> And the research was out there! Does everybody only read this single Harvard literature review? Does nobody read journals, or other meta studies, or anything? Did the researchers from other institutions whose research was criticized not make any fuss?
They did. But Ancel Keys, one of the bribed researchers, author of the infamous seven countries study that laid the groundwork against fat made it his life’s mission to discredit anyone who researched sugar. He effectively made the topic academic suicide. His primary target, that served as a warning example for others was his contemporary in the U.K. John Yudkin.
I agree. It's objectively nonsense with regards to AirPods and Apple Watches in particular. Both are extremely dominant in their respective categories for many years at this point. Objectively, Apple is not alienating its "long-time customers". Someone raging about his perceived wastefulness of AirPods is out of touch with the vast majority of people.
But people love to rage and be enraged on the internet. So anyone pointing the vacuity of the enraged is downvoted and cast aside.
America is founded on the principle of human selfishness. People are selfish, so let’s harness it instead of pretending that people are utopian selfless creatures.
More recently, selfishness has taken second seat to hurting the “other” (whatever other happens to be) even to the detriment of one’s own self interests. America is not built for this.
Maybe you don’t understand the role of the BLS or what it does. Maybe you’ve been sold a bill of goods that it is supposed to be an infallible oracle, when it is, in fact, a useful measurement device with limitations that have been well known for decades.
One more app to replace basic social etiquette and community that seem to be inexorably dissolving thanks to people too preoccupied with their screens.
Someday we'll figure out how to program computers to behave deterministically so that they can complement our human abilities rather than badly impersonate them.
> Lots of informative comments in the thread about how carrying with a chambered round reduces the time and complexity to getting a shot off.
This information should be kept in mind whenever anyone, especially a gun advocate, expresses dismay at the frequency of police shootings in America. America is so awash in guns, and people willing to use them, that for the average cop it is better to shoot first and ask questions later than to risk returning home in a body bag. We’ve just been informed that in threatening situations there is no time to chamber a round, but cops are simultaneously supposed to take the time to evaluate the threat to their safety.
> We’ve just been informed that in threatening situations there is no time to chamber a round, but cops are simultaneously supposed to take the time to evaluate the threat to their safety.
I think you have misunderstood the order of operations in a violent encounter. The issue of chambering a round is in light of the fact that you have already identified an immediate violent threat and you need to end that threat. The entire question of carrying chambered/empty is completely separate from threat identification and whether or not a shooting is justified.
You also simply don't appear understand the time scale in which violent altercations and legitimate responses take place. They happen quickly, and so once a threat has been identified you need to remove as many barriers to action as possible. Adding 1/2 to 2 seconds can easily be the difference between life and death after you've already made the judgement about the situation. Again, the issue here isn't whether or not someone has identified a threat but rather how quickly and effectively they can respond after they've identified the threat.
If we want to speak intelligently about use of force and police reform we should avoid conflating unrelated issues (i.e. whether or not an office acted appropriately versus the ability to act properly after a threat has been identified).
These arbitrary distinctions are in your mind. The real world is messy, and there is an algorithmic fallacy at the core of your argument.
You've carefully laid out why carrying a chambered weapon is critical for minimizing the reaction time to a perceived threat. So you've explained why a suspect has his gun chambered. It's anyone's guess when that suspect decides he has "identified an immediate violent threat" in the cop near him. Now the cop, by definition, must identify and respond faster than the suspect pulling out his chambered weapon. That doesn't work well for the cop, and you've optimized away any time for his to reason and react about the situation he's in.
You haven't reasoned about anything you are saying.
> the cop, by definition, must identify and respond faster than the suspect pulling out his chambered weapon
You are correct about what the cop must do here, assuming the suspect pulled a weapon. If that didn't happen, then the cop doesn't necessarily need to do that.
> That doesn't work well for the cop
That is entirely possible (though rare) for a cop. Part of the trade-off of them getting virtually unlimited power to protect others is that potentially saving other people's lives outweighs potentially saving their own lives.
> America is so awash in guns, and people willing to use them, that for the average cop it is better to shoot first and ask questions later than to risk returning home in a body bag.
This is only true in certain circumstances, though it makes a lot of people uncomfortable to discuss.
Yes, cops (should) face higher standards for their behavior and the safety of those around them. That's by design. Supposedly that's why we respect them more than, say, a cashier, but both sides of that deal have broken down.
To me that just sounds like a huge excuse for cops who are rarely ever shot at in real life. The majority of cops never even have a reason to draw or fire their gun their entire career. Being a cop isn't even a very dangerous job, and all but a handful of cop injuries on the job are due to car crashes that they themselves initiated. A random residential framer has a far higher chance of injury and death than cops in even known dangerous and highly criminal areas.
I’m not saying cops are always free of fault, and yes, some are trigger happy goons. But in an environment that affords close to zero reaction time, it is no surprise that cops are trained the way they are, and behave the way they do. Indeed, they are not in danger most of the time. But when they are, they have close to no time to think about it. As a result, it is in the interest of their own well being to assume that all situations are dangerous and to act accordingly.
they don't "go home" in a body bag. they go to the morgue, and to a funeral home, to a grave or an urn. You know about as much about guns as you do about deaths. You are only posting emotionally loaded responses, not actually thinking about a word you say.
That you’ve resorted to quibbling about the literal meaning of a common piece of figurative speech is pretty funny. It also implies you have nothing of substance to actually say on the topic. Instead, you’ve chosen ad-hominem.
you don't even understand the meaning behind your words. you are just parroting phrases about a topic because your tribe said so. they tell you how to think and you just obey, its literally the definition of a religion. a belief without proof.
They did. But Ancel Keys, one of the bribed researchers, author of the infamous seven countries study that laid the groundwork against fat made it his life’s mission to discredit anyone who researched sugar. He effectively made the topic academic suicide. His primary target, that served as a warning example for others was his contemporary in the U.K. John Yudkin.
reply