chooky
1d ago
My problem with "hostile" is the vague degree of hostility. Did she think the ICE officer was doing bad things? This seems obvious since she was clearly purposely impeding them. But was she hostile as a driver of the car such that she would be seeking to or accepting of running them over? This would go far beyond what we can reasonably infer, so I can't describe her as "hostile" unless we are very explicit that it makes no claims about bodily harm. (And she would indeed face severe criminal charges even just for running over someone's foot, so I would really be inclined to not think there to not be intent for bodily harm.)
chooky
1d ago
I would quibble with what I see as some excessively loaded language. "Hostile" is very vague and very loaded. I would replace "intent on evading arrest" with "seeking to evade arrest". (Again, "intent" is far too vague - are they so intent they are willing to kill someone?)
As far as "instantly" goes, I think the converse is that a well-justified shooting would require him to instantly judge that shooting would eliminate threat.
But yes my position is that the guy could have easily dodged the car even if the driver had intended harm and thus was not fatally threatened.
The actual outcome of the officer not being hurt would seem to support both of our positions: that no real danger ever actually existed or that the shooting prevented the danger from harming the officer.
chooky
1d ago
I would say "should have known" rather than "knew", but yes because of initial starting positions.
chooky
1d ago
I would personally be pretty confident that I could get out of the way from the position he was in. Being able to get to the side while still holding both cell phone and gun and also not getting injured at all seems to me like it easily qualifies as "getting out of the way" even though there was some contact. My previous post probably should have been more precise in describing an "initially" unmoving car. I think it is excessively generous to frame the officer as actually being in danger, though I acknowledge that it probably qualifies as legally being in danger.
chooky
1d ago
No, I am saying that has was positioned such that in the event the car did start moving, he could have easily moved out of the way, as indeed he did.
chooky
2d ago
But we have the ability to assess the officer's assessment. In my view, something is going quite wrong if the officer assesses a currently unmoving car that he is standing not centered in front of as a potentially fatal threat.
chooky
3d ago
From the videos, it seems implausible that the officer would have died if he had not shot her, though. It seems like the appropriate response is just to send her plates to the cops and arrest her for fleeing/reckless.
chooky
21d ago
Can you explain how you carried this task out? I thought that I had a very simple data cleaning task (a column had very non-standard date formatting that I wanted to very straightforwardly just change to year), and the LLM (copilot) just told me to write a formula that obviously wouldnt work. How do I make it just go row by row and write down the very obvious year?
chooky
28d ago
I don't think you are completely wrong about Story of a New Name, which was mostly just a continuation of MBF. But I found book 3 and, especially, 4 to be existentially gripping and, the latter, devastating.
chooky
1mo ago
The centrist opinion seems like it should just be that both Israel and Palestine suck. Normies seem like they wouldn't have much of an opinion either way and just default to pro-Israel.
chooky
1mo ago
Sure, but my guess of what grade that teacher would give other essays of similar quality is based on what I think the essay deserves. In my opinion, it is for sure not a passing essay, which is why I disagree with other commenters' guess of an approximately 60 for essays of similar quality. (And I would argue that my standards are possibly too low given that LLMs can definitely, trivially spit out at least an 85 for this assignment.)
chooky
1mo ago
I think D is quite generous for that essay, even for a low tier state school. It is occasionally nonsensical and essentially never gets past rambling. For an essay of this length, this os very damning. I have read a lot of high schoolers' writing, and this is not very good for high school. Yes, probably not a 0, but the range of numbers is more like 30-40, not 60-70.
chooky
1mo ago
Piranesi is a totally different genre than Norrell. Though the latter is also good, it is more of a tome like Neal Stephenson novels.
If you want more like Piranesi, I would strongly recommend Madeline Miller's novels based on Homeric classics.
chooky
1mo ago
Ermm, also, the whole racism thing. Surely it is not controversial to suggest that part of the reason for a well-to-do white family on TV's ability to have a maid is that this maid is almost always black.
chooky
1mo ago
But coffeemaking technology, winemaking, etc, have not changed that much. You might not have your aeropress, but a sufficiently motivated person (not very much!) could very easily make great pourover or even cappucino in the 50s, use a garden or farmer friend to supply great ingredients for classical french cooking, etc. Camping gear, miuntain bikes, etc, might not be as light or as good as today, but many natural areas were potentially much better in the 50s.
chooky
1mo ago
Good point on the Biblical Ruth, but that is supposed to mean friendship or friend, right? I think "ruthless" has to be a slant of "rue-less". Surely we dont have people out there naming their kids "Regret" as a desired virtue! (Well, actually maybe Hunger Games fans...)
chooky
1mo ago
Hmm, I do think that "to rate" implies accuracy, even if a rating does not necessarily imply the same, perhaps a controversial take in performance review season, but I think of that as "giving ratings" rather than "rating".
But then this gives us the prefix issue of that it being clear that an undercooked dish has not been cooked enough and that an overcooked dish has been cooked too much, a common sense application of over/under. What, then, does it mean to do insufficient/excessive accurate assessment? (Since this was all still very common sense with cook, perhaps over/under are just not good prefixes for us to do this with at all.)
chooky
1mo ago
"Rate" seems to me like it is indeed used as you describe. Someone's accoplishments can "rate", or properly deserve, praise. A work of art can be "rated highly". There are plenty of industries in which saying that someone's job is to rate, or grade or assess, quality or purity would be perfectly logical.
I believe that "rueful" is both the true antonym for "ruthless" (not scrupulous) and actually a word for which the suffix change is fairly normal. Not sure why this one is slightly irregular... "faithful" exists, as does "shoeless", so the problem would appear to be with "ruthless". Perhaps "rueless" is just too wimpy a collection of sounds for this idea.
For abuse, I have always thought of it being the opposite of disabuse in that an abused person's thought process, etc, is being abused by incorrect notions. Thus, to disabuse is to free someone from a figurative abuser.
A fun example to add to the list (possibly) is inchoate, which means not fully formed. Apparently, lawyers do use the implied antonym choate, but Scalia has long criticized this because the "in" here is not in fact a negative prefix, so creating the implied antonym is nonsenical. Personally, I have always thought of coalesced as a good opposite. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/law_dictionaries_accept_choate_although_scalia_has_long_disagreed
chooky
1mo ago
It is kind of hard to continue with these duties in the context of modern economies. Setting aside how realistic it is for middle class/working class families to have only a single income, male physical superiority doesn't necessarily mean much from an earning power perspective anymore. Why must the male be the one that takes on responsibility/authority?
chooky
1mo ago
Could you adjust the weight classes for women's baseline higher body fat percentage?
chooky
1mo ago
How does one start a high ability career at age 30 after spending one's 20s having babies instead of going to school or building skills? This seems pretty impractical and unlikely, though I do not doubt there are various individual cases of women bootstrapping themselves into a high-achieving technical career after close to a decade of childrearing.
Presuming that compensation follows ability, shouldn't we just expect high ability people to be able to afford nannies and so forth? Why wouldn't we look at policy such as expanded EITC for kids that would make it more affordable for careerwomen to have bigger families?
chooky
1mo ago
How could Snoke possibly become a threatening bad guy in the absence of, lol, having Palpatine somehow return earlier? Having a half-bit Palpatine was a huge mistake; the First Order should have been some combination of a) overwhelming military resources and b) stupid Dark Witches bullshit trying to regain the Force as an advantage. Snoke is a horribly bad villain from the bottom up.
Another big problem with TLJ is that most of the non-Jedi stuff (Rose, etc) is just incredibly cringe.
I do agree that this is somewhat interesting as meta commentary in TLJ: everyone is stuck trying to rehash the original trilogy, characters and fans alike. But the movie doesn't do enough with it, and, worst of all, RoS fatally ignores the critique made by TLJ instead of transcending it, which dooms both movies' critical value.
chooky
1mo ago
An obvious lesson here is that you just go fix things without asking or telling anyone. There is a bridge at a park near me that I re-decked one day because it was rotting and I use it all the time. But god don't ever send an email asking about it first if fixing it is something you are willing to consider!
I think this works in business too. No, do not go coordinate a monthslong marketing campaign with the idiots in marketing or let them have any input; just implement the feature that makes clients' lives better (assuming you are competent enough for this to indeed be the case). Seeking approval is just the opposite of a Cover Your Ass paper trail.
chooky
2mo ago
Let's presume you are a Fed employee and have several weeks or even months of savings. A shut down happens. You dont go to work until it's over. Once it is over, you receive backpay for the time you didnt have to go to work. Since you work for the government, you dont really put in overtime to catch back up (at least I think this part is true).
Why should federal employees be a big source of shutdown opposition?
The Motte discourse is also missing the possibility of considering both to be bad shoots, with a potential argument being that LEOs escalate to lethal force far too quickly. (In the case of Babbitt, for example, surely tear gas and tasers could be reasonably expected by a rioter to come before lead bullets.)
More options
Context Copy link