Yes, same. In the late 90s through early aughts then I was taught over and over and over again that neural networks were a dead end concept and would never amount to anything.
Just like all the preceding AI booms, this one will hit its maximal point, the hype train will fizzle, the best parts will just become "normal", and then a couple of decades later something new will come to push the boundary again.
Nor do they somehow have contractural agreements with their cities that limit civilian oversight and require that possible crimes by members have to be handled as internal disciplinary issues first.
Structurally this means evidence gathered by internal investigations will often be destroyed and can't be used for possible criminal charges, as well as plenty of time to tighten up stories and close ranks with each other.
"On the spectrum of" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you there. How many teachers have shot someone in their care this year? I'm guessing very few.
Also, "definitely not zero" is an absurd bar. "One teacher did something, better condemn all teachers!"
I hate how our society has just normalized people lying blatantly to our face and still giving the benefit of the doubt. It’s how you see a violent crowd breaking windows and beating people get called a peaceful tour.
No it isn't. Schools are, and by a long way. People are confused by this because most municipalities have multiple taxing bodies; schools and municipalities work from different budgets, and the police are the largest line item in a budget that basically captures only police, fire, and public works.
>>> In a lot of municipalities the highest paid officials will be dominated by police.
>> And the police budget as a whole is often the top line item.
> No it isn't. Schools are, and by a long way.
Where I live municipalities do not run schools, rather it is the province. My municipality breaks out fire and paramedic separately.
Smaller municipalities or regions (~counties) may 'contract out' to the provincial (~state) police for a local detachment, but would have a line item for such payment.
Right. The point is that people fixate on the percentage of the budget "police" take up, but that budget is specialized. When a county, multi-muni school district, or state provides the schools, you're still paying taxes for it, they just don't show up in the same spreadsheet.
You almost always want to be looking at the total tax breakdown for your area, which will almost always include multiple taxing bodies. Where we are, "village" (police, fire, public works, permits, customer service), "township" (human services like elder care and youth programs), "library", "parks", "K8 schools", and "high school" are all separate taxing bodies, along with "county", "state", and... "water reclamation".
But if you just add everything up, police is something like 14% of the budget, and schools are over 2/3rds.
My mother and step-father were both state cops. They put in about 30 years each, but could have retired after 20 years in. They make more in retirement than my wife and I do. It pays quite well, but it comes with significant risks.
But fewer risks than people make it out to be. When people publish the lists of riskiest occupations based on health data, on the job injury data, etc police officers generally wind up around #20 +/-. Meanwhile there are occupations that are much lower paid ahead of them.
At least in my state the actually high risk portion of their job…dealing with traffic collisions on the highway…is being outsourced to non police “hero units”
Tells me we can change what police are and aren’t responsible for, and it is telling which ones they want to drop and which ones they don’t.
Incidentally, that's a big part of the argument behind "defund the police" (which is poorly named, at best). Instead of having police do everything, almost none of which they have any training in, and making any situation potentially lethal just by virtue of them having guns, there should be specialized units for their various responsibilities.
Where I live this has also created a secondary debate. Due to union laws, when these jobs are handed off to non-police, the municipality must still pay the prevailing wage, aka what the cops were getting paid.
Here it's required to have a police detail at every road based construction site. They get paid overtime to sit there playing candy crush in case maybe something happens requiring them to direct traffic. So it seems like a win-win to replace them with citizen flaggers as it'd remove the cops from that role but also drastically lower cost to the city. But no, it'd mean taking what should be a minimum wage job and paying someone $50-100+/hr to do it.
And then the secondary debate is that some people see this as a bad thing and others see it as a good thing.
There are lots of ways to quantify or record "risk"?
Risk of death?
Risk of injury? How much injury? I've had paper cuts recorded as workplace injuries, I've also had to get stitches after bleeding profusely, are both equally recorded as risk incidents?
What about the risk of getting shot? Just the risk, will I get shot today, has a physiological impact, is that risk recorded?
What about the risk of moral injury? The potential that you're hurt in your soul, because you failed, and someone got injured or hurt?
What about the risk of infectious disease or transmission from needles, blades or bodily fluids?
Police may be a safer job than forestry from a death risk, but there are many risks for police.
I am not sure why some people seem to hate the police so much that downplaying the risks police face. I used to sell drugs and the police were my adversary, but I don't hate them as much as people who have never been arrested. It's very strange. Who do the cop haters call when thieves are breaking into their home with guns?
> Who do the cop haters call when thieves are breaking into their home with guns?
For one thing it doesn't happen that much in the first place. In 2024 the rate was 229.4 per 100k in the USA [1] And yet this always gets cited as some reason to keep the police around. These sorts of threats that people cite are exceedingly rare, and yet used to fuel a vision of the world that's one of requiring constantly vigilance and paranoia.
Also, my mom's house was burglarized, unknown if they had guns. After that, she got a home alarm.
My mom moved do a different part of the city, and her home was broken into at night while she was asleep. The home invaders continued as the home alarm was going off, and only stopped when a group of male neighbors started shouting at them. Presumably the criminals had weapons to conduct their home invasion.
In Toronto if you call the police because of armed home invasion, you’re connected to an AI that decides whether to escalate to a human operator. But if you do get connected they’re not going to show up anytime soon.
The advice given by Toronto police is to leave your car keys out by your front door so that armed home invaders can get what they came for with ease. The police don’t show up to protect you and your property. They also don’t want to risk their own safety around armed invaders.
It is really high, but it's high because cops interact with traffic a lot, not because of criminals or guns or whatever. Real life isn't CSI Miami, cops are mostly sitting in cars. You'll notice crossing guard is much higher up the list, for the same reason.
What are the risks? Even among public employees I'd imagine firefighters are in dangerous situations more often. The data doesn't show that policing is an especially high-risk profession. EDIT: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48095469
Pizza delivery drivers face about twice as much risk of on the job injuries via violence when compared to cops. Also twice as much risk of fatal injuries. This mythos the US has with cops does not match reality.
Police aren't in the top 10 of most dangerous professions in the USA[1], and when they are injured, it's overwhelmingly the result of traffic accidents.
The irony is that the municipalities that pay the most are typically the lowest risk. The most dangerous thing they will do is pull someone over on the side of the highway. Sure, not exactly safe, but also not exactly gunning it out with the bad guys.
> somehow all the 3d MMOs seemed to downgrade a lot of the interesting
Unfortunately two things turned out to be true:
1) Most people don't want any of this and prefer to be on rails
2) The two groups of people most attracted to a game like this wind up in a dynamic where one group will leave the game if the other is present. Whereas the 2nd group requires the 1st to want to play.
The “rails” thing is very much the gist of it. Don’t get me wrong, I think classic WoW is probably one of the best games ever made, but after it came out, nobody wanted the raw experience of early online worlds anymore. Which is just life I guess.
Yep. After I stopped UO I took a break for a few years and picked up WoW after it had already settled in for a bit. I was surprised how on rails it was. Get a quest? Well my UI plugin tells me exactly what to go. Add *any* sort of mystery or nondeterminism? People whine.
This is also where I first started seeing people focusing on "end game", although it may have existed in EQ. The actual sandbox-ish game was just a warmup you blasted through in order to get to the "real game". Meanwhile I ran around solo and just explored, and did whatever weird thing I wanted.
I never got to the endgame but I solo-levelled a couple of characters in a slow pace in classic wow (pre-tbc) and it was mind blowing. The world is so well crafted, the lore, the art design, it is just fantastic. I guess if we have to be on rails at least they did it well.
At a high level, that. And of course that requires a certain ratio of predator vs prey. And there were way too many would be predators.
Both groups self-identify as wanting a "real" experience in a sandbox that lets them "do anything". However one means this allows them to slaughter people with impunity whereas the other means it enables them to explore the world, choose their own occupation, define their own goals, etc. It's not even a PVP vs PVE divide, as there are plenty of PVPers in the 2nd group. Instead it's closer to "Griefers" vs "Sandbox game enthusiasts", where the griefer crowed requires prey to feed their urges.
So what happens is the griefer oriented crowd chases away the other crowd, then has no one to grief and then they leave too. You'll see it in comments here as many posters were, shall we say, not super mature 25+ years ago :) they'll be pining for the days about how they could kill everyone, steal their stuff, loot their houses, and otherwise cause problems.
One of the issues with the game was that while those behaviors were intentionally allowed, the designers didn't account for the kind of player who *only* wanted to do that and generally were obnoxious about it to boot instead of trying to massage it into the lore/RP of the game. So the scale was all off.
The one thing about that era that has always seemed unique is that for people who lived it, a few years was a very big deal. Even now that I'm much older, talking to people in my age range it still blows my mind how different people's life experiences were just due to be 2-3 years different in age.
Especially for anything tech oriented.
Talk to people who were computer science majors in the 90s, you'll find that their curriculum varied wildly depending on exactly what years they were there. a 2-3 year difference could be huge.
Same is true for how they experienced the internet, interacted with media, whether or not they were mobile native or landline native, and so much more.
Less tech oriented but the 90s had an enormous shift in terms of corporate culture. The people who were a few years older than me reported wearing suits to work. By the time I went off to be a corpo, it was usually casual wear, not even business casual. For the same types of roles & companies!
There were ones before that, my mom had one. Apple added polish and used a capacitive touchscreen instead of a resistive one, then amped up the hype in their commercials, so everyone forgot these existed.
Possibly a Palm Treo, introduced in 2002, or a Windows-based PocketPC, introduced in 2000.
I always felt that Apple basically reimplemented PalmOS with the benefit of ~10 years newer technology and a wildly efficient Chinese supply chain.
I definitely wouldn't say that these devices were mainstream. They were very much targeted toward business people and hardcore nerds. The iPhone definitely revolutionized the market, with its vastly more desirable aesthetic and approachable interface.
It may have been a 2005 phone or something. I think it was a Nokia, Motorola, or Samsung phone (our whole family was on those at the time), but whatever it was it had just about the complete form factor and an app store - mostly a screen with a grid of apps on home, with a couple of buttons at the bottom (more Android than iPhone). Maybe it had a slide-out keyboard? Can't remember that part for sure.
It's funny, being someone who was terminally online then and now, back then I had immediate access to orders of magnitude more information than I did a few years prior as well as a normal person. These days the amount of information I can pull at the drop of a hat is so much more than back then it is mind boggling. Also a normal person isn't that much different in capability vs a terminally online person such as myself.
Yes, and that imo kind of cheapens the whole effect of it. We're witnessing something similar now with genAI and slop people produce with it. First few moments it was wow, look at all of this and now it's noise.
There is no reasonable metric by which one can claim US software devs are hard up I think is the point being made.
Everyone would like to make more but I was interpreting this thread as suggesting a us dev whining that as a field they’re being mistreated comes off a bit gauche
Chan Zuckerberg Institute doesn't produce much actual research it's mostly fancy dinners, global travel for congresses and conferences and big opulent parties. They actually got in trouble in the building with the landlord for too many parties, there was a problem drunken individuals peeing in the hallways when they had Justin Bieber and other celebs on site (seriously).
Just like all the preceding AI booms, this one will hit its maximal point, the hype train will fizzle, the best parts will just become "normal", and then a couple of decades later something new will come to push the boundary again.
reply