10-25 feet seems reasonable with 25 being the upper bound of reasonability. The average person can move 9-12ft/s in a single direction; starting speed would be slower so generous is 5-6ft/s. 2 seconds worth of distance sounds reasonable to keep everyone safe.
As others have pointed out the issue likely isn't the distance. It's that police can enforce their own measures here without accountability.
10-25 feet isn't reasonable for a no-filming police abuses zone. It can make it crime for someone who is handcuffed and being beaten by police to record what happened to them.
These laws don't make interfering with police a crime, it only makes filming them illegal.
> 10-25 feet isn't reasonable for a no-filming police abuses zone. It can make it crime for someone who is handcuffed and being beaten by police from recording them.
Has that actually been interpreted by a court in that way or are you proposing a hypothetical? Your interpretation makes all dashcams illegal, which makes many Tesla and Toyota cars illegal.
The way I interpreted it was that people who are not part of a scene need to maintain some distance for safety.
---
The legality of filming police is thorny. For instance, a number of states passed laws after LivePD became a thing that barred the filming of traffic stops. That, however, contradicts the abilities of citizen journalists to document traffic stops and interactions.
Personally speaking, I don't want to be filmed during a traffic stop unless its my own footage. When I was arrested and went to jail the police posted my mug shot to every local paper and crime reporting website. It took quite a long time to scrub the internet of all of that once charges were dropped. Footage would be much worse because at one point after my head was driven into the ground I was sobbing. My instance also involved the police roughing me up because they perceived me to be "strong".
Note the words "IF THE PERSON IS NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS"
We've seen example after example of police screaming "stop resisting" while they beat someone who is handcuffed and/or unconscious. By "resisting", those people were "interfering with lawful police actions". They might not have been guilty of anything before the police started beating them, but under this law if they were recording any of it they'd be criminals.
Again, the problem seems to be who the arbiter of safety is. The police being the arbiter seems to be the problem. I don't think we disagree much. That bill carves out reasonable exemptions that become unreasonable when the police are the interpreters.
Uranium and Thorium decomposes into Radium, which themselves are found at 450m but the gas then rises through the Earths crust as it moves. I could see this kind of constant agitation releasing significantly more at least within a radius.
I really wish we'd stop mentioning DORA, which is now owned by Google. DORA employed a man who openly admitted on stage during a conference to beating someone elses child because that child had hit his daughter. He also went on numerous inappropriate rants on Twitter, one that was about a specific homeless woman and, from his perspective, how she had more privilege than some non-homeless groups. There are plenty of other reports of this type available and plenty of people doing great research.
If you're looking for an idea of whose best, I'd say ThoughtWorks is by far one of the most forward looking companies when it comes to determining future trends.
There are a lot of shitty people that work for all the big companies (and many of the small ones). Google has 140,000 employees. I'm sure there are hundreds of assholes among that group.
Microsoft has 220,000 employees, so they probably employ even more assholes. Even the beloved Apple has plenty of shitty people and assholes working for it.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. None of these companies are perfect, they are going to hire talented people that happen to be shitty individuals. It happens. That doesn't make it right, but its real life.
I'm all for judging a company on its merits. But lets judge it based on what they actually do or don't do. If they are doing stuff that's destroying the environment or they are encouraging slave labor or something then let's talk. But because one guy who was an acquihire is an asshole, it doesn't give me enough incentive to boycott a company.
Because _one_ person affiliated with DORA behaved badly we should dismiss their research findings? Does that still sound reasonable to you after being spelled out? I really detest this attitude.
He wasn't just affiliated, but I understand the frustration with the idea to some extent. Yes, it does sound reasonable because at any point in time they could've sat him down for a course correction and helped him learn. This was pretty much his brand as much as I can tell.
How is their handling of a bad apple in any way related to the quality of their research? Should we dismiss all of the good work of scientists because their organisations likely employed a few undesirable people at any given moment? Seems silly to me.
Sure, you all are probably right that unless I care to dig up his now deleted tweets and a recording of that conference that it's not worth saying anything about.
On the note of DORAs quality, I don't think they've ever actually released any datasets. The excuse they give is anonymity but their collection surveys always stated that the surveys are anonymous. It's impossible to determine the quality of their research beyond their own statements.
If you're going to throw around accusations then bring receipts or don't bother. I'm not going to investigate some unnamed man nor do I care that an asshole was employed by DORA. Assholes are employed all over the place.
> I have never used nor worked at an organization that is built on top of Salesforce.
You probably do. Salesforce has all kinds of different products from Slack to Mulesoft and Tableau. Salesforce starts their pipeline by solving one problem, making that work well from a business ROI perspective, and then they pitch you on another and another and another with package pricing. This is basically the Oracle model and how Larry got his blood money.
Benioff started his career at Oracle and was a prodigy there - becoming the youngest ever VP or something like that. It's not surprising if his playbook is inspired by Larry's.
Lived in Melbourne for a bit and was surprised by how much the locals went nuts for it.
Fun sport, fast moving, and it felt like a very three dimensional game compared to US football, which is feels heavily scripted, like running the same tests over and over and over.
Aussie Rules is my favorite of the football sports.
I say this as a mega fan of American Football, Union, and League. Sacrilege, I know.
The scoring opportunities are much higher. The pace is much much faster. There are more players, more umps, more space. The kicks are high, exciting, gotten off in the nick of time, barely making it. Tackles and hit are very big and constant (issues there, I know). The jumping and running are great too.
Imagine those big plays in American Football, the sacks, catches, jukes, etc. They happen every few downs, maybe once a quarter. In Aussie Rules they happen every 5 minutes or so, as the game clock keeps going.
The downsides are the somewhat strange uniforms. That's about it.
> This seems like a question that can be answered with data.
Maybe I've worked at all the wrong companies but in my experience any comp that's based on "data" will be gamed until it's meaningless. There is no "data" because reading impact data is often like reading tea leaves.
Frankly, what I think is going unsaid here is that corporate executives make a disparately large amount compared to the people who do and plan the work. While executives can make a great difference, so can a great manager or a great engineer. I wish we'd see executives as just another role, taking on different tasks rather than something substantively more valuable when it's not, especially in large orgs.
I think most intelligent recognize that it's just a role. The comp really is just a power dynamic where having a bunch of money/power gives you a bunch of leverage to acquire more of it from anybody with less. Organizational, you don't want to hire somebody that could just be taking orders from someone else with more power to be your head.
Nice, I'll check it out. Know some folks who swore by it for their development desktop machine, even if they didn't develop much, they'd just remote into it from the macbook as needed.
fwiw, I'm OP. I use it with 32GiB of RAM and a 1TB M.2 and it's been fantastic for day to day development on two HiDPI screens. The Vega-M graphics card mine came with is also on mainline Linux in terms of driver support.
I've been using systemd for a while, which I'm surmising is what you're referring to when you say controversial, and it's frankly not a diminished experience for someone that wants a consistently working desktop. The amount of things I used to have to hack into my OS were substantial, these days they're nearly nil and applications have common interfaces to plug into.
I'm not sure what, if anything, I materially gave up other than that all of those components have a contracted API now so all future components will need to adhere to that API.
Systemd is a big one, a diminished experience is not the issue, deviance from core unix principles and chasing market share instead of pleasing existing users was the big problem i observed.
For example, OpenRC had comparable boot times as did systemd and it was modern and stuck to the "do one thing" principle. Systemd was chosen because lennart and corporate/rhel people who have influence and a financial interest in expanding market share pushed it. Just like how things are done at apple and microsoft.
There is one group which owns an artificial, government-created construct: the trademark to "UNIX". That is far from the final word on what constitutes a Unix. The social meaning of words goes well beyond whoever owns a government-granted monopoly on them.
OpenGroup manages that social construct, the government stuff is just there to protect against misidentification and encroachment. The standards for Unix, Sockets, and LDAP were all transferred to OpenGroup to manage and they've done so.
A single entity generally doesn't get to manage the meaning of a word. The real meaning is in our collective heads, and Linux is a Unix for most people in the field. Even the ones (like myself) who are fully aware of OpenGroup and the UNIX trademark.
In fact I consider Linux a Unix specifically to annoy the sorts of people who think OpenGroup has the last word on what constitutes a Unix. ACAB.
Agree to an extent. Contractor relationships are abused at many companies, but this is usually the case with mid to low level positions. People who make it through senior ranks and go on to become consultants get treated very differently. The latter is also incredibly lucrative.
Can confirm. Senior consultants are also very valuable to companies because they can say and do things that are necessary but politically taboo within the organisation. - Like pointing out underperforming teams and managers to upper management.
As others have pointed out the issue likely isn't the distance. It's that police can enforce their own measures here without accountability.