I keep waiting for a law enforcement death due to a no-knock raid. With gun ownership in the US, it's only a matter of time before someone shoots someone they assume was a burglar, and since it was no-knock, just saying "FBI" isn't really enough. Anyone can break into a home and say "FBI."
One law enforcement officer was hit in the leg. They had a "No knock warrant" but then have testified that they knocked and identified themselves as police before breaking down the door in plainclothes. Color me unconvinced.
They then proceeded to basically cover their eyes and shoot 32 shots while spinning around blindly like Barney Fife, hit Breonna Taylor 6 times as well as firing shots through a random glass door to the patio and miraculously didn't kill or hit anyone else in the apartment complex.
> then have testified that they knocked and identified themselves as police before breaking down the door in plainclothes.
Over a dozen neighbors, including one outside smoking near the incident, interviewed said they never heard the police identify themselves. Only one neighborhood claims to have heard them do so.
"Unconvinced" is right. If they identified themselves they did a piss poor job.
And seriously, why would you ever want to do a "plain clothes" no knock raid?
> And seriously, why would you ever want to do a "plain clothes" no knock raid?
Because you're serving a warrant on a dangerous suspect, who you have reason to believe has community support? (e.g. someone on the corner who's going to tip the suspect off when the lookout sees the cops rolling up)
Which isn't me justifying the Breonna Taylor raid, which by all accounts appears to have been an end-to-end clusterfuck, compounded with actual lying before and after the raid and a criminally negligent lack of weapons discipline by the officers involved.
That should have never been signed off on.
But there are scenarios where law enforcement are serving warrants on violent people, who if tipped off ahead of time increase the risk to the officers, the suspect, and the community around them.
As with many application-of-force vs freedom scenarios, it's a fuzzy justification line, but there's a line somewhere.
> Because you're serving a warrant on a dangerous suspect, who you have reason to believe has community support?
This feels like a contradiction to me. If the suspect is perceived dangerous enough that we need the no knock, surely they are also dangerous enough we need to be prepared for strong, armed resistance right? Body armor, shields etc? All things that are decidedly not 'plain clothes".
I mean if they have that much community support that you are afraid someone will see you coming and tip them off, are you also not afraid that once you've kicked this person's door down you've now got hostiles both inside AND outside?
SWAT teams are one option, but they're not the only option. Sometimes surprise might be more beneficial.
Presumably not even the police want to be shooting it out in the middle of an apartment complex.
And I guess the general calculus is that even the most aggressive neighborhood bystanders in America are usually less dangerous than a criminal suspect.
But it speaks to the contradiction: the entire point of a no-knock is surprise.
But legal, authorized surprise is practically incompatible with the second amendment (as currently interpreted) and stand your ground laws (as increasingly being passed).
In college, I was diagnosed with Aspberger's. Later, after seeing a student therapist few a years, the therapist and their supervisor (and actual psychologist) didn't think I do. It made me wonder if the original diagnosis was the lazy, obvious one, and something else is going on.
I wasn't a "golden child," but growing up, the thing adults praised me for was my intelligence. Not being in a good school district, I skipped a grade. Thinking about the different opinions of the therapists, I wonder if my emotional immaturity relative to my peers, always being eager to show off my intelligence, and disadvantage at sports isolated me from my peers, hurting my social development.
In a few months, I might be switching to a team with a C++ project. A lot of the team is new to C++, and there's nothing about the project that needs C++, Java would have been fine.
Compared to Java, modern C++ isn't so bad. Dependency management and build systems are the main problems. Both of those should be solved in an existing project.
C++ has a lot of sharp edges. Skimming through the slides it seems as though Chromium hit upon a lot of the big problems because:
1. Google always seem to enjoy bucking the trend in terms of recommended ways to do things and end up using niche features that are likely to be deprecated
2. Chromium is a stupidly massive codebase so they have more things to fix just purely through scale
If you stick to the sane subset of the language that any competent modern C++ development shop would then you wouldn't encounter any of these problems except small/easy stuff like the new reserved keywords.
That being said, if you don't have a team that's already experienced in C++ then picking C++ is a bizarre choice.
This has never been my experience, and Joel isn't an all-seeing oracle.
In just one notable example, a company I was at had a team develop an important platform in Node.js when the rest of the company was hired for and familiar with Java/Ruby. This app ran our 3rd party API gateway and was a central part of how our company was attempting to grow.
The Node.js team left wholesale to go found CockroachDB, which left nobody at the company who had the expertise to take over. You'd think that someone at a fairly large company would have Node.js experience, but it wasn't the case that we could staff the team back up easily.
There were several major production outages and the app lagged behind in development for the entirety of its life. We also had to port our protoc changes and traffic stack just to serve this one app. This despite being a central part of our upmarket strategy.
Ultimately it was completely rewritten. And nobody regretted that decision. We carefully weighed the pros and cons.
There's something to be said for a company that standardizes on one or two languages. Letting engineers have free reign leaves you with Haskell and Erlang littered in important places, with a very tiny bus factor.
You'd indirectly reveal what those keywords are to Meta by which ads are being requested. If an ad for a sex toy is being requested, it's pretty obvious what the two parties are talking about.
His resume has some impressive accomplishments, but has enough BS that it makes me suspicious of what teaching courses on ethical design actually entails.
But do the teams know that? I love picking on Timnit Gebru and her time at Google. She clearly didn't know what her actual job was, which is funny because she seems to be good at marketing herself. You think she'd know Google was using her for marketing.
Timnit Gebru called out her boss' boss' boss on Twitter on an unrelated issue where the boss isn't even relevant and acted like she didn't know why she was fired. This person is straight up toxic, and I hope she isn't a role model for AI ethicists, but many praise her as a role model...
Down here there was a murder case recently. The suspect always replied prompt on his messages, except for the 2 hours during that murder. His phone was supposedly at home with him being out.
There were many more juicy bits in that case, but this part is somewhat in the context of the discussion. The message seemed to be, plan better next time :)
Joke aside, your car probably has a mobile connection by now and even the dealer/manufacturer has access to the data which means authorities don't need more than to purchase it. So you might want to leave the car at home too. And the smartwatch.
This gives me a morbidly hilarious mental image of someone trying to dispose of a body using a bike trailer or cargo bike. Perhaps the rider might even feel a little self-satisfied about how environmentally friendly they're being by doing so.
I suspect the cameras on buses can used to track where you're taking the body. Maybe also where you tap in/out with the extra fare for the bulky cargo.
