I know it wasn't me because I gave up entirely on the service after they changed something about their login systems to reject my password and I could no longer get in. Support wanted me to jump through a lot of hoops and I just refused, choosing instead to just stop doing business there because I wasn't really watching anything at that point anyway.

This was around 2022, mind you, so they tried to renew me after several years with no explanation.

Conversely, I remember mom giving me M&Ms for getting math flash cards right as a small kid. For some reason, I always liked math...

[1] Profitable for me, assuming someone trains their AI on HN comments someday.

The hard part is that I'm not sure any other system really fixes this flaw. Sure, you can be less democratic and give fewer people what they want, but for some reason few people want to live in autocracies of any stripe.

And it's not always clear that there is a solution when the things people want are too diametrically opposed, either. I'm not sure many people would be happy with any of the solutions from "Three Worlds Collide" for example (a short story you can go read online if you don't get the reference).

Imagine an online community where you can only join on the recommendation of two other members, who you must have actually met in person, to participate. Meanwhile, you leave at least some of the activity publicly available to the general public so that interested parties can meet up IRL and join.

This could probably be implemented easily on top of existing online platforms like Discord, Reddit, etc. since it's really just a community building rule, not a community itself.

The passenger of a Waymo can, but not anyone outside it. There's a very prominent "call for help" button on the screen when you get inside.

So I'm loathe to rule out the use of more accurate ways to pinpoint investigations when the status quo is someone who thinks they saw the person at the scene, when we know how unreliable that is.

That feels like throwing out DNA because there are many explanations of why it might be at a crime scene in favor of good old fashioned witness identification, never mind one is a lot better than the other, even if both of them have been misused terribly at times.

That's why I think we should want the cops to use methods that cause fewer people to get wrongly investigated, because it is a burden. It's true, your phone being too close to a crime scene doesn't make you a criminal, but it's probably a better reason for investigating you than traditional things like "I saw a guy who looked like that at the scene" which has much more frequently caused the harm you cite, and yet it's been a staple of courts longer than any of us have been alive.

I have a family member who was murdered. I have a lot of sympathy for victims of violent crimes like this and a hard time understanding people who want to let the murderers go free, because I know what it's like living under the threat of one who kept a list of who they intended to kill next.

You see, the cops had a murder in a remote place. They got a warrant, and the warrant showed 12 people in and out of a small area near the murder, of which one phone went there many times.

They got another warrant, for that one phone, and traced it back to someone who is obviously the murderer. The courts decided to suppress this, never mind the cops got warrants at both steps, and their investigation was as minimally invasive as one could imagine for this sort of thing.

So it's not unreasonable to wonder just what we're protecting sometimes, as I understand that while the decision here doesn't technically ban all geofence warrants, it makes them nearly impossible as a practical matter.

One can read the decision here:

https://mncourts.gov/_media/migration/appellate/supreme-cour...

We kinda had that, on Usenet, before spammers flooded it to death.

Meanwhile, it's funny that it seems like acetaminophen should safer in more scenarios, but the other has a lot of overdoses with typical use, I guess that's why there's a gap between the two, because ODs are apparently a lot more common or at least more legible than problems caused by the other drug.

I suspect that's because human language is selected for meaningful phrases due to being part of a process that's related to predicting future states of the world. Though it might be interesting to compare domains of thought with less precision to those like engineering where making accurate predictions is necessary.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47711909

Points: 7

# Comments: 1

It certainly doesn't address all of ICE's legal issues, no, but it does say they don't need to give this guy a bond hearing:

> Accordingly, we find that the district court erred in holding that the Government could not detain Avila without bond under § 1225(b)(2)(A) and in granting habeas relief on that basis.

My understanding from talking to a criminal defense attorney who practices in MN about this is that this seems to give ICE broad powers to hold people without bond which many, many lower courts had rejected not wanting ICE to have such a broad power for all the reasons you mentioned.

This is a weird one because ICE has lost so many habeas cases, mostly by dropping them, only for the 8th circuit court of appeals (which covers Minnesota) to overturn that the other day:

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/03/253248P.pdf

There was similar precedent in the 5th circuit (Texas) previously, too, but that was not binding on Minnesota:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26884355/ca5detention...

So this is pretty weird now, legally, since a ton of lower courts have assumed things didn't work this way and the appeals courts are now saying they're wrong.