The problem here seems to be that the person was unwilling or unable to ask for help when they needed it, not that they don't know math per se.
I don't know how to do that either, but "winging it" is not something that would occur to me. First I'd Google it and try to figure it out. If it turns out to be nontrivial, I would just ask for help.
And I wouldn't feel the least bit bad about it. After all, those same highly educated folks need my help with e.g. git a lot more often than most software needs serious math :)
No, that's not the problem, as you yourself admit in the false dichotomy you constructed in the second line of your post.
The problem is that, in your own words, they took days to fail to solve the problem. If they Googled the solution, and so it took them 30 or even 60 minutes to solve it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If they asked their colleagues for help right away, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Unless this particular role is going to be predominantly circuit design -- in which case I do have to wonder how this person got hired in the first place -- this is simply a stupid criterion to select on.
I would rather pay the engineer who knows how to solve problems even when they don't already know the answer, first and foremost. Beyond that, I would much rather pay the engineer who has practical, hands-on knowledge, that they don't teach in school. How to use git effectively, as already mentioned. How to debug production issues. What actions are and aren't safe to perform on a production server. What facilities the OS offers to get information about one's own process and the system itself. How different valid-on-paper approaches might actually play out in real life. When it's worth pursuing an exciting new technology, and when it probably won't be. Oh and of course, what new and updated technologies exist since your guy graduated Electronics 101 a decade or two ago in the first place.
While it does not come up in interviews, it does seem to come up during resume filtering. (Plenty of jobs I'm otherwise easily qualified for that I didn't get contacted for, even back when basically having a pulse and knowing code could get you any job you wanted.)
This shouldn't be hard to understand. Don't talk to the police, without your attorney present, under any circumstances whatsoever.
Dating the police is just such an astoundingly egregious violation of this principle that I can only wonder what, if anything, those people are thinking.
Anyway, the key takeaway seems to don't date anyone who dates the police. Firstly, because it directly puts your own safety at risk, as this article exemplifies. Secondly, because it demonstrates terrible judgment; it seems reasonable to assume they are likely to make other terrible decisions in the future.
> Dating the police is just such an astoundingly egregious violation of this principle
There are still quite a few people who think the police are the friendly government-provided customer service agents of life, although I've watched this viewpoint decline markedly over the last twenty years at least.
Locally, a woman went on a hiking date with a Phoenix cop and wound up dead [0]. Notably, the woman was from New England, while the cop was local and absolutely should have known better how dangerous conditions would be. The police, of course, investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong.
A female high on meth gets disoriented and dies from heat exposure in the mountains. As per article she willingly separated from the guy whom she sent to the top of the peak "to continue to get pic for social media". He probably should have know better and just go down with her and call it a day, or not getting high on meth in dangerous environment in the first place but thats about it.
Unless you have a better article on that, that really ain't evidence of anything.
A trained police officer leaves his obviously high (police can always tell even on first contact and from far away, right?) and exhausted hiking partner to return alone, with no water, in blazing heat, on an unfamiliar trail, to eventually die alone.
She had low levels of amphetamines in her blood, consistent with her Adderall prescription. The only one bringing up meth is you. The guy was on the Brady list and the department never investigated his involvement.
Regardless, the point is that cops are very rarely models of good decision making or representatives of safety anymore. They shouldn't have access to blanket surveillance.
Meth and amphetamine are very different drugs, but a bootlicker wouldn't know the difference. She could also have been spiked and left to die by the cop, can't really know without a proper investigation, which the police never subject themselves to.
They are different drugs in the sense that methamphetamine will cause more serotonin release and will act longer than amphetamine, but they will both cause increase in blood pressure, increase heart rate and increase internal temperature. The rest of your comment is right though.
They are equally legal in the US (Schedule II). Label will usually say something like "Methamphetamine, generic for Desoxyn." It is, however, much harder to find a doctor that will give you a prescription as compared to other stimulants, and some pharmacies will refuse to fill it.
Believe it or not, marijuana (since 2018 only strains containing significant levels of delta-9 THC) is illegal in the US in almost all circumstances, but methamphetamine is legal with a prescription.
I mean, yeah. Their point is that the substances are extremely chemically similar to the point where they can be treated as different intensities of the same drug.
Yeah that is what I was getting at in my first reply. Amphetamine is a party drug, meth is what junkies on the street use. The guy I responded to said meth, which carries a lot more stigma, and together with all the other negatively charged statements he made is just abhorrent, basically calling her a junkie that deserved to die.
Her source of trust was instagram. The cop’s instagram led her to travel to Arizona and be with him. She was convinced by his instagram that she agreed to do all of this. That’s really dumb and it’s what you get playing stupid games with strangers on the internet.
I dont think systemic patterns are sufficient to prove universal truths? Yes, some cops beat their wives, some abuse their power, some murder people.
None of that by itself means I should judge a given cop, let all of them, or not talk to them.
Replace "cop" with "black" or "white" and you see how absurd this binary thinking is.
The actual world operates on scales of grey.
There are a million cops in the USA. Some are good and some are bad. Dont talk to cops if you are holding drugs. Do talk to cops if someone is breaking into your house or sexually abusing your child.
Well, I mean, Phoenix PD was under federal investigation for years. Maricopa was found to be violating civil rights for years, Sheriff Arpaio was famous on HN for years for using police against his political adversaries. And on and on and on. I realize that when I don't write an essay there will be latitude for interpretation (which I generally find interesting), but there will always be one HN commenter who takes a pejorative reductionist approach despite the site guidelines.
So no, obviously, woman goes on date with a cop and ends up dead isn't evidence of all cops being of a particular demeanor, any more than a police chief misusing a camera is evidence of cameras being bad for freedom. But Flock cameras are bad for freedom, having a huge potential for misuse. And cops have a huge propensity for domestic violence and dangerous behavior towards their partners. Ample evidence exists if you care to look.
"Don't talk to the police, without your attorney present, under any circumstances whatsoever."
Oh but I did. Multiple times, without a lawyer ever, how shocking:
"Hey, my bicycle was stolen, I need to file it so I get insurance payout"
"Hey, this demonstration and the roadblock of yours for guarding it, will it be around for much longer?"
"Hey, nice weather, isn't it?"
(Misdirecting small talk, while they were searching for drugs on the road to a festival, but then didn't really check me)
"Yes I know I have to have a light with a bicycle, but the battery went out and it was a emergency now to go anyway"
(Did not had to pay a fine)
And countless other examples like this.
Also more serious ones.
"Yes, it was those neonazis who beat up my friend"
So .. I never cared much for this online advice, but then again I also don't live in the US. Maybe there they shoot and arrest anyone approaching them on general principle?
Well in my world, that was actually shaped a lot by anarchistic anti establishment people, I found that one can talk to cops as inhuman cops, then they will act like one, or you talk to them as humans and might be surprised that they reply as humans.
That doesn't mean, that there ain't lots of assholes on a power trip in uniforms, but the "never talk to them advice" assumes they all are. And this is just wrong and act as a self fullfilling prophecy.
I'm referring to things like the UK's right to remain silent, where the Miranda-style warning is:
> You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
Basically, your alibi is considered much less credible if your first mention of it is at trial.
And when people say "the government" on HN they arent usually talking about every government or even a world government. Frequently, its a specific government. The US one.
Internet experts, also here on HN, tried to convince me otherwise.
Also no, in the drug search example I just wanted to be left alone (and not have them find the small bag of weed). So I answered, but talked about harmless things.
This is an extremely online belief. Oak Park, IL, the inner-ring suburb of Chicago where I live, is almost certainly one of the 10 most progressive and left-leaning municipalities in the country. Oak Parkers (not me) have the opposite concern: we're below our threshold number of sworn officers, and desperate to add more. The median Oak Parker has very positive views of the police (and also all the standard progressive concerns about abuses.)
Lots of political beliefs are like this! There are plenty of things people believe very strongly, and get near universal reinforcement on in their communities, that don't survive contact with actual living grass. The median American has an extraordinarily high opinion of Amazon, for instance, something you'd never know unless you sought out polling (or, you know, took a walk down a residential block and looked at the stoops.)
Correct: "never talk to the police" is a very online belief. I watch people talk to police all the time. People go out of their way to do it.
I don't even know what to do with the "never date police officers" thing. Most police officers are married. It's a shift-work job, so they have high divorce rates, but they just remarry.
> I don't even know what to do with the "never date police officers" thing. Most police officers are married. It's a shift-work job, so they have high divorce rates, but they just remarry.
They have also unusually high domestic violence rates. That is where the bit comes from.
This is first time I have seen the claim that firefighters have the same domestic violence rates as police. I have seen multiple studies on police vs regular citizens and police were more violent in all of them. I did not seen comparable numbers about firefighters.
The factors police have and firemen dont are a.) victim not being able to go to police, cause those are his buddies b.) training teaches cops to take and keep charge (escalating aggression until compliance is acquired).
The question in my mind is what people are expecting? What do they think this proves? Policing is a conflict focused job that involves violence so I wouldnt expect it to be the same as baseline to begin with.
I would caution against "just so" explainations. There are obviously lots of complex reasons and one can speculate a lot of stories one way or another.
> Policing is a conflict focused job that involves violence
Because of this, police officers should have plenty of experience (and training, but let's limit this to the US) with de-escalation and proportional response. The domestic violence rates should be lower among police wrt the general populace for that reason alone.
Police arent just trained to de-escalate. They are also trained to kill humans.
This too has an influence who becomes a cop. You cant just cherry pick the factors you think would lead to lower DV and ignore the others.
do you mean they should be lower as a normative claim or postive claim? It is clearly flase as a positive claim, if the police domestic violence studies done in the 90's are still accurate.
Saying never talk to the police is an 'online belief' is frankly baffling.
There are multiple examples of prominent law professors bringing in ex-police professionals who all say the exact same thing: never talk to the police. If you spend five minutes around a lawyer they will say the same thing. If you ever end up finding yourself in legal turmoil it is the very first thing a lawyer will directly advise you to do.
People being stupid I don't think suddenly makes this advice terminally online. I was hearing it, in person, when I was in college over a decade ago.
Most people simply don't see themselves as being in zero-sum contests with the police. If you are in such a contest, those videos you've watched are quite useful and important. But when there's a hit and run on your block, expect your neighbors to go out of their way to volunteer information to the police.
I've read threads here where people have made impassioned arguments that you yourself should never volunteer information to the police investigating a crime such as a hit and run. The police will turn it against you and somehow make you the target of their investigation! Ordinary people out in the world do not think that way, and you will not succeed in making them think that way by showing them videos of lawyers explaining why the only thing you should ever say is "I do not consent to any searches and will not answer any of your questions".
If you said that to a police officer doing a canvass in my neighborhood, people would look at you like a space alien.
I think it's helpful to understand all this stuff when reading things about Flock. People on HN and in activist communities seem gobsmacked that all the Flock cameras haven't been taken down yet (in fact: ALPR deployments are growing, not shrinking). But they have wildly different priors about policing than the median resident of a muni with ALPR cameras.
No, but online is where you see this advice being most commonly posted and repeated. Second-most might be in lawyer's offices, but a) most people don't interact with lawyers, especially not in the context of criminal investigations, and b) the lawyers themselves have a distorted view of this system, because they are almost always dealing with people who, for one reason or another, should not talk to the police.
Using "terminally online" for "the advice layers consistently give both online and offline but people don't follow" is, imo, using that term incorrectly. "Terminally online" is derogatory term which involves you doing or thinking something insane. If literal layers give that advice in their literal offices and wherever they go around, it is simply "rarely followed advice".
And I will also claim that layers have way less distorted view of the system then us, people whose view of the system is based on movies and rare cases that hit the news.
I will point out that the original poster did not say "terminally online", but "very online". (oh, and "extremely online"). I don't personally feel that has the same kind of connotations.
Category error. Points can be valid and salient mostly online at the same time.
Though: the validity of "nobody should ever talk to the police" is highly disputable. It assumes the only objective anybody would have in a police encounter is not being prosecuted. Prosecution is unlikely, and there are other important objectives.
No, that's not what it assumes at all. For example, another objective would be avoiding the situation described in the article the rest of us are commenting on.
The context they make these statements is when you are a person of interest to the police, if you are just a witness to an event unrelated to you its different. But people mostly just say 'never' without regard of the situation.
Not that its always benign to do in cases like this, you can easily talk yourself into becoming a person of interest. Especially true if the officer happens to have a 'bad day' or is a bad apple, you can't really tell because the police keeps employing these people. An example I saw a woman went into the station to provide a video from their phone as evidence of some event and ending up getting taken to the ground in the lobby and arrested for resisting arrest or some bullshit. All because the officer tried to snatch the phone out of her hand without saying anything and then used her keeping hold of the phone as a reason for assaulting her.
> The context they make these statements is when you are a person of interest to the police, if you are just a witness to an event unrelated to you its different. But people mostly just say 'never' without regard of the situation.
Not true, the context I have seen it very much included being a witness who is not a person of interest to the police. It especially explicitly included that situation.
> An example I saw a woman went into the station to provide a video from their phone as evidence of some event and ending up getting taken to the ground in the lobby and arrested for resisting arrest or some bullshit. All because the officer tried to snatch the phone out of her hand without saying anything and then used her keeping hold of the phone as a reason for assaulting her.
That is egregious abuse of power. The layers I have in mind were not explicitly mentioning that high level of lawlessness from the police.
>Not true, the context I have seen it very much included being a witness who is not a person of interest to the police. It especially explicitly included that situation.
Even without context, its good advice. By talking to them you might even be confessing to some crime that you didn't even know exist.
>That is egregious abuse of power. The layers I have in mind were not explicitly mentioning that high level of lawlessness from the police.
That's the entire point. This idealized version of the police you seem to have, maybe some European countries come close it due to their requirements on officers and training, is not reality. Departments allow officers that act like this to resign so they can move to a different department.
Surely there's more interesting conversation to be had here than just "your opinions about interacting with law enforcement are moot because I know people in my Chicago neighbourhood who disagree with them."
The main contention seems to be 'surely everyone knows you shouldn't talk to the police' and 'no, quite a lot of people believe the opposite, but it's not as common to see that belief online', with a bit of this being conflated with whether this belief is accurate or not.
I'm not making a normative claim about what your best strategy is to protect yourself from a police investigation, but rather a positive claim about ordinary people's attitudes towards the police, which are not (gesturing towards this thread) this.
I'm not talking about wealthy areas. I'm talking about working class areas, where residents complain (loudly and often) that there aren't enough police. There's a common online meme --- you didn't say it but you can feel it in the air on this thread --- that working class people see themselves in solidarity with people who commit property crime. That idea is really quite offensive, in addition to being dead wrong: in fact, the logic you're using here is much more potent with respect to crime, because working class people can't absorb e.g. the loss of their car with the ease that you and I can.
Complaining about not enough police is still people being unhappy with the police force. I’ve heard people complaining about them eating donuts in such environments, you don’t hear that as much in rich areas because they have plenty of police and you see them everywhere. I remember talking with a friend about how many cops there where and then at the next 4 way intersection and seeing a cop car going in every direction.
Thus the line from poor < working < middle < upper classes with satisfaction generally increasing with wealth.
Okay, but "never talk to the police" is a normative statement, not a descriptive statement, so your contrast of it with a people's attitudes towards police is kind of apples and oranges.
>I don't even know what to do with the "never date police officers" thing. Most police officers are married. It's a shift-work job, so they have high divorce rates, but they just remarry.
This is a deeply masculine take, Zuck would be proud.
Oak Park. Home to Frank Lloyd Wright’s original studio/home and multiple works designed by him? Birthplace and hometown of Ernest Hemingway?
A municipality comparable to Berkeley, California or New Rochelle, New York?
What?
I agree with you that a blanket statement of not talking to the police is ridiculous, but arguing that Oak Park is a good representation outside of affluent America is not to be taken seriously.
Whatever you may think of what OP's buddies were doing, there is no way to apply any reasonable meaning of the word "stealing" to it.
There is indeed plenty murky here, and it is mostly coming from you in an attempt to incorrectly use an emotionally-loaded word in order to deceive people into supporting your position.
> emotionally-loaded word in order to deceive people into supporting your position
That's an entirely colourful way of phrasing it, considering I merely just said what I thought and have experienced, nor do I think I have the capacity to deceive at such a level. That is your opinion, and I accept it.
> Plus, if you don’t like it, reconfigure it. It’s only the default, after all.
Or -- and I know this is crazy but hear me out here -- if you don't like it, and it brings nothing but problems to the table, just don't use it at all.
reply