• 0 Posts
  • 1.24K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 11th, 2023

help-circle

  • How many people could one cop realistically know?

    Presumably somewhere around Dunbar’s number (or some other number with a similar goal likely calculated in a better way), which is wildly unrealistic from a practical perspective.

    What problem would this “knowing people” actually solve?

    They likely believe that police that are “members of the community” are much less likely to react based on vague heuristics built up over time because they are more likely to directly know the people involved and thus be less likely to need to rely on a snap judgement of strangers. It’s right up there with “maybe we should train them better”, except training is several orders of magnitude more manageable from a practical standpoint than having more law enforcement per capita than Bible belt small towns have churches per capita.




  • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgtoScience Memes@mander.xyzWhat Refutes Science...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    AI’s primary use case so far is to further concentrate wealth with the wealthy,

    Under capitalism, everything further concentrates wealth with the wealthy because the wealthy are best able to capitalize on anything. Wealth gives you the means to better pursue further wealth.

    and to replace employees.

    So what you’re saying is that we need to dismantle every piece of automation and go back to manufacturing everything by hand with the most basic hand tools possible? Because that will maximize the number of people needed to be employed to produce, well, anything. Anything else is using technology to replace employees.

    Or is it just that now we’re talking about people working office jobs they thought were automation-proof getting partially automated that’s made automation a bad thing?




  • They don’t want to ban divorce because even in their worst case they want to be able to leave their wives. But doing something like requiring fault or making it so whoever files can’t receive anything more than a split of assets gained during the marriage would suit all their purposes better than banning divorce outright.




  • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgto196@lemmy.worldRule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    The cost must be negligible compared to the total costs of imprisonment.

    Yeah, but a for-profit prison doesn’t want to pay that extra cost if they can avoid it. Kinda like how in a lot of states there’s a constant tug of war between Medicaid and Corrections over who is responsible for which medical treatment for which inmates. Not just for trans stuff, but for everything.


  • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgto196@lemmy.worldRule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Here, I’ll do it for you - the Bible contains instructions for a ritual in which if a man believes his pregnant wife was unfaithful and the child is not his the priest can mix a potion from bitter water and dust from the floor of the temple and administer it. If she was unfaithful then by the power of God her pregnancy will terminate. If it doesn’t, this is unquestionable proof of paternity from God himself. This is often described as proof the Bible contains directions for abortion, despite the method of action being divine intervention and it only working in cases of infidelity.

    In any context other than trying to argue for abortion against members of Abrahamic faiths, the same passages would be used as an example of Biblical misogyny and punishing women for having sex.







  • You don’t need personal genomics to broadly do better than simply lumping everyone in one bucket. Various ethnic/racial groups have been mostly reproductively isolated from each other for most of history, which means certain things are significantly more common in some groups than others, which means you can get more effective use of resources by targeting things like screening and prevention at groups where the disease is more likely.

    Personal genomics would let you target even more closely, but using race or family history is just estimating genomics by proxy.

    For example, sickle cell and black folks, or cystic fibrosis and white folks, or maple syrup urine disease and the Amish or methemoglobinemia and one family from eastern Kentucky.



  • This is pretty disingenuous, the vast majority of sickle cell cases are non-hispanic blacks. Hispanics and whites also get sickle cell. If you’re grouping all those ethnicities in there, you might as well include whites too.

    It’s genetic. It’s more prevalent in some populations than others because sickle cell also makes one resistant to malaria, so the more common malaria has been somewhere historically, the more likely people descended from there are to have sickle cell.

    Like how people of European descent are more likely to be resistant to the Black Death. Turns out diseases that kill lots of people apply significant selection pressure and those changes don’t vanish quickly unless they cause a problem that would prevent breeding in successive generations.