This would be terrible — as written, the bill would also ban red light and speeding cameras. These are some of our most effective tools for traffic law enforcement; for instance, speeding cameras in NYC resulted in a 94% (!!!) reduction in speeding where they're installed [1].
I want to see Flock banned as much as the next person, but we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
Funny, I have exactly the opposite point of view. I hate the red light and speeding cameras because they catch normal people who don’t bother hiding their license plates (or have license plates at all). And I don’t mind Flock and its ilk for catching more serious criminals. Basically I’m optimizing for the 90% case. Law abiding drivers who make the occasional mistake when driving.
The problem is that a private company holds onto the data forever. Then the government can ask the private company for that data without a warrant. With the number of Flock cameras (I'm upset at how many have popped up near me), it's turning into a record of all of your movements. And that record lasts forever and can be queries at any time.
You mentioned "more serious crimes", but what about the case where LEOs in Texas track women who go to get an abortion in another state? Or police officers who stalk their exes? Or an oppressive government that wants to know who went to a protest? Once the tool exists you can't assume it's only going to be used in a way you like.
In the US, there are around 40k deaths from motor vehicle crashes per year [1]. Who do you think is behind the wheel for most of those?
The point of these cameras is not to "catch" people speeding or running red lights, but to prevent them from doing it in the first place; the idea is that normal law abiding drivers are more likely to drive carefully if they are likely to be fined for their mistakes. Optimizing for the 90% case would mean supporting their rollout.
> I hate the red light and speeding cameras because they catch normal people who don’t bother hiding their license plates (or have license plates at all).
The same cameras could also alert the police down the road about a car with unreadable or missing license plates.
There is zero chance this happens. Chuy Garcia is already out the door; this is his last term. This is purely performative; the only reason it's surviving on the front page (where "proposed legislation" is by longstanding precedent off-topic) is because Wired wrote a whole clickbait story about it.
Garcia's own municipality, with a progressive mayor, vehemently disagrees with this proposed amendment. So does the blue state he represents.
In "programmatic" code, declaring two classes with the same name in the same namespace is generally either some sort of syntax error or one will "shadow" the other; it doesn't just silently merge the behavior of both classes.
TypeScript interfaces just merge. You can aet any property name you like on a plain JS object, at any time.
The CSS version is a risk, for sure. The dev tools in all the main browsers will tell you where the extension happens and show yiu the order the complecting rules are applied, so it’s fairly easy to debug. Bugs/misbehaving code is usually a problem of structure. In other languages, we take on the need to apply structure; just do the same with CSS.
The mechanism that allows this merging behavior is the means by which intentional reuse is composed. It allows yiu to set general and specific rules sets. This seems conceptually similar to OO classes and subclasses, to me.
The author isn't taking an individual quote and extrapolating to a group/ethos, he's observing a group/ethos and choosing a broadly representative quote therefrom.
"No, he's observing individuals from a group/ethnos and then extrapolating their quotes to the whole of the group/ethnos. You shall not extrapolate when dealing with people, you know."
You would have needed the round-trip network request anyway to get the new images, no?
The lack of Firefox support isn't a big deal because this is a progressive enhancement. Firefox users will still be able to switch icon sizes; they just won't see the fancy transition.
> You would have needed the round-trip network request anyway to get the new images, no?
It'd be a shared round trip request for all images (so long as you aren't still using HTTP/1.1) in the 1st example vs a request for the immediate images and then a separate page load.
Both have their upsides/downsides depending on the rest of the page and how users usually use it.
I don't think you need to go that deep. This technology is literally dehumanizing: it's replacing individual human aspects of someone's voice with a computer-generated facsimile.
By that same argument, taken naively, film and video are dehumanizing, but not deplorably so: certainly the intensity of emotion and experience through film is far less present than say immersive theater, but we may be more comfortable with this modality, and also, benefit from the economies of scale.
Similarly, a call center worker may not care about having their accent being heard, but wants to get their numbers up, without struggling with a customer that isn't familiar with their accent, and enjoys the ease of speaking in their own accent than having to use one that distant customers are accustomed to. Likewise a customer probably just wants their problem fixed, without the effort of getting accustomed to an accent that they rarely encounter. This meets your definition of deplorable, but analogous to the former scenario, perhaps not deplorably so.
Maybe you're passing the sentence incorrectly. Could be, "They found software about making drugs/explosives, pornography about making drugs/explosives, and articles about making drugs/explosives".
> An individual's susceptibility to a vice is an individual problem.
Maybe if you're Tom Hanks in Castaway. In real life, people contract lung damage from secondhand smoke; homes are mortgaged to fund gambling habits; families are destroyed by drunk drivers.
That's not to say that people can't partake in their vices responsibly. But the idea that any harms are limited to the person with the problem is just not true.
Sure, there isn't a silver bullet that magically prevents all possible harm while also imposing no burden or inconvenience. The basis of my view is that the non-existence of such a framework is a terrible reason to have no protective framework at all.
1. Gives the person more opportunities to reconsider.
2. Gives loved ones more opportunities to notice what's happening and intervene.
There's a world of difference between refinancing your home by visiting a bank several times over a period of a few weeks and refinancing your home by tapping a few buttons on your phone.
The difference convenience makes to the rate of making errors in judgement is actually so obvious that even military equipment will have additional steps you have to take to enable lethal weapons/eject/etc.
In general, I can. In LaGuardia? Aside from right after 9/11 and during COVID-19 when almost all commercial travel stopped, I cannot.
I don't think people saying this stuff quite understand how busy LGA is even at night. I'd even go as far as to say that three minimum on duty with two in the tower at all times (for a ground/air split), would be the bare minimum for any hour or situation at LGA.
It does quiet down eventually. There's no scheduled departures 22:55-5:45 and only a handful of arrivals 23:59-6:45.
However, arrivals stay pretty heavy right up until 23:59 even on schedule and if you've got a lot of delayed flights (not exactly uncommon at LGA) - you may still have a lot of departures going out in the 23:00 hour.
I would not be surprised to learn that they're staffed to an appropriate level for what the schedule says is supposed to be operating at that time, but a very inadequate level for what actually winds up operating at that time on many days.
Initial analysis suggests they were running about 75% of full capacity in flight ops in the 15min prior to the accident. I doubt they were staffed to 75% of the daytime peak.
When the airport is closed, in case there was an emergency that needed to reroute. One person on then makes sense?
La Guardia appears to handle 400 flights a day, 22 an hour. I see 6 moving planes right now (https://www.flightradar24.com/airport/lga); hopefully they have more than one person on?
400 flights a day is 16-17 per hour and those are going to be mostly during the day. As someone else points out there is a ~6 hour stretch overnight with no scheduled departures. That's somewhat common even at large hubs.
I don't want to blow your mind but if the airport closes there aren't going to be any controllers in the tower.
I accounted for 'closed' hours. Hence 22/h. The incident in question was close to closing time, but there were 2 issues, one a declared emergency.
Likely, the problem was with truck 1 wishing to get to the emergency quickly. There was at least one queued landing hence the go-around demand after the crash.
It doesn't blow my mind, but at a major air hub like LGA I'm surprised there isn't a controller on site for callout?
Is he? I can see the number of hours worked as evidence of a shortage, but prima facie it is not obvious that a single controller handling both ground and air is evidence of a 'shortage' if it is routinely considered feasible in the industry. It could just be an efficiency choice for low-traffic times. Based on some googling since I'm not an expert it seems this is called 'position combining' in the US and is pretty routine across the world. Therefore, if this is a problem the primary cause cannot be US policy because non-US airports also do this thing.
While searching I did find this other document where a GC (LC appears to be Local Control for local air traffic and GC is ground control) controller complains about combining due to short-staffing https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=19837915&Fi...
Well, it'll be an interesting report from the NTSB at least.
An obvious issue is going to be that while it's supposed to be a lower-traffic time, if you've had delays cascading down the day - it may not be in reality. If the staffing doesn't adjust for delays shifting the time of flights, it would probably often leave you with an overworked controller.
Looking at the normal schedules - if all is on schedule there'd be no departures in the 23:00 hour but you'd still have the arrivals side running pretty heavily. However, once you factor in things not being on schedule, as they evidently were not on that night, you get:
----------
The 15min before the accident had 14 flight operations (per Juan Browne/blancolirio going through the ADSB playback). And that's in marginal weather and at night, which makes things more complicated.
That is 75% of the official maximum capacity of the airport - during the main part of the day where there's government-imposed caps on flights, it's capped at 74 operations per hour or about 18.5 per 15min.
As such, it seems apparent that you would need just as much staffing (or at least 75% as much) at that time to safely handle the traffic volume that was occurring that night as you did in the main part of the day.
Unless the normal staffing here was just 2 people, it seems clear that 1 is inadequate.
I want to see Flock banned as much as the next person, but we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
[1] https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pr2025/nyc-dot-speed-camer...
reply