So hypothetical question, let's say an officer shoots someone and assume they are 100% in the right, if the family brings a wrongful death lawsuit against the city what would it cost to litigate that case to completion?

I say this because settling out of court is super common simply because the cost of litigation is often way more expensive than the actual amount of relief the plaintiff is looking for. To use the case of the 300 in the Bronx, trying hundreds of civil rights cases would cost the city hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars per case, so it's way cheaper just to pay everyone out $21,500 and move on.

Eh that's not really what I mean, the vast majority of murder is the result of interpersonal violence (i.e. you've wronged me therefore I'm going to use violence to punish you), rather than resource violence or mass violence. If you're in a social circle where violence is an acceptable means of solving conflicts, then the probability of having violence used against you goes up exponentially, if you don't associate with people that use violence, then you'll basically never see it.

Population density really only affects resource violence, which is fairly minimal & consistent to begin with.

Criminal activity is very "social", most people won't commit crimes spontaneously but if you're associated with people who do then people can be encouraged to do so. Essentially if you don't know anyone who's been shot, the probability you'll be shot yourself starts to approach zero.

The one time I was fired I did get a 2 weeks warning from my employer so I could close out my work and my benefits rolled over for an extra month.

From your APA source:

As in many areas of science, some researchers disagree about the validity of the studies on physical punishment. Robert Larzelere, PhD, an Oklahoma State University professor who studies parental discipline, was a member of the APA task force who issued his own minority report because he disagreed with the scientific basis of the task force recommendations. While he agrees that parents should reduce their use of physical punishment, he says most of the cited studies are correlational and don’t show a causal link between physical punishment and long-term negative effects for children.

“The studies do not discriminate well between non-abusive and overly severe types of corporal punishment,” Larzelere says. “You get worse outcomes from corporal punishment than from alternative disciplinary techniques only when it is used more severely or as the primary discipline tactic.”

In a meta-analysis of 26 studies, Larzelere and a colleague found that an approach they described as “conditional spanking” led to greater reductions in child defiance or anti-social behavior than 10 of 13 alternative discipline techniques, including reasoning, removal of privileges and time out (Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2005). Larzelere defines conditional spanking as a disciplinary technique for 2- to 6-year-old children in which parents use two open-handed swats on the buttocks only after the child has defied milder discipline such as time out.

I have a very good friend who trains working dogs, and the above method sounds very much like his approach to nipping dogs. The purpose of a small electric shock is not retribution, it's to force a break in concentration. A beagle on the scent of a rabbit is a very special kind of focus, and sometimes they just don't listen to commands so the electric shock is only used after verbal commands and warning tones have failed. To me this is exactly how my parents raised me, when I was disrespectful a warning was given, and if I continued to press the issue the threat was acted upon.

As far as I can tell, this is how the real world works, people will only have so much tolerance for verbal abuse before they will solve their problems with physical violence, and the reason you're seeing the rise of the Karen is because this lesson was not instilled in them as a child. Getting licked by your parents for disrespectful behavior is a lot better of a place to learn that your words have physical consequences than getting beat down by an underpaid & overworked Amazon Employee.

I'm not convinced that'll have the effect you expect it to, and as contradictory as it sounds it seems more likely to me that children that grow up without corporal punishment are simultaneously more likely to be excessively cruel and victimized themselves as adults.

>it’s not like people can reasonably say ‘Sorry sir, I didn’t know I couldn’t punch her.’

>Or ‘Sorry sir, I fell over and my fist fell into her face.’

Technically under common law that's battery, not assault. Assault is the crime of making someone reasonably believe that they are at risk of harm, so for example throwing a rock at someone is still assault even if it doesn't actually hit them. The reason assault is charged more often than battery is simply because it's easier to prove.

I don't believe people are truly "anti-gun", what anti-gun people truly believe is that only they should be able to control firearms. This might seem like a contradiction, as anti-gun people don't own firearms, but the reality is that they're wealthy enough to simply outsource their violence rather than carry it out themselves, and their virtue comes from that degree of separation between themselves and the poor or disenfranchised they suppress.

>I suspect these people hear “bias” in machine learning and presume it’s a pejorative. It’s not; models trained by humans (“supervised machine learning”) are “biased” with their experience intentionally. Training models isn’t some Klan rally to go after people, at least not in my experience.

This is exactly it. This reminds me of a project my thesis advisor did where they were looking at retention rates and trying to limit freshman dropouts. One of the best predictors of dropping out they found was that people who self-identifyed as black or mixed race, and as a result anyone who entered the university who identified as black or mixed-race was automatically placed in a sort of academic probation.

Under this program dropout rates went down pretty substantially, but once the student body found out about it they protested and the statistics department could no longer use demographics data for identifying students at risk of dropping out. However, once they couldn't use that data dropout rates went back up again, so you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I work in data science and I have absolutely zero idea how you'd actually implement this? Granted NLP isn't my forte but other than adding a bunch of words that potentially identify someone's demographics in your stop-word list I don't see what else you could really do without undermining the integrity of the technique.

I'm curious how you arrived there?

What's an "accidental murder"? That's a bit of an oxymoron, don't ya think? Do you mean negligent manslaughter?

I just want the city to get off their ass and finish my carry license.

I'm curious what you take issue with?

Based on a 5 year national average the lifetime victimization rate for violent crime in the United States is about 40%, meaning that you have about a 40% of being the victim of aggregated assault, armed robbery, or sexual assault at least once in your lifetime.

With that you have two options, your first option is to do nothing and hope you're in the 60% that's never victimized, or if you're unlucky enough to find yourself in that 40% you forfeit and hope you can live with the consequences.

The other option is to make preparations beforehand as to minimize the consequences if you're in that 40%. That's not to say that it's all a guarantee, you can still lose, but probabilities of a positive outcome go up significantly when the victim is both armed & competent. The downside is preparation has a significant cost attached in terms of both time & money, which is all a waste in hindsight if you find yourself in that 60%.

We make these sorts of decisions all the time. Never attending a first aid class is free and requires zero effort, but if grandma happens to have a heart attack at Christmas dinner you have no ability to influence the outcome. On the other hand you can spend your entire life investing in a 401k to die in you 50s and never actually use that money. So it's ultimately up to you to decide what sort of risks you're willing to take...

This guy gets armed police protection 24/7 but I'm almost two years into waiting for my premise permit and the state of NY keeps trying to deny the Bruen decision, so I can pack sand I guess...

>I recently discovered that Asians that exhibit "Asian Flush" when drinking are at a higher risk of alcohol related cancers. When I told my doctor this he said "oh wow, did not know that".

Honestly these sorts of studies are a dime a dozen and in most cases aren't repeatable. You can find a study on pretty much anything from soup to nuts that says it causes cancer. Many positions in academia require a constant stream of publications that results in bad experimental design & p-hacking. In fact it's estimated that almost 50% of all published research is wrong.

If you're happy with your current care provided by your doctor I wouldn't worry about it.

Say the average person who died from COVID-19 was 50 years old and lost about 25 years of life, that 25 million years of lost potential. By comparison the US population is about 360 million, and effectively lost a year of our lives from 2020 through 2021, thats 360 million years of lost potential. Which was worse in the grand scheme of things?