the same thing in common. They make carb taste good.
>frozen prepared foods
As long as they use good quality ingredients it's OK. Taxing them would make them less profitable and result to using worse ingredients.
Imagine if we taxed pre-existing conditions, like propensity to diabetes or obesity. Your genetics will set your tax bracket. Politically-incorrect enough?
Right, so target drinks.. slippery slope.. all sugar.
Then people buy the cheaper cuts of meat to afford a soda or two. Bacon ends with huge chunks of fat. Congrats, we just swapped one issue for another.
Isn't orange/apple/etc juice full of sugar? What about whole fruits? What about flying in bananas from the other side of the planet? Can we do that with less carbon emissions?
Taxing sugary drinks can lead to more consumption of proven-safe sugar subsitutes like saccharin and erythritol. And that's a good thing. It will definitely boost sales of all-subsitute drinks such as diet coke, and regular sugar drinks will try to use low sugar and more sugar subsitutes.
We've already seen producers lowering on sugars due to the trend of avoiding sugar. People won't buy cheaper cuts of meat. Producers will try to dodge the tax by using sugar substitutes, and it will result to overall positive effect to the public health. Also, Bacon does not have bad influence on your body. Fat does not cause cardiovascular problems, diabetes or other accusations of diseases it faced in the 70s.
Fruit juices are bad for you because of, you guessed it, sugar. Creating an incentive to swap out juices for real fruits? Or an incentive to drive producers to extract sugar and replace them with sugar substitutes? I'm in.
