pnako

The last few cases that come to mind (Breivik, Tarrant) are from lone wolves that had radical ideas but were not affiliated with any group.

It must be very difficult to catch (unless you want a surveillance society where everyone is suspect).

Even in cases where it's planned and announced it's difficult to stop (Al Qaeda did announce they would assassinate Charb, editor in chief of Charlie Hebdo, and despite police protection they managed to do so).

I suspect you're just disagreeing on what "keeping tabs" actually means.

The government shouldn't put someone under (specific|personal) surveillance without strong evidence of course. But I don't see what prevents them from reading twitter, going into public chat rooms, etc.

It's hard to disagree with this point, really.

I don't see how you can prevent the police from reading stuff that's being broadcast for everyone else to see.

And threats of violence, or evidence of organizing to cause violence, should be investigated.

Do you have a problem with grammar anarchists?

The cartels would obviously immediately stop chopping up journalists in pieces and would retrain to become car mechanics, bakers, factory workers, etc.

Indeed. We also use this logic for juries.

Twitter is a modern-day gladiator arena, where all the spectators are also actually inside the arena.

Here's a concrete, practical solution:

Radical affirmative action. Not radical in the rioting / revolution understanding of the word, but in its application.

So, if the issue with systematic racism is such that it endangers the foundational core of American society, it's time to take a big risk: literally pull random people to sit on VC and companies boards, in skilled jobs, etc. (a bit like the Diversity Visa Lottery the US already does for immigration). And train them on the job.

Sure, there will be issues here and there, but it would definitely solve the issue once and for all. It wouldn't even have to be explicitly racial. If it's truly random, you would end up with an accurate representation of the population.

It would also desegregate schools and neighborhoods, too, because with such a disruption people would have to move to match their new jobs.

Now, an exception should be made of course for professions where an error would mean life or death (or injury): doctors, airline pilots, etc. But I suspect 95% of careers at least could be desegregated in this way.

And perhaps an exception for jobs that truly require special abilities: professor of physics, professional athlete, etc.

You cannot possibly avoid testing software, unless the software is literally useless.

So testing will definitely happen _at some point_. The debate is about where it happens: on the developer's computer, on a tester's computer, on a CI agent, or on the user's computer.

I like to cover as much code as possible before the software reaches the user, but that's just me.

What do you mean exactly by "brown" people? Who do you include in that category?

You're on Google, the 21st century version of AOL

There are many risk factors, not just this one.