goialoq

The saying goes, "a prosecutor could _indict_ a ham sandwich"

Revenge is sweet, though.

YouTube, like TV and the newsstand, has good content and bad content.

He was playing on the computer too much so you are training him to be a pervert?

> But we moved forward and got the job done, because we weren't getting paid to kvetch about politics.

No, the difference was that we didn't have modern social media amplifying and echoing and re-broadcasting all the noise; so political arguments burned themselves without a wide conflagration

UncleMeat didn't assume anything about you.

> just want my coworkers to stop getting into arguments about things that then make it really awkward to work with them.

Things like who is allowed in the women's restroom, perhaps?

Soros made his money by betting against people less shrew then he, not by manipulating people's minds. He's like a poker player who is opposed to modern slot machines that scream for attention and mislead about their odds of winning. Both are casino games, there's a clear ethical difference.

This is one of the worst things Obama did for Net Neutrality -- tying its fate to paid prioritization because the public is too ignorant to understand any of the real complexities of NN.

And "public safety" conspicuously excludes the harms caused by incarceration (for both innocent and guilt suspects, and the innocent members of their families and communities).

(Not to mention that "public safety" still excludes the harms of centuries of slavery and decades of Jim Crow...)

Geography is a good place to look for clues to causes, but a not good justification for locking people in jail without trial.

Because correlation != causation.

Here's a very simple refutation:

Is past arrest history a valid factor in the model?

What if past arrest history is biased due to biased policing (Hint: it is, well proven)

How about zip code?

> the broader community should tolerate laxer pre-trial sentencing standards applied to people of race A, precisely because they commit more crime than people of race B

Does "they" they mean "each individual of Race A", or the subpopulation of "Race A"? Those are two very different meanings, and the heart of the problem.

Why should I be jailed because other people with similar skin color to me committed crimes?

Should we go digging to find whether Irish or Russian caucasians have higher than average crime rates, and then refuse bail to all Irish or Russian-descendant defendants?