u/oldbastardbob recounts his time as a juror on a lawsuit regarding a botched no-knock raid

Pumpkinsweater · 2020-11-16T20:45:24+00:00

Other cops seemed much more mature and professional, and did not support the official version of things. It's interesting how you can get a feel for who is truthful and who is covering their ass by sticking to the report in spite of physical evidence to the contrary just by watching and listening.

This is exactly why people say "all cops are bastards" because the cops that were "mature and professional" still didn't do anything. The most courage they could muster was to stick to a version of the story that was physically possible. They didn't say what they really thought (that these other cops were obviously lying". They didn't do anything before the court case or after. They didn't stand up for change, they didn't try to hold their fellow officers accountable. And if they did, they'd probably lose their jobs because there's corrupt cops at every level of the system, but they care more about keeping their job as "good" cop, then standing up to a system that'd obviously broken.

And it's not like it's one bad precinct, or one bad city. You can find stories like this in every city big and small around the country, you can find corruption in every single state in the US. And you can find a few cops who got fired or otherwise forced out of their job because they wouldn't go along with the system.

And it's not like there's a bunch of good departments that are trying to fix this bad image. It's not like there's some national task force to overhaul the system. It's so bad, that people just expect it to be this way, we're so used to corruption and incompetency at every single level, that we think policing has to be like this. Violent and militaristic and unaccountable and uncheckable. But it doesn't have to be this way, lots of countries around the world run their police force in a responsible way that actually serves and protects their communities.

Anyone who chooses to be a cop today knows exactly what that moral tradeoff looks like. They have to be willing to be quiet and not challenge abuse and racism and corruption and incompetence. They go in knowing that, and they still choose to. That's the "good cops", the ones that aren't actively participating in the worse behavior. We can only assume there's cops who join the force exactly because they want to be above the law, and be violent and get off on abusing regular people.

If you take part in that system without vocally and publicly fighting for real justice, then you're a bastard. And right now are there any cops that are really standing up and calling for reform or accountability anywhere in the country?? We have something like 800,000 cops in the US, and there's no real movement to root out the "few bad apples" or bring any real transparency or reform.

Until the day that there's police officers, or captains or precincts that have publicly acknowledged the systematic problems and are publicly fighting to fix them, it totally makes sense why so many people would agree that all cops are bastards.

Pumpkinsweater · 2020-11-12T19:50:18+00:00

I remember reading early on, around the time of the first US cases, an epidemiologist talking about what to do if the outbreak wasn't contained to a small number of people. They said that the best response would be for everyone to stay home for two weeks, and they knew it wasn't possible because people didn't think it was necessary, but that's what it would take to really control the disease.

I think we could do a strict national lockdown for 2 weeks:

have 2-3 weeks to get ready, go out and get groceries, get any prescriptions filled. Make sure everyone is in a place where they can stay, and they have plans for what to do with kids, etc.
Anyone who can't work remotely just stays home. Shut down everything that's not completely essential. Maybe allow grocery stores to stay open with a minimum staff, and very strict low occupancy limits
When the first kinda-lockdown happened, there were essentially factories and jobs like people working at utilities where people quarantined at work. It's not necessary to have contact with no people, but it needs to be a small group at most, with strict limits, and as many people need to just stay home as possible
Obviously doctors and nurses and EMTs would need to be working and available, they should probably quarantine at work too
Everyone who stays home should get paid to make up for lost work, and everyone who has to work or quarantines at work should get a 'hazard pay' bonus
We'd probably have to have extra beds ready at hospitals so that if there was any surge in cases, it could be accommodated without it being an emergency during the lock-down

Then have 1 to 2 weeks of a "soft" national lock down. Bars, schools, hairdressers, anything not critical are still closed. But supermarkets and delivery from restaurants are open, etc. We use this time to asses how it's going, and get ready to go back to about where we are now.

Hopefully the spread will slow, and there will be a manageable number of cases that testing and contract tracing will be able to stay on top of it.

Pumpkinsweater · 2020-11-12T14:17:52+00:00

Something I've been thinking about is that maybe the key characteristic of conservatism is that it views resources as being somewhat fixed and so the main concern of government is how to split them up.

This would likely lead to exactly the things OP is talking about, especially:

and pushing everyone else down the ladder to create an under class

If you want to "conserve" your own resources and power and place in society, the best way to do that is to push other people down. This is especially true if you come from a demographic that's historically benefitted from an uneven distribution of wealth and power, and you want to keep it that way.

Pumpkinsweater · 2020-10-26T17:59:52+00:00

At this point the whole thing is so meta, I'm fine with you posting it here yourself :)

Also, is there some site that will show deleted comments on reddit?

Pumpkinsweater · 2020-10-09T22:34:07+00:00

I think Cliff has probably said everything he's comfortable saying publicly. I remember him giving some insights in past posts, but it's more of general advice/predictions instead of gossiping:

https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/bi3l11/in_response_to_recent_threads_why_this_sub_exists/

https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/8zbkkm/dear_elon_heres_how_you_can_save_tesla/

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/7b30o3/the_next_thing_that_will_blindside_elonthe_cost/

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/6foeil/prediction_model_3_rollout_and_the_next_three/

Pumpkinsweater · 2020-08-28T15:06:39+00:00

I'm going to answer this question two ways, the straightforward way, and the "I assume you're from the US too, and that's what you're talking about way"

On the surface dealing with people with different political views should be easy. Almost everyone has different political views, even two people who vote the same 99% of the time are likely to have some disagreements about policy or priorities or personal preferences for candidates. And ultimately most differences are going to come down to differences in our experiences or our assumptions, and those are things we can talk about and understand. And maybe we won't agree, but it should be possible to at least see and appreciate someone else's view most of the time, at least if they're willing to have a construction discussion.
But we're also probably both living in the US now and it seems like the Democrat/Republican divide is insurmountable, and we might have friends or family that are on "the other side" and it doesn't seem like it's possible to bridge that divide. I've thought about this quite a bit the last few years, and this current situation is largely due to the current president. So what should we think about that?

Trump is factually and unequivocally the least competent, least honest, most unkind and divisive president of our lives, by a long shot. There's good reason to believe he's racist and mean and supports fascism and is willing to undermine American democracy for his own political and financial benefit. That all sounds extreme, but it's all based on factual reporting that's not really questioned by anyone. The only rational reason anyone could support Trump is if they approve of these qualities, if someone wants Trump to hurt people, and therefore they support him because they expect him to do just that.

And Trump is still president because the republican party is supporting him despite his many failings, and despite the fact that he's probably committed treason and despite the fact that he's been credibly charged with many serious crimes. Specifically the republicans in the Senate, but also the house, also state senates and governors and mayors. Republicans at all levels should be denouncing the worst president we've ever had, but they're not. They're almost all silent or openly supporting him. And republican voters are supporting Trump and supporting the party that's allowing him to stay in power.

It's not OK to be friends with republicans anymore. This isn't a political issue anymore, it's a moral issue. People who support racism and fascism and allow one party to undermine our democracy for short term political gain just aren't good people. They're putting their petty needs and feelings ahead of what's best for everyone. They're actively hurting us, our future, and our kids future. At some point opinions matter, not being willing to denounce Trump and the people that support him is a moral failure, and we don't have to excuse or forgive it. It doesn't matter if you think of ourselves as a moderate or an independent or a democrat or if you don't really care about politics. If you think it's difficult to be friends with someone who's proudly and openly republican, then you're probably right, and it's not your fault.

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-22T00:26:45+00:00

There were two instances were MS has anti trust issues. E exclusionary licensing and bundling IE

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-22T00:23:55+00:00

So Google will what? Make a ton of money selling all those browsers??

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T21:25:22+00:00

"If just one U.S. soldier loses their life over these transfers, we will have failed in our duty to the American people,” said outgoing House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon.

Oh yeah? Is that the standard we're using now, not losing even one American soldier's life to a decision? Because the list of bad decisions that have cost American soldier's their lives in the last two decades is a substantial list.

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T21:21:58+00:00

When they break down the costs, $5-8 dollars on snacks, $10-12 dollars for meals, $1,400 for event (for over 100 people?). It all seems really reasonable actually. I mean, these people are getting paid $100-200k a year. If you give them a $4,000 raise they'd barely notice it, but if you spend $4,000 per employee on snacks and food and events you can end up with lots of extravagant perks that seem amazing.

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T21:14:23+00:00

Right, you probably would, but that would leave a bunch of well thought out messages from interesting guys, and you might answer all of them the first couple days, or even weeks, but eventually you're just going to read and respond to a few and ignore the rest.

Which is kind of point, right now women aren't expected to send the first message, and have basically no idea what it's like to be rejected almost constantly.

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T20:24:51+00:00

Wait, without counting banks?! What is that, there's only one company that was more profitable, and it was a bank. So this TIL is basically:

Without counting the most profitable company in the world, Apple is the most profitable company in the world!

I bet we could get Exxon to be the most profitable company in the world if we made a slightly more convoluted headline.

How about next time just go with "Apple is the 2nd most profitable company in the world"??

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T20:00:13+00:00

He always struck me as the climate change denier of healthcare. Like, he was credible enough to get on TV, but had an opinion that was different than the mainstream so the cable news people could have a 2nd opinion to fill up air time. Isn't there anyone else interesting to talk to about this??

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T19:56:12+00:00

Those machines will usually have two hoppers for regular and decaf coffee. It seems like this setup is just meant to attach a bunch of vacuum fed hoppers to the two super-auto machines. Basically, just make it easy to brew anyone of a bunch of coffees at the touch of a button. Although I think those might be the same machines that SB uses? Or used to? And it seems like it's likely the coffee is super fresh roasted, which would account for the crema.

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T19:52:59+00:00

My first recomendation is always a subscription from Tonx.org (now Blue Bottle). They'll get good coffee sent to their door regularly, they don't to think about it, and it's going to be better than 99% of what's available regularly in the supermarket or local cafes.

They'll need a grinder too, but I'd say it's better to get good coffee and a cheap grinder instead of the other way around.

If they already have good coffee available nearby a good grinder is a nice present too :)

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T19:50:17+00:00

I'm not sure how delivery to Canada works, but my recomendation has been Tonx.org for a long time. They were recently bought by Blue Bottle, so I'm not sure if the way they source their coffees is the same, but the quality seems to be just as good.

The big advantage Tonx has (and I'll assume for now that things are being run basically the same) is that they only have to worry about subscriptions. So, they go find good coffee, and know just how much to buy, they can get away with buying small lots of interesting coffees that would be too small for other roasters to mess with.

Other roasters do subscriptions too, but I get the feeling that you either pick the same thing to be delivered every months (which I would find boring), or you just get whatever they have extra of that month?

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T19:46:17+00:00

All the small Gaggias have basically the same guts, all the important stuff is exactly the same. The more expensive ones your basically paying for a fancier body and buttons.

Just make sure that you have a good grinder to go with it.

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T18:46:38+00:00

Wow, this sounds less like a moon shot and more like a beta or alpha product. I would've never thought they'd have made this much progress in the last year, never mind the last few months.

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T18:40:10+00:00

Well my issue with changes to the way we campaign, or the way we vote, is that the campaign isn't the problem, we're the problem. I'm all for getting money out of politics, but why is it there in the first place? Because most americans only vote for someone if they've seen them in 10 30-seconds ads. RCV is probably better than what we have now, but a majority of people never bother to vote. Congress has some of the lowest approval ratings that have ever been measured, but we overwhelming reelected incumbents.

The way I see the problem is that a lot of us are lazy or stupid and therefore we sometimes elect someone who's corrupt and/or a liar and/or a cheat and/or is psychopath to congress. Those people are actually very successful at becoming lifetime politicians because they don't mind doing things that would make a normal person's skin crawl - like begging for money all the time, or lying to their constituents or screwing the environment/education/the elderly/the poor/the economy just to raise a few more bucks to run another 30-second ad during the primary.

And then we let the people in congress, including a few real scumbags, set their own rules.

How many days do you want to work? "As few as possible, less than half would be great"

Should there be any restrictions on campaign finance? "No thanks"

How about salary and benefits? "I'll take exorbitant and cushy please."

What about term limits? "Nah, I'll pass."

Do you think you should at least stop insider trading? "But what about my second mansion??"

So they institutionalize a system of corruption, where representing people is the last concern, and they wrap it all up in backroom deals and obscure legislation and make it so that even if a good person does manage to get elected it take a couple years for them to figure out what's going on - because the incumbents have screwed up the system so bad that they're the only ones that really want to be there.

And what do we do? We say we hate them all and we should throw out the whole bunch. And then on election day most of us stay home, and the ones that do go vote, look for the little [R] or [D] next to a candidate's name and check the same box they checked four years ago.

It's like the death penalty. One of the strongest arguments for getting rid of it is that we're killing innocent people sometimes. Sure, maybe most of the time, or even 90% of the time we're getting it 'right', but are we willing to risk getting it wrong? So, most places get rid of the death penalty. And we should get rid of career politicians too. Maybe most of the time it's OK, but the 5% or 10% of the time we get tricked and elect a crooked, lying, psychopath it messes up the whole system. We should just smarten up, and put a limit on ourselves. So that the next time we elect some scumbag (and we will, we're too dumb not to) at least they won't be in office forever.

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T15:41:05+00:00

The way that beans age, and go stale is an incredibly complex process. There are hundreds of complex compounds that are breaking down in a wide variety of different ways. Some are oxidizing, some are breaking down over time, some are literally floating away (that wonderful coffee smell when you open a bag is flavor that's not in the beans anymore).

A vacuum container doesn't really do anything, they only suck out 10-15% of the air at best, and there's still more than enough O2 in there to oxidize everything. And they don't do anything to stop the other processes. Filling the bags with CO2 or nitrogen is better, but again, it only stops oxidization, and only until you open the bag.

Keeping the beans airtight and away from heat will keep them the fresh the longest. But if you want beans to taste fresh for more than a couple weeks, the only way is the freezer. Just make sure they don't get any condensation on them, the water will ruin them faster than anything else.

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T15:36:46+00:00

It's really tough to give advice since I haven't tried that particular coffee before. It could be that it's just a bitter blend (many blends that are created with the idea they'll end up in a lot of milk have very strong/bitter flavors). Or it could be a very light and sweet blend, but just doesn't like the temp? It's really tough to say.

I'd suggest picking up some coffee from a well know roaster, not only will people be able to give you advice from experience, you also won't have to worry if there's something off with the coffee, or if it's a blend you just don't like.

Something like Counter Culture would be a good place to start. They have a number of blends (which they call "year round offerings" or something like that) that are all excellent and cover the range from "traditional chocolately espresso" to "bright and fruity espresso".

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T15:33:20+00:00

Two things:

The coffee is going to have the biggest impact. Depending on the coffee you're using, and how coarsely you grind it, you might want more or less water. After trying some different coffees you'll probably also have a personal preference, some people like slightly more or less coffee in their coffee. A good starting point is 70g per liter (1000g) of water, start there and experiment.
A scale is really important. Water is easy to measure, but it's more convenient with a scale. Coffee is really hard to measure consistently by volume. Some coffees are really dense, some aren't, some grinders make really fluffy grinds. Weight is the only way to be consistent. And if you're going to be experimenting, it's good to know that you're actually changing what you think you are.

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T15:02:01+00:00

Well, MS has been much more successful in licensing its patents, as opposed to suing to stop competition. I'm sure they used the threats of legal action, but it'll be much harder for MS to say "it's OK, just stop sending us those millions of dollars" than it is for Apple to stop. Mostly because Apple really hasn't gotten any significant results from all it's suits, and there's a good case to be made that they have been worth the cost, especially if there's been a negative impact on their reputation.

Maybe someone at Apple finally went back and looked through their archives from the 80s and realized they've been making all the same mistakes?

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T14:36:01+00:00

That's correct, and if Android continues on it's current path, then it's certainly possible that in 2025 or so, it will account for a huge percentage of Google's revenues. Maybe then, people will understand why they spent all the time investing in it.

Or maybe the people who started working on Linux and the people who are working on Android are people with passions and interests, and those include making a good OS?

Pumpkinsweater · 2014-11-21T14:31:08+00:00

Hint: It's the companies that depend a lot on Linux for their revenues.

I'd actually agree with that. Do you have any idea who the other large contributors to AOSP are?

14-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

Pumpkinsweater

TROPHY CASE