It also shows such a signal of prioritization: Why isn't the federal government protecting its citizens from bad police officers? Why did it take three weeks of peaceful demonstrations (and some violence) to get any attention to this?
Much as the sympathizers would like to deflect that insurance is somehow going to cover all of this (it isn't), anyone who complains about “food deserts” but cheers on riots in the hood is part of the problem whether they admit it or not.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/us/politics/investigation...
That is untrue. Well before the executions, arsons, and burglaries, there was essentially no ambiguity in the public perception of the case. Most people who watched the video believed they witnessed a murder, and that charge was already planned for Chauvin, well before the public was aware of riots.
And of course, even if it did work, it would still be wrong, and the people executing people and shooting senior citizens to death to steal televisions should be prosecuted.
I think this is a BAD thing for the health of the comment section. An even worse outcome is people commenting based on the headline and maybe a blurb only. How is that supposed to promote a good community?
If you want paywalled articles being the bulk of the posts on hacker news that garner discussions then we might as well just go ahead and paywall this site.. because it's slowly becoming a paywalled tech discussion site.. just with more steps.
Where do "facts" like this come from? I mean, a police station was burned. A bunch of windows have been broken in a bunch of places. But there's literally nothing to support anything like a statement like that.
Seriously: who told you "neighborhoods" had been "destroyed". Which neighborhoods? How many residents were displaced or whatever? Did you think to maybe question your sources when they arrived with no data at all? Didn't the fact that Fox (who normally are pretty good about journalistic micro-rigor, believe it or not) got caught faking image evidence about the unrest maybe cue you that you might be being misled?
But you're still going with that rhetoric? Why? Where are you getting your facts?
For browser extension, see: https://github.com/iamadamdev
https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certifica...
Further drone operators are required to stay in contact with ATC while a flight plan is in effect. VFR rules apply while the drone is in eyesight of the operator.
Assume the government can override these requirements with a flick of a pen.
it is mildly annoying to see the same complaint over and over when the solution involves only a minimal amount of research.
Piracy is piracy
When you push out the police, it's no wonder that people who would like to get away with heinous crimes show up.
It probably tells that you also hit the paywall. Those who downvoted probably didn't, perhaps because their setup doesn't trigger it by default, or because they searched by themselves how to avoid it.
I personally didn't see any paywall when accessing the site directly (ie, without a VPN).
I won't bother digging into all of the details of bad publishing business models in academia, but that is a direct counterpoint to the blanket statement you're trying to make.
With staying on topic re: The costs to the end consumers. It's not personal greed to not want to pay to access the content when the cost of the content doesn't reflect the cost to produce it or even a "fair premium" on top of what it costs to produce it.
You're also discounting the business models themselves and how they work. Let's say I care to read this one specific article from NYT. Why do I have to pay to access all of their content? If they want more money they'd allow me to do a microtransaction to purchase this article. And no, not 20-30% of what a month long subscription costs.
It is in fact a bad business model. In either case, I don't pirate these articles and I'm even arguing against using workarounds to view them without paying. So don't try to paint me as some comically evil person who just "doesn't want to pay" because my argument is inconvenient to your world view.
A jet ranger carrying a passenger with binoculars is vastly different than that same jet ranger with modern optics and RF packages. The only real commonality between the two is that they are both deployed on aerial platforms.