At a local business the police went in to request surveillance footage of an incident that took place off their property, but in view of the camera. This isn’t much different, except that the police now have a map of where Ring cameras might be located. The business owner could comply or the police get a subpoena.
This is very different, because a) the police no longer have to bother to ask as long as the camera's owner has opted in, therefore this can scale much more quickly, b) the police can offload "assessments" to some neural network, and c) as far as I'm aware, you may not be able to control or even be aware of which footage is viewed by the police.
The police absolutely do not have a sufficient reason to know every person who has come over to my house in the past X weeks.
That's just not true. The police can send a request to certain cameras recording at certain times with an explination of why they want that video. The owner then gets notified of the requet and can grant or deny it.
Except they have access whenever they want no subpoena needed, no probable cause or suspicion. Obviously people had been desensitized to privacy and rights violation little by little that now they're willing to share their entire life without hesitation just to avoid somebody stealing their garden hose.
When a site has a redesign nowadays, I can almost always count on them breaking "Open Link in new Tab". Most recent example was Chase bank and I think Google's account security page. Same with a redesign project I just joined at work....
No it’s more akin to black lives matter not allowing themselves to say “all lives matter”. Fine in a vacuum, but the phrase has become loaded by the opposition, which Mozilla mentions in TFA.
"All lives matter" was never fine with BLM. Their objection to the phrase began before any Republican uttered it, when they booed a Democratic Presidential candidate for saying it and forced him to apologize.
> Are you saying that women should not be in positions of power?
Nah he just cares about ethics in open source software ;)
(In case you’re unaware, there are alt-right/whatever they call themselves nowadays websites that have an “open source software culture” section where they fume over stuff like this and rush comment sections together. This person isn’t arguing in good faith and if you want to get to the bottom of anything, ask him instead what ethnicities should be in charge of software orgs. He probably has a paragraph to copy paste you)
I can't speak about this particular person, but I feel like there are a fairly large group of people who are genuinely confused by feminist ideology to the point that it seems utterly bizarre to them. I think it's important to take their arguments at face value and debate with them in good faith.
This isn't a fair take. You can click on the original poster's comments and see that they're a legitimate member of this community. You can't just say someone is arguing in bad faith because you disagree with them.
The fact that my comment got deleted will make me stop contributing in such a controversial way, as I respect the house rules.
But it leaves a bad aftertaste, even though the strong moderation on this site undoubtly keeps everything civil.
I think provocative theses are necessary, in line with the Socratic method, and even though my original comment wasn't directly aimed at the arguments in the article, the entire point of a provocative viewpoint is to question the entire narrative of something on a fundamental level.
> I think provocative theses are necessary, in line with the Socratic method, and even though my original comment wasn't directly aimed at the arguments in the article, the entire point of a provocative viewpoint is to question the entire narrative of something on a fundamental level.
I agree, especially since the original article was making a similar type of claim. When you go that for down a line politically, it's useful to look at things from the opposite perspective. People don't have to agree, but I don't think we should be flagging or banning comments like yours on topics like this.
Call me cynical, but they did this shortly after sending out anti-unionization propaganda videos to managers of Whole Foods. If it really is a reaction to union agitation, then it's not Amazon corporate that we should be praising for this increase.
> I think they should be allowed to do whatever they think is best for them.
I think they should be allowed to vote and agitate for whatever they think is best for them. And thus.... viola, minimum wage and subsequent increases.
Although I know majorities are a touchy subject with libertarians since there are like six of you total nowadays.
Please keep ideological flamewar off HN, regardless of how annoying or wrong another comment is. It leads to degraded discussion, as amply demonstrated below!
Wow so her ICE quote would've been 100% correct if not for the word "required" (evidenced by what Politifact ends up admitting in the body of the article).
Is there a rating worse than "Pants On Fire" we could brand this liar with?
(I don't know about sexist but the media sure is dumb and pedantic as shit.)
Good riddance then. Not gonna cry for them like I'm not gonna cry for a restaurant that gets shut down because complying with health standards is too expensive.
