they can be charged with anything, but there's no way this guy is convicted of murder.
anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention to the hundreds of analogous situations that have been happening to blacks.
literally just look it up, the exact scenario has already played out before. cop gets off. and I mean literally exact scenario - with two cops, one in front, one to the side, driver (black) tries to drive off, front cop shoots and kills the black guy, is convicted, and acquitted. seriously, look it up.
George Zimmerman stalked Treyvon Martin, shot and killed him and was still acquitted. you think this guy is going to be convicted really?
? the chauvin case wasn't the same at all. he choked flyod needlessly for 10 minutes. completely unnecessary and good that chauvin was convicted. I follow these cases since I'm part of a police justice group - I've never seen a case similar to what happened here where the officer was convicted. there's just too much precedent that if a car is going towards you the officer is justified in shooting
if you have an example of a similar situation where the cop is convicted I am very very interested.
Trying to stop a moving vehicle by standing in front of it is a) dumb, b) not what law enforcement is trained to do. It will be argued that it's not the case the officer had no better choice.
You're really missing the point. The volume of cargo carried by sailing vessels in the old days was orders of magnitude lower. Not even remotely comparable to the current global trading system.
Customers care about total cost, not just fuel. There is also crew wages, maintenance, insurance, capital depreciation, etc. Sailing vessels that carry useful amounts of cargo are much slower than equivalent motor vessels so all other costs go up. Fuel is cheap.
> The volume of cargo carried by sailing vessels in the old days was orders of magnitude lower.
Surprisingly, no, it wasn't. I'll slightly fudge the numbers and talk in terms of proportion of world trade that was carried by ocean-going vessels (because if you double the population then it's reasonable to talk about doubling the number of ships).
The world economy was very globalised in 1913. That level of globalisation in trade wasn't matched again until the 1990s.
We're only a little more global now than we were in the age of sail.
The British navy and merchant fleet was a wonder of its era.
Show your work. Without numbers, those are all just assertions. And the assertion that the world's economies were more globalized before WW1 than after the Cold War is particularly dubious.
> You're really missing the point. The volume of cargo carried by sailing vessels in the old days was orders of magnitude lower.
At the end of commercial merchant sailing, the largest steel hulled merchant sailing vessels were about 1/10th the cargo capacity of a modern container ship, but actually pretty comparable in speed, which is limited more by the physics of displacement hulls in the water than the propulsion method.
Historically, sailing ships risked becalming, but that is no longer a risk, with improved weather routing and backup engines that allow them continue at full speed if the wind dies.
Considering that the cost of modern shipping is 50-60% fuel cost alone, and that in principle with modern tech sailing vessels won't require large crews, it is not clear to me that it can't be economically viable nowadays even at the scales already possible a century ago, nor that it would be impossible to develop tech to scale merchant sailing up to modern container ship sizes.
My pet idea is that Western societies should prescribe antibiotics at random to a different tiny fraction of the elderly population each month / year.
People who suffer from unexplained / untreatable diseases like arthritis or MS might get some relief, while there would be an added pressure on the pharma industry to innovate in antibiotic development by accelerating the loss of existing antibiotic efficacy through the evolution of resistance.
Horrible idea antibiotics are not toys and have side effects. Don't use elderly people for experiments when they are the one group least able to handle this.
You want to cause current antibiotics to be less useful so pharma will invest more? Just allow generic versions.
If you want to pressure the pharma industry use laws.
Every major family of antibiotics has generic versions, and that is not resulting in the needed discovery. This is probably because the vast majority of the "investment" required is in compliance with regulations that didn't exist when the currently-widely-used antibiotics were discovered.
Some antibiotics do have a good enough safety profile that such occasional speculative use would be a good tradeoff. Elderly people are also the one group least able to handle infections! Others do not.
I was thinking of things like amox-clav, cefalexin, doxycycline, and azithromycin, and screening the patients for risk factors. Oral antibiotics that are commonly used in empirical therapy (i.e., without cultivating a bacterial culture) and have low risks of dangerous side effects. I suspect that, for example, fluoroquinolones would be less likely to pass the cost/benefit test due to their more serious side effects.
> there would be an added pressure on the pharma industry to innovate in antibiotic development by accelerating the loss of existing antibiotic efficacy through the evolution of resistance
You're joking, right?
Total antibiotic resistance is what we're trying to minimise, remember. You're proposing to achieve that in the long term by making it worse in the short term, but the only way that makes sense is if there is actually an abundance of new antibiotics "out there" waiting to be discovered, and the binding constraint currently limiting their development is that pharmaceutical companies can't be bothered researching them. But that is obviously not true -- steadily growing resistance has raised alarm for decades, and any pharma company that could produce a genuinely new antibiotic today would make immediate bank.
IOW, the incentives are already there and they aren't helping, so why take the extra step of making things deliberately worse?
It's not just ycombinator, it's everywhere on the internet. Too many bootlickers big government & big tech bootlickers not sounding alarms as soon as privacy violations happened is what caused this.
reply