circuscritic

No, I definitely did not.

I said it wasn’t an accurate comparison.

No, I understand that. She was also a non-native English speaker, who was still learning English.

The first part of my original comment was specifically addressing someone else’s comment who was incorrectly comparing apples to cantaloupes.

I said nothing to do about what the cops felt, or even their actions, which I addressed in the second half, but no one has responded to that so it was dropped.

I was simply stating that those are not apt comparisons because of the statistically significant physical differences between those two groups of people.

There’s a reason why Pacific islanders, specifically Samoans, are 40 times more likely to be in the NFL than any other group.

None of that justifies the police killing her, but it also invalidates the original comparison, which was all I was critiquing.

No, I don’t. There aren’t a lot of high density Samoan enclaves around the US relative to other minority groups, and I grew up alongside one of the largest.

I realize it controversial for Lemmy’s white liberal sensibilities to point out different groups of people can have different characteristics, but that doesn’t make it any less true, no matter how many people down vote what I’m saying.

I also never said any of this justified the police killing her.

No, it’s not an assumption. Because if you had, you would know that what I said was completely accurate.

What…? Seriously? Considering I grew up with a lot of samoans, I think it’s you who’s mistaken.

It’s not assumptions, there’s photos online…

Also, that’s something that only someone who’s never been in a Samoan community would ever say.

That’s not the slam dunk you think it is, as she was samoan. So she would probably anywhere between 2 and 3 times the size of the average white/Hispanic/black girls her age.

What I find more curious is that two officer shot, but one was using less than lethal rounds. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t either both have them, or why those wouldn’t be used first sans the real bullets.

Politics are complicated, especially in post-Soviet bloc countries e.g. the lingering effects of Russification. But anytime a ruling party is looking to dissolve all opposition parties, and label them as criminals, it’s because they feel threatened in some way.

The correct answer is neither.

Miracle drugs are almost exclusively funded, or heavily subsidized, by the public sector. Typically through NIH grants, or other public funding mechanisms through the University system.

R&D budgets for a big pharma go to things like reformulating existing brand name drugs, to prevent them going generic as they are supposed to under current law. Or other high return, reduced effort, drugs i.e. new dick pills, narcotics, etc.

Executive pay and bonuses are not going anywhere, no matter what happens with these drug prices. They will cut their company to the bone, and then collude with private equity to take them private and gut it, before they ever considered cutting down their bonuses or stock options.

I assumed it was going to be some slick evil mastermind unknowingly drugging his nanny.

He was literally just coming home when she just dozed off, and covering her face with chloroform rag…but she was waking up remembering a rag smelling of chemicals and passing out.

After the third or fourth time it happened, she put a hidden camera up.

Sure enough, this sadistic dumb fuck, did it again, but this time in full view of the hidden camera.

He only confessed because she went to the police and showed the idiot knocking her out with chloroform and abusing her, yet again.

This is 98% the right answer, but you have to dispose of them that keeps them intact, and believable enough so that people take them, and spend the rest of the weekend going to thrift stores trying to find an external floppy drive, and the next month trying to figure out how to get their iPhone to mount it.

I understand they wouldn’t get involved in regular local mail mailbox crime, but this was inside of a US Post Office.

That has to be the easiest layup possible a USPIS agent to get a case closure off from, but now I’m really curious about what jurisdiction local police or sheriff’s deputies even have when dealing with crimes that occur inside of the post office, which I’m fairly certain are federal buildings.

I always thought that crimes that occur on federal property, or land, are automatically assigned to federal law enforcement.

Postal Inspectors are Federal Law enforcement, and while you could argue that their budget hasn’t kept up with inflation, it hasn’t been cut either.

Point is, while I’ll always support the need for the US Post Office, and support employees who work in any capacity to deliver mail, I can’t be as charitable with the USPIS when they have the manpower to spare for warrantless surveillance programs.

…why wasn’t this handled by the Postal Inspectors?

I assumed someone repeatedly breaking into PO boxes is something they would actually want to investigate…?

I was expecting to read the article and find some seventh level of hell legal trickery bullshit, but it does sound like the organizers fucked up.

John Thurston, the secretary of state, rejected the petition outright, saying that organizers had failed to correctly submit a sworn statement confirming that paid canvassers had been instructed on how to collect signatures.

However, while I may be an expert in bird law, with a focus on dick towel related torts, I don’t know shit about Arkansas state law or their regulations for proposing ballot measures.

Maybe someone who is can tell me why this isn’t the fault of the organizers, or if some other shenanigans are at play?

Any chance that they submitted the document, but didn’t complete some arcane ritual like having it delivered by a female virgin courrier? Or not including a list of the mother’s maiden name for every canvasser?

You put so much effort into that post, that I almost feel bad pointing out that you probably should have read the comment I was replying to… you know, the one above my comment.

But, if you’re having a hard time locating it, I pasted the relevant quote that I was responding to:

“…opportunity for a movie-like secret mission with a bag full of consumer drones…”

But yeah, I guess if you completely ignore the actual text I was responding to, you might of had a fair point.

Yes, and that’s what Ukraine is doing at the moment. But they’re doing it in the cities like Moscow that actually matter to Putin, and the Russian elites.

The comment I was responding to was talking about taking a lot small drones deeper into Russia, which are places that Putin couldn’t give a shit about.

So, if they aren’t useful for destroying critical infrastructure, and Putin and the Russian elite don’t care about any psychological impact on those civilians, what is the point? Which is why I covered using them to target civilians, and why that would be a bad idea.

Saboteurs and Ukrainian assets inside of Russia are not an unlimited resource. Wouldn’t it make more sense for them to use their time doing things that actually politically harm Putin, or impact the wider Russian war effort?

I know it’s been done on the unit or tactical level, but I wasn’t aware of another example of this level of it being operationalized at this scale before

If you have an example to reference, would you mind sharing? Not being sarcastic, I’d be interested in reading up more on how that is dealt with at scale.

That might be an unintended benefit, but no, the rationale is pretty sound.

Basically Ukraine identified the local IP ranges and mass scanned them for open webcams for intelligence gathering and scouting purposes.

It’s pretty ingenious and I am left wondering if this is the first time this tactic has been deployed at scale during a conventional war.

Regardless, I expect this is one of those things that we will see moving forward in any future conventional wars, including governments requesting their civilians turn off their IP cameras, or otherwise forcing them to.

I didn’t move any goal posts, I’ve been pretty clear about my views on the general ineffectiveness of using quadcopters to target infrastructure.

But like I said, maybe I’m wrong, and the Ukrainian MoD will have a “Eureka!” moment after reading your comments.