It sounds like you're trying to shift the legal goalposts of "peaceful" into something more like "inoffensive" or "respectful" or "polite".
For example, you have a First Amendment right to "peacefully" hurl the most awful insults you can think of at a police officer.
If that police officer feels "antagonized"--or even if your goal was to hurt their feelings--that does not permit them to abuse the special power of their workplace to attack you. If they try anyway, now that's a real crime.
P.S.: Supposing you went beyond rude, like violating a noise-ordinance with a megaphone, or "littering" with pamphlets, or trespassing to chain yourself to a tree... The First Amendment bars authorities from going: "Ah hah! Now I can sneak in some punches for that shit you said earlier!"
No, that's simply not allowed to be part of it. There is no crime where "saying stuff that pissed the policeman off" is an enhancing factor. It's difficult, but that's why we pay them the big bucks for a job that's safer than landscaping or bartending or delivering food.
In practice this abuse of authority occurs because we live in an imperfect world... But it's still evil, and we shouldn't accept it or endorse it.
While the rest of your comment is sound, the police do not make "big bucks" by any stretch of the imagination and there's a serious citation needed for the job being less dangerous than the ones you listed. I am pretty sure I have never read multiple news articles like "landscaper shot while sitting in vehicle filling paperwork" or "armed man commits suicide by bartender".
I have numerous friends and acquaintances in this career field. Policing is a dangerous job, just not for everyone all the time on the whole. The barrier to entry is low and highly competitive but the selection process is a suboptimal filter. The pay isn't great compared to so many other things, but it's similar to the military in that qualified people show up and get trained to do the job which leads to an entire career, just without all the big downsides of military life. All these things combined is why bad apples can get into positions of authority and commit abuses.
>Policing is a dangerous job, just not for everyone all the time on the whole
Actually, it doesn't even make the top 25[0]. So no, not really all that dangerous. Being around police, especially with a high melanin content is definitely more dangerous than being police.
To channel George Carlin: "It's not that I don't like the police, I just feel better when they're not around."
Policing is not a particularly dangerous job, police are people with fragile egos.
Cops are violent towards their intimate partners at a rate many many many times typical. Something like 25-40% of cops are abusers.
Sources:
Johnson, L.B. (1991). On the front lines: Police stress and family well-being. Hearing before the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families House of Representatives: 102 Congress First Session May 20 (p. 32-48).
Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.
Neidig, P.H., Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. Police Studies, Vol. 15 (1), p. 30-38.
Feltgen, J. (October, 1996). Domestic violence: When the abuser is a police officer. The Police Chief, p. 42-49.
Lott, L.D. (November, 1995). Deadly secrets: Violence in the police family. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, p. 12-16.
Oehme, K., et al. (2011). Protecting Lives, Careers, and Public Confidence: Florida's efforts to prevent officer-involved domestic violence. Family Court Review 84, 85.
They wear masks in case their political opponents take exception to their actions and hunt them down later and hurt their families.
(This seems like an extremely dubious justification to me, but I've been told on HN that this is the reason that ICE wear masks, so why wouldn't it apply here...?)
No not all women get pregnant, but they generally have the plumbing to do so. My wife and I have tried for years without luck, yet no doctor has ever asked if we tried getting me pregnant instead. Smh
Coloradan with all chipped pets for decades. Not sure where you're coming from. Our friend was reunited with a cat with a chip that was lost for a 6 months. Shitting on the US is great for karma these days
Did your state chip your pet or was it a private company? I think they are saying that there are no centralized authorities and you depend on private companies
Is that a serious question? It works like any contract programming gig. You give the contractor money and in exchange they give you code (including copyright assignment). You can go through a freelancer site like Upwork if you don't know an appropriate contractor yourself.
Right, nobody needs cabinets or doors because... AI. /s
I'm a professional woodworker. One-off tables in a garage might not be a great business, but millwork, built-ins, and cabinetry in homes is a great business. You're likely not exposed to cabinet or architectural woodwork shops that build high-end homes, or that just do renovation for that matter.
A better comparison to Ikea vs Handcraft would be shrinkwrap software vs custom software for companies. With AI, the custom software industry is getting disrupted (if the current trajectory of improvements continue).
In case of woodcraft, there is some tangible result that can be appreciated and displayed as art. In case of custom software, there is no such displayability.
There are still plenty of industries that won't trust AI generated anything unless it's gone over with a fine tooth comb, or maybe not even then. Devs will still have careers there. I'm talking about medical devices, safety critical systems, etc. In any case, I don't even believe AI gen code will get there anytime soon, but if I'm wrong that's okay too.
That’s the point. It used to be something almost everyone bought. Now it’s relegated to high-end luxury. The craft still exists, and you can still do well, but it’s much diminished.
It’s not that nobody needs cabinets or doors. It’s that automation, transportation, and economies of scale have made it much cheaper to produce those things with machines in a factory.
> One-off tables in a garage might not be a great business, but millwork, built-ins, and cabinetry in homes is a great business.
I'd like to see numbers backing that up. My personal impression is that you have a small number of custom woodworkers hustling after an ever smaller number of rich clients. That seems like exactly the same problem.
I've got my doubts, because current AI tech doesn't quite live in the real world.
In the real world something like inventing a meat substitute is thorny problem that must be solved in meatspace, not in math. Anything from not squicking out the customers, to being practical and cheap to produce, to tasting good, to being safe to eat long term.
I mean, maybe some day we'll have a comprehensive model of humans to the point that we can objectively describe the taste of a steak and then calculate whether a given mix and processing of various ingredients will taste close enough, but we're nowhere near that yet.
Taste has nothing to do with it; 'tis is all based on economics and the actual way to stop meat consumption is to simply remove big-ag tax subsidies and other externalized costs of production which are not actually realized by the consumer. A burger would cost more than most can afford and the free market would take care of this problem without additional intervention. Unfortunately, we do not have a free market.
So there's no point in pushing for pasture raised, and it's either all or nothing ?
I think incremental progress is possible. I think rolling back and gag laws would make a positive difference in animal welfare because people would be able to film and show how bad conditions are inside.
I think that's worth pushing for. And it's more realistic than everyone stopping eating meat all at once.
The economics of what you describe are impossible. The entire concept of an idyllic pasture is actual industry propaganda which is not based in objective reality.
People will eventually stop eating meat because it is unsustainable, but unfortunately not without causing a great deal of suffering first, and your comment is an example of why this process is unnecessarily prolonged. It is clear you have not done much research on actual animal welfare based on your "pasture" argument alone. I am even willing to bet you think humans currently outnumber animals, when the reality is so much more troubling.
> I'm not sure what makes you assume that about me.
I'm not sure why you're not sure; the parent comment explained it already: your vision of an idealized pasture is incongruent with reality, namely because the number of animals and resources it would take to materialize and actually sustain such a system defies reason.
This was never a discussion about animal welfare, but about challenging industry-seeded assumptions which were not even being questioned. It is unfortunate this makes you feel threatened and requires a retreat from the conversation, but it is also typical.
Comfortable clothes aren't necessary. Food with flavor isn't necessary... We should all just eat ground up crickets in beige cubicles because of how many unnecessary things we could get rid of. /s
You don't think tradespeople are contientious, intelligent, or productive? That's the whole trouble with this filtering signal. It's bogus and has created elitism around professions that are just as hard if not harder than pushing computer keys.
Would you say all people have the same level of intelligence and conscientiousness? If not, we need _some_ way of saying who is, so that they could be matched to higher complexity jobs. It's far for perfect but it works somewhat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company
reply