|
I mean what are the odds of a 28yo rich person being healthy? He must be doing something right.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
If he avoids hazardous chemicals, moisturizes and using sun screen he could look like that well into his late thirties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Evidence, again, that wealth is not being taxed nearly enough. Pretty much everything going on at Silicon Valley is the uber-rich being bored and desperately looking for something that gives the ridiculous returns on investment they expect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 06:02
|
|
|
Honestly not sure if this is a nightmare or a dream come true https://www.vice.com/en/article/93adae/food-delivery-robot-casually-drives-under-police-tape-through-active-crime-scene Food Delivery Robot Casually Drives Under Police Tape, Through Active Crime Scene A delivery robot drove through a suspected active shooter scene at Hollywood High School. The shooting was later determined to be a hoax. quote:A delivery robot in Hollywood said gently caress the police earlier this week, when it decided that no police tape or crime scene would prevent it from delivering food to a customer. Reminds me of that scene in Dog Day Afternoon where the pizza delivery dude brings pies to the bank robbers. Only with robots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
They let the robot through. Imagine what they could have done if they'd had time to coordinate with Uber Eats and the robot delivery company. Like send a bomb or put a flashbang in the delivery port.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
I'm less worried about the robot having a bomb, and more worried about the robot running over a crucial piece of evidence or smearing a dead person's blood down the sidewalk or dropping someone's order of hot wings on top of the victim's corpse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
" In 2016, police in Dallas strapped explosives to a bomb disposal robot, drove it at a suspected mass shooter, then detonated it, killing the man." huh I know 2016 was a crazy year but lol this is first I've heard of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 23:27
|
|
|
1/5 stars. delivery robot was EXTREMELY rude and blew up my ENTIRE porch, killing me instantly
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:" In 2016, police in Dallas strapped explosives to a bomb disposal robot, drove it at a suspected mass shooter, then detonated it, killing the man." Was a mass shooter in Dallas that targeted cops so they got creative
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2022 23:58
|
|
|
Yeah, they're cops, they're not going to put themselves in danger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 07:35
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:" In 2016, police in Dallas strapped explosives to a bomb disposal robot, drove it at a suspected mass shooter, then detonated it, killing the man." lol yup https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/08/485262777/for-the-first-time-police-used-a-bomb-robot-to-kill quote:This was a man that we gave plenty of options to give himself up peacefully and we spent a lot of time talking. He had a choice to come out and we would not harm, or stay in and we would. He picked the latter. They got tired of talking with a person that was holed up, so they just straight up murdered him and went home.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 14:12
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:I don't know about that but the VCs are definitely not left holding the bag a lot of times, like they should.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
NecroBob posted:lol yup Just like the guy couple weeks ago who ended up in a ditch and even though he hadn't committed any crimes the cops wanted him out of the car so bad that they finally just shot him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
I don't think a suspected mass shooter and a guy that wouldn't get out of his car are the same thing. And while suspected is there and he's assumed not guilty (and I'm not condoning using a bomb to kill the dude) it's not the same as a dude that had his hands up with no weapon at all who got shot because of a cop being pissy he won't leave his car which they can goddamn tow with him in it to impound and take the door off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
yeah there's uh a slight level of difference between a person harmlessly having a paranoia episode in their own car, versus a guy who had been in an extended shootout with the cops and had already killed multiple cops and was refusing to surrender while continuing to shoot at cops. its a bit disingenuous to say they just murdered an innocent man with a robot because they got tired of negotiating with him
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
I mean if you're calling the idea of innocent until proven guilty disingenuous I wouldn't know how to respond. "It's time to move the night along" is often associated with cops killing people it seems. I'm aware of the obvious differences, I'm pointing out the similarities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 17:26
|
|
|
Taking two significantly different events, calling them "just like" each other, and then moving the goalposts the moment you get called on it is not the strong argument you seem to think it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I mean if you're calling the idea of innocent until proven guilty disingenuous I wouldn't know how to respond. i very clearly said it was disingenuous to say the cops murdered a holed-up active shooter because they were simply bored of talking to him i cannot control which words in my posts you choose to read or how you choose to interpret them but i am allowed to point out that you did not do it correctly
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Taking two significantly different events, calling them "just like" each other, and then moving the goalposts the moment you get called on it is not the strong argument you seem to think it is. No goalpost moved, you misunderstood where I put it.  Cops choose to kill people when they think it's most convenient regardless of actual danger. This also applies to Uvalde. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:I don't think a suspected mass shooter and a guy that wouldn't get out of his car are the same thing. They're just like each other in that cops murdered someone extra-judicially, where neither were a direct threat and both were assumed innocent. They're not like each other in the crimes they were accused of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 18:21
|
|
|
Wait was the robot guy a direct threat someone said he kept shooting at cops but the post about it said he was just holed up. It's an important distinction
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:They're just like each other in that cops murdered someone extra-judicially, where neither were a direct threat and both were assumed innocent. the guy who was murdered by a robot had been in a constant rolling gunfight with the police for hours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers i get the impulse to reach for some kind of comparison here but you have an entirely non-factual understanding of the events that took place
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
edit: nevermind
Trevor Hale fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Sep 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:the guy who was murdered by a robot had been in a constant rolling gunfight with the police for hours My factual understanding of the matter is that he was not actively shooting people, when they executed him. They were in the middle of negotiations and got tired of waiting, so they decided to murder him for his alleged crimes. It sounds like you may not have a factual understanding of the events that took place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:My factual understanding of the matter is that he was not actively shooting people, when they executed him. They were in the middle of negotiations and got tired of waiting, so they decided to murder him for his alleged crimes. so if an armed, barricaded person who had shot cops and promised to shoot more cops was not in the process of shooting at cops right this second, he was not an active threat? is this like an argument you can actually back up and stick to, because it really seems like you're playing fishmech semantic games with reality to avoid admitting defeat in the arena of online discussion
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:so if an armed, barricaded person who had shot cops and promised to shoot more cops was not in the process of shooting at cops right this second, he was not an active threat? No, he's not. Because him shooting would be him being an active threat. Him negotiating is a de-escalation of that threat. quote:is this like an argument you can actually back up and stick to, because it really seems like you're playing fishmech semantic games with reality to avoid admitting defeat in the arena of online discussion Are you asking me if I think "cops shouldn't be able to kill people because they got tired of waiting" is a real argument outside of semantics? Because, wow. Feel free to continue this in the cop thread, though. It's a bit tangential to the tech thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
Do you think people who shoot at cops should be allowed to give up? I do. Edit- ok yes I'll agree with Jaxyon on letting this lie here. The cops tech nightmare reminded me of other cop nightmares generally but those are not tech nightmares
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
The use-of-force question seems orthogonal to any tech-specific things. Robot delivering a bomb isn't really any different from than if he happened to go near a window and a police sniper shot him
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Do you think people who shoot at cops should be allowed to give up? I do. he like, very much was not giving up though? its not like they didn't give him a chance to surrender, they spent several hours negotiating with him and he refused to do that Jaxyon posted:Feel free to continue this in the cop thread, though. It's a bit tangential to the tech thread. honestly i dont really want to continue this anywhere with you because i think you're doing that thing people do where, when confronted with evidence that disproves their assertion, they simply reject the evidence before them and double down on their unrealistic assertion (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:honestly i dont really want to continue this anywhere with you because i think you're doing that thing people do where, when confronted with evidence that disproves their assertion, they simply reject the evidence before them and double down on their unrealistic assertion What evidence did I reject? If you want to do this, lets do this. My claim: Jaxyon posted:My factual understanding of the matter is that he was not actively shooting people, when they executed him. They were in the middle of negotiations and got tired of waiting, so they decided to murder him for his alleged crimes. Your source: quote:Following the shooting, Johnson fled inside a building on the campus of El Centro College. Police followed him there, and a standoff ensued. In the early hours of July 8, police killed Johnson with a bomb attached to a remote control bomb disposal robot. It was the first time U.S. law enforcement used a robot to kill a suspect.[8] More detail: quote:During negotiations, Johnson repeatedly taunted police by goading them into the hallway and claiming to have placed bombs throughout the city.[18][29] Later searches of downtown Dallas found no evidence of explosives.[9] After several hours of negotations, police determined that Johnson could not be persuaded to surrender[30] and that they could not "wait him out" any longer because he might charge officers in the narrow hallway at any moment, as he had done several times earlier. So, the team began considering several tactical plans to end the standoff.[27] Per your source, the police felt they needed to end the standoff, because they felt the shooter might become an active threat, which he was not currently being. You seem to be OK with them doing that. That's on you. However the facts of the situation support my reading of them, and additionally, I'm pretty comfortable saying the cops executed someone because he killed cops. When someone similarly shot some LAPD officers, they famously went on rampages shooting random people and then burned the house with the suspect to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
Can you take this slapfight to another thread instead of all trying to get the last word before saying you want to drop it and then picking it right back up again?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:because they felt the shooter might become an active threat, which he was not currently being. the core of our disagreement itt is about whether the armed, hostile, barricaded man who continually swore his intention to murder more cops was an active threat or not if he was not physically firing his weapon at the police in this moment, which is a very silly and fishmechian place for a derail to end up imo. the active shooter who exists in a state of quantum superposition i guess
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:the core of our disagreement itt is about whether the armed, hostile, barricaded man who continually swore his intention to murder more cops was an active threat or not if he was not physically firing his weapon at the police in this moment, which is a very silly and fishmechian place for a derail to end up imo. the active shooter who exists in a state of quantum superposition i guess I will answer this in the other thread like I already suggested you continue this there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
Maybe we can discuss how Robocop might have handled it to get us back on track?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Maybe we can discuss how Robocop might have handled it to get us back on track? "They'll derail you. They derail everything."
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 02:28
|
|
|
The details of the venture funding for Adam Neumann's new real estate startup have come out, and it seems like it might not be as foolish a deal as originally thought. https://twitter.com/Anthony/status/1569707631014469632 It seems like Neumann had to hand over some of his real estate empire to his startup Flow, with the result that Anderssen Horowitz now owns stakes in that real estate. If Flow collapses, the investors get the real estate. It's a bit of an unusual arrangement for a startup, but that explains why anyone is giving him a second look at all (aside from general incompetence). Those real estate holdings are probably worth more than Flow itself is. I think the investors are still making a mistake - even WeWork is still around somehow, after all - but it's one that's a bit more understandable. Adam dangled a pretty tempting bait in front of them, and he had to part with a fair chunk of his net worth to do so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
Yeah that sounds like them taking a risk on him with almost no downside to themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
Huh, I thought WeWork crashed and burned once the pricing on office space restabilized with everybody being forced back to work in the office again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
I think WeWork was massively overvalued but the business model was "rent a space long term, resell small portions of that for substantially more than you're paying" and if anything the move to WFH has led to companies establishing more satellite offices in those sorts of locations for people to drop into a couple times a week if they want to. If they owned the buildings they were in it might have been a different story, but owning a building in New York is never a bad idea, you might just need to wait a bit longer for it to start printing money again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Huh, I thought WeWork crashed and burned once the pricing on office space restabilized with everybody being forced back to work in the office again. If you are meaning more recently post-Neumann, I have no idea. If you mean when he was in charge... This oversimplifies things, but what it came down to was that WeWork was constantly buying additional office space and renting it out for dirt cheap via special deals and other incentives just to get said spaces filled and get more investment money. The issue however was that these cheap deals weren't making up for the cost of owning the spaces, much less buying new ones, so they made up the difference with said investment money. Since they kept getting new customers, this meant on-paper they looked like they were bringing in a ton of revenue when in reality, they were losing basically all the money in the world. This then became known when they decided to have their IPO and they had to open their books and everyone realized how much a tirefire the company was in terms of finances. This caused pretty much all VC funding to dry up until WeWork got rid of Neumann, but not before paying him a ridiculous amount of money to just leave.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2022 22:01
|
|
