>huge pedo-ring controlling the world's government
Just wait until you realize these pedos are just getting blackmailed into submission and aren't controlling anything but most here probably never will because of the wrong think programming.
>They cut Trump an utterly astonishing amount of slack, much more than they would ever grant to any other politician
Wasn't expecting this kind of political comedy on HN but thanks for the laugh. We talking about the same guy who got politically slandered straight faced for years for a sleazy joke while playing a character on a fictional TV show where actors playing parody and mythical character fake jump on each other from cages and ladders.
>Steam succeeded because of its store, which still has the best prices on the market. That’s their original moat. Their current moat is sunk cost.
Then how come epic games store is not able to get a foothold for years despite offering literally free games? Not even children which are most likely to use it because of Fortnite use it for anything but that. Steam is objectively the better store and game launcher regardless or price or "sunk cost".
Hands on the steering wheel for your and the officers safety until they ask you to do something. It really is not that difficult you can always just ask. Legally speaking a traffic stop means you are detained = follow orders.
They don't know you or what you could be capable off.
While this is certainly pragmatic advice, we should not normalize it for "what ought" to be. It should not be an individual's job to act perfectly (while being assaulted!) to compensate for police officers' (supposed professionals!) inability to remain in control of their emotions and properly judge what is going on. A police officer who is unable to remain in control in such situations should not be doing traffic stops (or really any interaction with the public) in the first place.
(Also there are some mistakes in your framing. For a regular motorist who isn't planning on attacking the police officer, putting your hands on the steering wheel does nothing to effect the officer's safety. We're talking about a point before they've given you any orders beyond signalling you to pull over, so there is nothing to follow. Furthermore they're also generally pointing a bright spot light directly at you, destroying your awareness and ruining your judgement, so it's reasonable to expect that orders are going to be followed sluggishly and imperfectly)
>For a regular motorist who isn't planning on attacking the police officer, putting your hands on the steering wheel does nothing to effect the officer's safety.
It very much does. Cops are humans if they see you know how to behave instead of making there job harder they will notice and appreciate that.
>Furthermore they're also generally pointing a bright spot light directly at you, destroying your awareness and ruining your judgement, so it's reasonable to expect that orders are going to be followed sluggishly and imperfectly)
Only if it's too dark to see, so once again help them to help yourself and turn on the light inside the car. If these simple instructions are too hard to follow you shouldn't be driving in the first place.
> making there job harder they will notice and appreciate that
Their comfort is not safety. Your original claim was that this had something to do with safety.
> these simple instructions
What "instructions" ? You have no authority to issue instructions that others must [0] follow. And if the cop hasn't gotten to the vehicle yet, then they haven't credibly given instructions (orders). So there are no relevant "instructions" here.
The reality is that the police officer is the party aggressing to create a confrontational situation. Therefore they are responsible for managing that situation. This includes not capriciously harming individuals who are acting reasonably but perhaps inconveniently. As I said, if they cannot handle their job of being public servants, then they have no business being in a position of authority over the public in the first place.
[0] "must" being implied by your general position of "[then] you shouldn't be driving in the first place" and the fact that similar "instructions" are often trotted out as a justification after the police kill somebody.
If you do that daily, sure it is easy. But a lot of human behaviour is automatic, based on what we are accustomed to do daily. (During covid there were many videos, where person on the screen says “… also avoid touching your face …”, while touching his/her face)
>a knife (especially via the use of modern equipment) is absolutely possible and can be performed in most cases with training
I want to see you attempt that in real life when someone is within 21 feet. If you watched enough training videos and the literal flood of body camera videos that show even tasers are more often than not infective you would not speak so conveniently about a split second life or death situation.
> I want to see you attempt that in real life when someone is within 21 feet
Sadly I did not film it, but you could have been! I have attended multiple classes during which I had to disarm people with knives and other weird objects. It is absolutely possible with the right circumstances and training, but it's a completely different story when it comes to guns - the element of luck is much more meaningful, as a instructor who was shot quite a few times in their career has pointed out
> You can but you absolutely should not try just because you can in training
For incapable civilians like me - absolutely. But I expect more from police officers than from myself when it comes to non-lethal disarming capabilities
>But I expect more from police officers than from myself when it comes to non-lethal disarming capabilities
It's asinine to expect someone to put there life in danger for little to no benefit just because they are trained for it and there is a chance it might go well instead of certain death.
If someone comes at someone with a knife (which is deadly force), they should expect to be met with equal or more force, this isn't some game with retries. Others don't have to go along your stupid games just because you drag them into them. Play stupid games win stupid prices.
> It's asinine to expect someone to put there life in danger for little to no benefit just because they are trained for it and there is a chance it might go well instead of certain death.
Whether it's asinine or not depends on context. Where I live, it is expected for police officers to protect you with their lives from a lethal threat if necessary, both legally and socially, and failure to commit to that means that you shouldn't be a cop
For the US, I think that the Uvalde shooting revealed a lot about what people actually expect from cops in life threatening situations, never mind what they are legally obligated to do
"Just use the terminal" is somehow simultaneously a defence of windows while being a attack of linux. If I have to engage with the system on a deeper level I rather not do it on the proprietary blackbox with opaque knobs playing whack amole.
It is being taught mandatory in schools a certain way with visits to museums and other historical sites that are being displayed and acted out like a theatrical play all payed by taxes, it is illegal to talk about it any other way, there are annual ceremonies and other events with political leaders paying there tribute.
tell me how that is different from any other religion with customs in staunch religious countries.
Germany has seen one of the most atrocious crimes we know of; an industrialised genocide facilitated by the state, enabled by a whole society.
Everything you try to frame as some perversion of a religion here is an attempt of ensuring the memory of this is being kept alive, even after those responsible and their victims are gone. There is nothing to believe here, because in contrast to religions, this is about preservation of the actual past. It’s provable.
>because in contrast to religions, this is about preservation of the actual past
That is exactly the whole reason for the existence of religion. Passing down history, stories, events, social norms and opinions. I guess this kind of fanatical knee-jerk reaction is to be expected on here.
This is such a ridiculous contrarian take. Religion is rooted in faith, not empirical evidence. It makes metaphysical claims, whereas there are still a few living witnesses of the Third Reich; it answers existential questions, while Holocaust remembrance aims to prevent recurrence.
I do agree that there's a certain amount of ritualism around it, but that doesn't even remotely equate to a religion. Suggesting so also implies whether the Holocaust actually happened is up for debate, or merely indoctrination. Refuting this isn't a knee-jerk reaction, it's annoyance over a shallow dismissal by an edgy arm-chair expert.
samson option
reply