> He said he was asked to waive his rights and when he asked police whether he needed an attorney they said no because they were only asking a few questions. He signed the waiver thinking he was going to help, but a few questions turned into a nearly nine-hour interrogation
How is it we are able to legally "waive rights"? That should be addressed - under no circumstances should a not-yet-convicted person ever be stripped of rights. Voluntarily or not. Otherwise, what are they?
Sure, someone can choose to not exercise them; maybe cooperate with the police, but if at any point they choose they should be available.
They're not being stripped of their rights; they're acknowledging that what they're about to say can be used against them.
Waiving rights is common in American law. Open source licenses waive the right to sue; the third-party doctrine waives the right to privacy of the data that companies take. To some extent, liability releases for participating in dangerous activities waive the right to hold the company you're paying responsible -- think climbing guides, race tracks, sky diving outfits, etc. But from what my non-lawyer self understands, there are some rights you can't waive, like the right to sue over gross negligence.
In this case, it sounds like that waiver was used more as an intimidation tactic to make the suspect believe that they were stuck there and couldn't decide to stop talking. Which... That sounds like something you'd get a lawyer for to help explain the situation.
You have the right to remain silent. You also have the right not to remain silent. Talking after a Miranda warning is taken as a clear waiving of that right to remain silent. You can, of course, stop talking at any time, but they're not going to re-Marandize you after every sentence.
> No signature on paper can force you to keep talking in police custody. You can stop talking at any time, regardless of what you signed.
Cops are very persuasive when they want to get an answer out of you. Say, they arrest you for whatever, and they can just threaten you to remain in custody for a day... no matter if your pet is alone at home and needs to be fed, or your children need to be picked up from school. Sure, you may call a lawyer to arrange for stuff, but we'll keep your house's keys as evidence...
The freedom to not say anything is utterly depending on circumstances allowing you to do so.
> It's a simple matter, therefore, to calculate the CO2 and financial cross over point for a heat pump vs. a furnace. I did that calculation when I had one installed in my house (for ductless AC; heating is an added bonus). It's somewhere between about -5 or -10 C, if I recall correctly.
How can I do this? I know my heat pump can only maintain (not raise) my house temp at 36F/2C. But I have yet to figure out at what temp it is cheaper to run my natural gas furnace. I suspect ~40F/5C but that is just a guess (see my comment on parent)
The manual for mine just gives two COP values: 3.63 at 47F, and 2.44 at 17F. That puts the cutoff for me at 30F, which is absolutely as cold as it ever gets in the bay area, so I only have the heat pump.
I don't :/ I do have a smart home setup but it is local-only. I think I am capturing most of the data I need.
I know when my HVAC is running. I know how much power it is using. I know the temperature of every room, I have a stat outside so I have realtime temp/humidity of my location...I just don't have a way to capture and record how much heat is being generated. I'm wondering if putting a temperature sensor directly on an air vent would let me capture it over time
This is borderline a tangent, but I think manufactures should be required to provide data regarding efficiency at specific temperatures. We moved into a house with a heat pump almost 2 years ago. For the most part it is great, but I noticed that in cold(ish) temps it can't keep up. I'm not talking single digits temperatures.
I called the manufacturer and asked for data about my model. They refused to give it to me because I wasn't an authorized installer.
It took me a long time and many sensors and calculations later but I have learned that below 36F it can't pull heat fast enough to raise the temperature of my house. The house doesn't get colder - that is the "break even" point. To be fair, it was installed in 2010 and I'm sure it was good for its time.
Why can't they just provide a spec that says how much heat/kw can be created at given temps? Even in steps like 10, 20, 30, 40 etc... I think that would go a long way to debunk the myth
> This is borderline a tangent, but I think manufactures should be required to provide data regarding efficiency at specific temperatures.
These are available, and there are standards for EnergyStar approval and for being able to call yourself a "cold climate" air source heat pump (ccASHP):
Mine isn't listed. My takeaway is that it isn't rated for cold climates. For what it is worth, I know the HSPF rating is 8.8 but I don't know at what temperature that is calculated at.
Sounds like it was undersized for your house (unless your doing something crazy like trying to hold 80+). FWIW I was able to get efficiency charts and such at various temperatures from my salesperson, but I gather most don't bother. He was pretty surprised when I asked about them and more surprised when I took the time to (kind of) understand them, which was a huge pain in the ass. I certainly understand why most people would pay attention to the SEER values and just let the salesperson size the thing.
> Sounds like it was undersized for your house (unless your doing something crazy like trying to hold 80+).
It was set to 69 and held steady at 67 running for 8.5 hours. It wasn't until the temperature outside broke 36 that the inside temp slowly started to climb. It is a 3ton system for a 2500sqft home. From what I have read it should be enough. I think the problem is that it is an older heat pump and just doesn't perform well below 35.
> FWIW I was able to get efficiency charts and such at various temperatures from my salesperson, but I gather most don't bother.
I think this is my point? This was here when I moved it. I shouldn't have to go to a salesperson. I should be able to look it up in the specs or even the manual. At a minimum the manufacturer should provide it when asked.
> It was set to 69 and held steady at 67 running for 8.5 hours. It wasn't until the temperature outside broke 36 that the inside temp slowly started to climb.
This may be normal. Standard practice, per ASHRAE, is to design for 99% of days, and for the remaining 1% (~4 days per year) the system may have to run 24/7 (either for heating or cooling):
This allows for equipment that is "right-sized", as issues can arise (including premature death of equipment from short-cycling) if they are oversized:
I live in the pacific northwest. Winter are low 30s at night for 3 months out of the year :( Granted, highs are mid-high 40s so it works fine during the day 90% of the time
If the unit is sized correctly for the appropriate climate, then its broken. There's no reason the system cant deal with 0C, the COP should still be well above 1.
Get the refrigerant level checked by someone that didn't install the system.
For what its worth this is why I don't like to rely on heat pumps. Furnaces are really primitive, simple devices: little more than a heat exchanger and a blower. A heat pump has a hermetically sealed volatile liquid undergoing phase changes by a compressor with seals.
They're cool. They're efficient. They're great.., but they're also far more complicated and we're living in an era of cheaply built consumer goods
I'm considering it. I have an energy audit scheduled next week. Depending on what they find I may consider buying something new. This one is 13 years old and I'm sure they've improved a lot since it was installed.
Heat pumps are over a century old; 13 years ago had great heat pumps. They didn't have fancy motor drives ("inverter technology"), but they probably had better refrigerants (we keep banning them).
You system is old, though, and the coolant might have leaked. Or it was never properly installed to begin with.
No joke, I bought and returned 4 microwaves before I found one that doesn't. I'm picky, and finally found one that does a quick double "beeep beeep" and is done.
Oh, I have a Panasonic NN-GD38 that only beeps once. Sometimes I forget my food in the microwave because of it though. It's the best microwave I've ever had (also the first time I've ever spent so much on one).
Not OP, but most LG microwaves allow to turn sounds off with a special button combination. Even though my model's manual doesn't mention it, I could guess it from other manuals and YT videos.
Ha! I didn't know he had adhd. I watched one video of his last week and ever since my feed is all adhd stuff. I was so confused, but now it makes sense.
I feel like no one on the planet understands how YouTube recommendations work. the same for Large Language Models.
YouTube keeps a watch history of every user. users can clean up their view of their watch history, but YouTube keeps it all.
if you watch any particular video, YouTube will start suggesting videos watched by other people who watched the video you just watched. YouTube does not know or care what the subject of the videos are. it only knows that people who watched a given video also watched these other videos.
there is ZERO intelligence, here.
if you want the ADHD recommendations to go away, remove any from your watch history.
your view of your own watch history (the list you can remove videos from) is what sets recommendations for you.
I think the broken assumption is that they make these decisions on the granularity of a channel rather than a video. A channel like Dave Plummer that talks about multiple topics (tech and neurodiversity) gets neurodiversity suggestions even if that's not the video you've watched within the channel.
I assume some followers watch only the tech, others watch only the neurodiversity topics, and some watch both.
You could have a recommendation engine that works in almost exactly the same way as Google's that suffers less from this problem.
The effect of that is what people are referring to here. How is one supposed to know a tech-based video they watched once is the reason for videos made by someone else entirely on the topic of ADHD being recommended. No one is going to make that connection and clean up their watch history accordingly. Additionally tying recommendations to watch history maybe needs a step removed. What if I like to see the history of everything I watched without it affecting my recommendations?
A few months ago I must’ve been digging into settings and turned off watch history as I get only a blank page with no recommendations. I don’t discover content as much as I used to but it’s been a good change for me - just seeing updates from the channels I subscribe. Stumbling across content is left to sites like HN or other communities.
Current AI buzztalk is that we don't know exactly what intelligence is, so we can't possibly know if The Algorithm™ is exhibiting zero intelligence, or if it has somehow gained sentience while we aren't looking and is slowly manipulating us into eternal servitude to it.
Worse is that things land in your watch history simply because your mouse hovered over a video on the page and it auto-played, even if it was only a fraction of a second of play time.
In fairness to the algorithm, Autism, ADHD, and OCD have significant core presentation overlap, and often get talked about in the same spaces online. There's probably a high relation in their searches for the topics.
Doesn't stop the Youtube algorithm from easily being the worst of the major social media sites though.
Are you guys sure that the algorithm’s goal isn’t to shove down your throat a slightly related topic to make you exposed to it, in case you’ll like it? There are a few interests of mine which I found after clicking some recommended video after resisting it for a month.
The "algorithm" isn't some simple KNN. It has many people working on it, so by now it should at least grasp the difference between two topics that are similar and two topics that are the same.
Isn't there the same chance that any domain has that chance? I'm struggling to see how Slackstatus.com is any safer than status.slack.com. Genuinely curious - I'm not trying to start an argument:)
A change that is capable of bringing down slack.com will probably take down status.slack.com too. Whereas slackstatus.com would (hopefully) be more isolated from such failures.
It's true that your overall chance of failure is now higher, what you really don't want is for both to be down at the same time.
Not necessary true. As long as status.slack.com is it's own separate A record, as long as you don't change the DNS Zone for slack.com, they are pretty much separate. Now, if they use a WildCard SSL for *slack.com and that goes down, then yeah. But other than that, having it on a sub domain shouldn't be a major issue. Also, I'd much more trust the status.slack.com subdomain than slackstatus.com, which might be some 3rd party thing.
You can use the Godot engine to build apps. It has a very similar drag/drop UI. Double click for events, and gdscript is very easy to pickup. Reminds me of VB everytime I use it
One thing I'll add - or maybe it expands on too technical of a leader - is when a brilliant outside hire is brought in to fill the arch/principal/whatever role.
Then they start looking at the app and questioning every decision calling everything they don't have context on "technical debt"
I've seen it a few times. I told a new VP of Eng he was being asinine because he wasn't there for the original problem, decision, or timeline and saying we made a bad call is just showing ignorance.
Thankfully, He pulled me aside later to thank me and asked for more background on it. After hearing the whole story he agreed. We did the right thing.
Now, that could have gone the other way. And I've seen it happen. When it does, it sucks.
It sounds like the VP Eng was actually a great leader if he could take feedback like that in stride and admit when he was wrong. Bad leaders would have dug in their heels and sidelined the person with abrasive feedback (you).
Absolutely. My point is that it doesn't always go that way. He had his faults, but he could take string feedback. If I recall, he said something to the effect of "not many people speak to me like that. I forget how helpful it is to be challenged"
Also, wow, that took some courage. Personally, I deeply value this way of direct communication when everybody feels free to speak up when things go wrong, and nobody has precious egos they feel need protecting.
Sometimes it goes the other way around. New people hired from bigger company, advocating for solutions that are known to work if painful to start, opposed by "old guard" who finds nothing bad in their hundreds of SSH windows with root logins into machines and where the "technical debt" is actually reaching the point where it will result in losing important clients through a legal statute impacting said technical debt
How is it we are able to legally "waive rights"? That should be addressed - under no circumstances should a not-yet-convicted person ever be stripped of rights. Voluntarily or not. Otherwise, what are they?
Sure, someone can choose to not exercise them; maybe cooperate with the police, but if at any point they choose they should be available.
Am I missing something?