You can take out a data center in space with an accidental collision of a small runaway satellite. Taking out a data center in the middle of Oregon would be significantly harder and will invite massive retaliation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it disputed, with heavy border tensions and all? I'm not claiming India doesn't control it, and as a Swede I don't know much. But that's about the one thing I thought I knew about Kashmir.
Yes, heavily disputed, to the point that there are widespread campaigns on the internet to normalize the various sovereignty claims under the guise of day-to-day conversation about those locales (e.g. conspicuously referring to them as being "in India" or "in Pakistan" or "in China"). For example, see the Google maps reviews for any landmarks in the area.
I recently took a cave rope climbing technique course, after being comfortable with rope climbing in other disciplines, such as climbing, rope rescue and glacier rescue.
The bolting techniques used in caves are fucking terrifying. They work, but they are terrifying.
I don't understand, if you are not sure about a two bolt anchor, you can always drill more, rock quality is usually very good. Why do you trust, say an ice axe deadman more than expansion bolts?
I'm specifically thinking about using older self-drive bolts, which seem to still be used if they are placed. I have only met people thinking they are acceptable in the caving environment.
And also using temporary bolts as the Coeur 8 mm, which is rated for 2 kN before deformation in the worst direction (and the mechanism of those bolts are more akin to a cam, making them squiggle a lot in the hole, which is safe, but scary. My ice axe don't squiggle).
Obviously you use redundant bolts, and there are much lower forces in SRT than in dynamic falls, but I still think it's scary as hell.
I recently looked up whether it would be worth it to me to install a water meter instead of paying a flat-rate. Apparently the flat rate is calculated on a consumption of avout half a cubic meter per day. But, without a water meter, I can only guess if my consumption is more or less than that. My guess is that it's considerably less though.
I live in California, where half of the state is a desert half is a rainforest. The politicians here like to think that everyone lives in urban desert cities built on fault lines next to pyrophytic forests, so our regulations assume that every household needs earthquake proofing, fire proofing, thick insulation, and major urban planning.
I live in an area where pretty much non of those things matter, but one of the regulations that stands out the most is that the water everywhere has to be metered, even though the reserviour near me regularly has to be drained, because it's to full to make it through the wet season.
My water districts solution was to set the price per unit of water at cost, so I pay $40/mo for insfrastructure, and a dollar or two for water. If I quadrupled my water consumption, I wouldn't even notice the price change. I actually pay more to service the meters than I pay for water.
What you're describing is essentially the exact point system used for traffic infractions in many countries over the world. Driving 10 km/h above the speed limit? No biggie, you pay a fine. Do it three times? We take your license.
No, not "do it three times". "Get fined for it three times." That's the key difference; there's feedback from the system that's supposed to act as a corrective. What's being discussed here would be taking away someone's license sight unseen, with no previous lesser punishment having been administered.
In the U.K. you get points on a license for being caught speeding (and other offence). Typically 3.
Knock 12 points up over 3 years and you lose your license.
The problem is the time it takes from being caught to getting the letter can be a couple of weeks. You could literally go from 0 points to license loss for driving 10 miles on an empty road with changeable speed limits and have no idea until a week or two later when you get 4 letters arrive.
Now until the court takes away your license you’re still allowed to drive, but it gives you no chance to change your behaviour.
That's an imperfection of the system, not a designed feature of it. It's also possible you sometimes go over the speed limit and there are no sensors around to detect that condition.
I mean, if they walked out with a felony amount of stuff the first time the system would have tossed them directly in jail.
I can understand why the stores will do it this way. Each prosecution is very expensive. If you're going to go though the effort with the legal system bring a case that stops the culprit. More so, doing this tends to scare the hell out of people that think they've gotten away with something. Kinda like the thievery version of the Santa Claus song.
"Walmart knows when you are sleeping. Walmart knows when your away, Walmart knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake".
Well, maybe there should be some sort of public registry where this sort of in process evidence would be publicly viable for you and others. Then you could regularly check it.
If the store is going to be tracking this information, it could just as easily show a message to the offender. "Hey, we're on to you. Knock it off, or else." Going straight for the jugular is just rude.
How about stealing is just rude. Theft is terrible. Trying to justify stealing power tools “bec it’s a big corporation” further degrades society and creates a dishonest low-trust culture.
I live in Illinois and look forward to collecting my $2k check for this but the reality is that the only person to blame for the theft is the person committing the theft. The same way we don’t blame women for how they dress or just because someone is trusting that doesn’t make it right to attempt to steal.
If the company prefers to allow the theft to continue as long they get to press charges, instead of taking more immediate measures that would stop the theft outright, such as banning the person (which must be feasible if they're tracking the person by facial features), somehow I don't think it must be having much of an impact. Note that I'm not defending the thieves here. I'm just saying that this approach seems unnecessarily vindictive and not useful to solve the problem which, let's remember, is "people steal", not "thieves go unpunished".
you, I, and probably most people on HN have the privilege of seeing it this way. for others, it's sometimes not a moral question, but a question of survival or at least dignity.
Clearly the system people have voted in has failed to minimize theft as it is left unprosecuted too often. Thus rational and moral actors have to work inside system people voted for. And that is to reach state where crimes are properly prosecuted.
If the state fails to punish a criminal, the suffering is externalised to the rest of society. How is that fair? Why should the moral people put up with that?
If the company chooses to allow the thefts to continue unimpeded, why should it be anyone else's problem? Like, if someone walks into your home, picks up some items from your shelf, makes eye contact with you, and walks off, and you let them keep doing that over time, at some point you're just consenting to it. I think if you tried to sue them after they stole some arbitrary threshold, a judge would be right to ask why you didn't say anything at all, not even a simple "hey, stop that".
This subthread is not about the use of such a technology, but about Home Depot tracking a customer to build a prosecution case over time. So, no, they're not using it to prevent theft, they're using it to punish theft they've allowed.
Stealing from Home Depot doesn’t make you a “sociopathic criminal”. It’s shoplifting, not murder. Besides, people who are stealing building supplies are probably doing it because they’re hard up for money and trying to make more on whatever jobs they have. They’re not stealing some random superfluous consumer goods, they’re just broke and trying to make a little more money.
It’s really not that hard to understand - unless you exist solely in the white collar Silicon Valley bubble and have never known a struggle in your life. The fact that you think they “deserve no sympathy” is straight up creepy. Who are you, Marie Antoinette? Who is the real sociopath here?
This is not helping. You should not make up an enemy that does not exist.
There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment, many of these people are the ones that has led a life of struggle. Go back to the reason of an eye for an eye, it is compelling even if it has been disproven.
> There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment
Then they probably don't find "an eye for an eye" compelling. The whole expression is meant to ensure the punishment fits the crime. Stealing from Home Depot is a pretty minor crime, so should warrant pretty minor punishment.
And it is widely proven that people who are experiencing struggles in life are more likely to turn to crime. Reducing poverty reduces crime. Just because some people struggled and now want to dish out punishments, doesn't make it "sane" nor effective.
It is insanity but the opinion is not a fringe one, and people are not insane just because they differ in opinion. I think everyone agrees that how you comport yourself should have consequences, inaction and action might be equally bad. Finding a suitable consequence is a hard problem because opinions differs so much.
> You should not make up an enemy that does not exist.
Maybe not by that name, but that enemy is classism and it transcends geography. Many people are quick to make extremely serious moral judgements about less fortunate people because they haven't been in that position.
> There are many otherwise "sane" people that like punishment, many of these people are the ones that has led a life of struggle.
There are many people who don't want others to have it easier than they had it, even when the solution is harmless. Many people even endure unnecessary hardship by choice because it allows them to feel morally superior to everyone else. It may feel compelling but it's not right, and it's not beneficial to society.
The difference is that you are informed and penalised each time, rightly giving you the option to change your behaviour. A police officer following a speeder to deliberately have enough offences to take their license immediately would be at least frowned upon in most jurisdictions.
