I'm not sure if it was from their sanding bed or off the road. Could have been either tbh. I've heard of people going after gravel trucks but I wasn't sure lol.

I wasn't close at all lol. At Minimum 3 car lengths away. I was pulling into the roundabout and just briefly passed behind them as they exited.

I know better than to ride their asses.

Then do your civic duty and report them :)

You're welcome to move back to California if it suits you better.

Also, if you're not involved in crime or actively abusing your partner, your odds of dying by firearm are miniscule. In the US, I believe I read today we were at 20,000 homicides in a country of 320,000,000 people. A notable amount of the deceased were dealing narcotics, involved in gang activities or other criminal dealings. Now that said, do you still have a reason to worry?

Ah yes.

An 80 year old killing his spouse and himself means we're all in danger.

God, yesssss. Flip the bird anywhere.

That's not what you asked for, fuck face.

$10,000 Toilet cover.

This Shit show going back to the 80s.

The Author May be kinda a shit, but, "$8 million spent by the Department of Veterans Affairs to purchase solar panels that were never used and $28 million spent on heavy equipment lost by the Department of Defense in Afghanistan."

5 Fantastic examples.

I'm currently indifferent to taxing the rich even more because, frankly, without oversight it just means more for the elected upper class to steal.

"The point you're missing, is if we take even more of their money it doesn't matter how much the government misuses because I'll still get more!"

Name me 3 Government agencies where if they were given $1, .80 would go to the actual beneficiaries in need.

Go on.

Tell me the government agencies where half their budgets aren't administration and fluff.

"He's doing it to avoid paying taxes!!!"

Yeah, no shit. But here's the thing:

Let's do some fun math.

Shithead billionaire pays $1.25 million in taxes. The government spends $400,000 on a study to see who needs Money, $400,000 advertising grants & reviewing applicants, then selects 10 for $40,000 checks.

Or.

A charity we know and know actually exists gets a million dollars to do good in our community.

He may be a piece of shit, but like, if he's dropping checks to groups that do real good where it matters that matters more to me. We already know we can't trust the government to use our money wisely.

But that's the thing: unless someone's getting hit with completely falsified evidence, the arrest itself doesn't become less valid. It's irrelevant to the data whether or not a crime is uncovered because of a biased interaction or an unbiased one. The prediction model itself will still function correctly. The issue isn't measuring the data, it's getting you to start acknowledging data accuracy. A crime doesn't cease to be a crime just because it wasn't noticed for the right reasons.

Then I don't think you understand how it works. The Bias will train itself out within a few cycles. Because that's how it works. The AI will start using that "flawed" data and then, as it progresses, will slowly integrate it's new findings into the pool. It may take a few years, but, if policing was misweighted, the AI would allocate the resources where they were needed. If you train an AI to do basic addition, and to know numbers, once it knows enough numbers you can't tell it 1+1=6. If I ask the AI for the number between 7 and 9, it will list off 6+2, 5+3, 4+4 etc. I can tell it 2+3 is the answer, but it will search and say I'm incorrect Because based purely on the data, I cannot be correct. We can compare that to the earlier arguments. The AI can see crime at points X, Y and Z in neighborhood B but crime in Q in neighborhood A.

I am lol. "Yes sir, no sir, here's my license sir, have a nice night."

And I'm saying that letting "academic parties" get their hands on it is going to simply nudge bias the opposite way. Positive bias. That will get us nowhere until the AI fixes itself at which point people will screech that somehow the AI went racist again lol. Academics has a serious issue with bias but that's an entirely different argument.

My dude, those are statically miniscule amounts of the arrests. If we counted all of them together over 10 years, they'd be a fraction of a percentage of legitimate stops and arrests.

No, it's common sense. I don't speed Because I don't want to get stopped. I drive a dumb car, in a dumb color with a vanity plate. I already have a target on myself. Why would I give them a legitimate reason to screw with me? If an action is illegal, and you know you're more likely to be punished for commiting it, why would you knowingly take the risk? How is that victim blaming?

Tbh, I don't think most of the people even vaguely understand the difference but are thrilled at the opportunity to morally grandstand against a supposed injustice.

100%, spot on.

People are acting like this AI would only speculate off that past history and not constantly update the model.

You could literally feed in historical data that says there's only crime in neighborhood A despite the opposite being true and the AI would correct the issue within a few cycles as you said. The big thing here is these prediction models learn and they only learn off of input. If everything but the location & type of crime was scrubbed from the data, literally no demographic information at all, the results would come out the same.

I think even philosophically we're at a point where we can't even discuss that the data might just be data without people crying foul and it disgusts me. Racism by low expectations is still racism. I grew up in a very, very shitty neighborhood B. I've also lived in Neighborhood As. I can't say A was completely without incident, but comparing the two even off of my anecdotal experiences is night and Day.

I think the biggest incident in A was someone complaining about Horse droppings on the beach and some teens setting a dumpster on fire.

B had someone get shot. Completely anecdotal but still relevant.

Assuming data itself is biased is the heart of this issue and why people shouldn't be allowed to handle it at all.

Claiming "that era was racist" so all data must be discarded is a cop out and ignores the issues.

Data is nothing but points. Acting like Middle class, Median income A and Lower class, low income B will have similar or equal crime rates is insanity and racism. Pretending like A has the same amount of crime, they're just not patrolled is ignorant at best, racist at worst.

This is an interesting read. At the same time, it does itself a disservice by looking at the issue through an equity or moral lens.

Let's examine.

Neighborhood A. Neighborhood B.

A has minimal police patrols, minimal police calls, minimal interactions with law enforcement.

B has regular patrols, regular calls and frequent interactions with law enforcement.

It doesn't matter that the area is impoverished, it doesn't matter than the area is primarily minorities. What matters is that's where the crime is so that's where the police go. Why would you allocate resources to an area they wouldn't be used? B gets more calls, so B gets more patrols, so B has more interactions. If A starts seeing an increase, the AI would naturally divert resources accordingly.

This isn't so much an issue of biased data, as much as it's an issue of people not liking what the data shows. And that's something that needs to be admitted. All the AI can do is look at the areas and suggest based on the inputs which area is more likely to have crime.

The site's sources for data also don't regard the actions of the arrested towards the officer at all. If you're not doing anything illegal, you get let go 99% of the time. If you act uncooperative or aggressively you invite attention. Which causes your likelihood of being arrested to skyrocket.

Should we work to solve the root issues? Absolutely. But a LOT of that work needs to come from those areas themselves. You can pump all the funding in the world through them but if the people inside don't want to change, you won't change the statistics. There's some statistics in the article that are closed to banned on reddit. I won't copy them. I think a question we should be asking is: As B, if you know you're more likely to be punished than A for doing something, why would you do it? If I was predisposed to brain bleeds, I wouldn't join boxing. Some of this is personal choice. If I knew I was more likely to get arrested for smoking pot, I wouldn't touch the shit.

The prison system needs it.

My principles are for sale.

Honestly?

Make a dummy account with a similar name and use it for Marketplace. I have no friends, nothing on there but a basic boomer profile pic.

But stuff I want comes up on Marketplace all the time, so, it comes in handy. Just disable all notifications and it's not an issue.

Honestly, this is really nice. I got no use for deer bits, but it's great to see them given away freely to people that can use em.

It's also dope to see people offering trades of home goods for them. Warms the soul. Barter is a dying act in this society.

Yeah, and the ones that don't are typically familiar and know to check the weather etc.

Unlike her.

And the last dude.

And the one before them.

Solo hiking is fine with a map, GPS and knowledge of the trails.

Wandering into the woods on your own in an unfamiliar place...welll...

If your friend says "I wanna jump off a bridge" and you drive them to the bridge...