That’s such an American mentality. Here’s a short clip which might broaden your mind on possible ways to view how and when police should be using violence.
> They’d basically have to attack you first for lethal force to be legal.
They just violently entered his home in an effort to attack him, dressed in a way designed to intimidate. These cops were deliberately cosplaying as some sort of a hit squad, they obviously wanted him to believe that they were going to kill him.
It's not like the cops just accidentally went out dressed like that.
This is Denmark, not some Brasilian favela. That type of violent crime extremely rare in Scandinavia. But cops wearing civilian clothes while conducting a raid is fairly normal. Especially when they want to preserve evidence which might be quickly destroyed if the suspect sees them coming.
They're also dressed exactly like a group of random middle aged men.
Naturally, getting raided is scary as fuck. And them being plain clothed certainly doesn't make it less so. But based on the part of the video which he chose to shared I don't see why one would suspect anyone other than the police. Had they been out to kill him it would have been easier to just go in blasting instead of yelling while using a battering ram.
Hit squads are truly exotic here. Plain clothes police raids are not, although the norm is for them to be uniformed. I have no idea on why they chose to be plain clothed instead of uniformed on this occasion, but I can't see why we would attribute it to "cosplaying as some sort of a hit squad". Another possibility, which I believe is somewhat common, is that they can take him away without making him look like a criminal in the eyes of his neighbors.
Where in Europe are you from? I get the impression that you are used to a very different kind of society.
We don't have precedent in the way that common law countries do, and the judgements in actual cases point in slightly different directions-- in one case a court felt that the failure to fire a warning shot made it not self-defence, in another fighting people trying to get into an apartment with a knife was deemed acceptable.
Generally though, if someone is breaking into your apartment while you're there, possibly trying to get at you, there's no limit, as long as you're actually trying to defend yourself (so no executing someone who you've clearly disabled, etc.).
If people are breaking into your apartment and you fire a warning shot, then proceed to shoot the attackers, no one will complain.
I am Swedish, and it’s very true that ”it depends”.
This guy for example was convicted of murder because he got his gun out without even trying to contact the police directly or indirectly. So even if he pulled the trigger under reasonable circumstances (a know violent offender was trying to take his rifle) he was found guilty because he should not have gone for the gun without considering alternatives like locking the door or fleeing.
I can’t see him being anywhere near guaranteed to claim self defense even if he had fired a warning shot first.
If a masked person, that doesn't first identify themselves clearly as the police (which is difficult since, well, they are masked) breaks into my house, that's a lethal attack for sure.
What are you going to do after they enter the house (if they aren't indeed the police and you trust they won't kill or rape your family)?
Judging by the Reddit threads I saw, A LOT of people were upset even though it was clear that they had not idea what the feature actually provided beyond “encryption”. I’d guess that the majority assumed that the change would result in them basically having to “encryption” in affected AMD devices any more in some vague general sense.
That’s assuming that the tools should be able to replace juniors. I have a hard time seeing how a junior could take over the role which Claude code currently fills in my line of work and certainly not at the same price point even if I paid for the tokens rather than a subscription.
I have a hard time seeing how a junior could take over the role which Claude code currently fills in my line of work and certainly not at the same price point even if I paid for the tokens rather than a subscription.
At the current, VC-subsidized price point, sure. But at the real market cost at which the AI companies would break even on their offerings, the junior is cheaper and more effective than Claude within about 3 months. And to be blunt, if that's not the case then the kind of programming you do is already basically junior-level development anyways and it's a waste to have seniors handing the role that could and should be handled by juniors.
I live in an apartment in Stockholm but I also own an old forest cabin. It’s perfectly legal for me to live in said cabin permanently, but it would be strictly illegal for me to build a new house to the same simple standard. The building codes are basically making it illegal to be poor.
Similar patterns exist for student housing. The old style of student corridors with small rooms are no longer being built. Instead we are basically getting full apartments with individual huge bathrooms because the building codes mandate that everything is wheelchair accessible even when it’s practically temporary housing and they could get by with making 1/10 apartments accessible.
And that’s not even getting into how NIMBYism is enabled by laws that basically guarantee stagnation anywhere housing is in demand.
> The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
A bunch of houses in the mountains around me burned down a few years ago. It's one of the most populated "wildland-urban interface" areas of the world, because building more housing inside of the urban areas has been banned for half a century, so the wilderness was sacrifice to housing, as there was less regulation in the mountains.
However, regulations have caught up a bit, and people that lived in houses valued >$1M before burning down, now have to do things like install proper septic systems that cost $50k or $70k, instead of their sewage leaking into the abundant waterways that used to be habitats of salmon and the like.
These people are very aggrieved at their position of being previously house-rich, cash-poor, and apparently underinsured. I'm not sure what the right solution is other than legalizing housing in the urban core again. Which results in even bigger fights.
A lot of the stricter codes have very real safety benefits though - modern electrical is much safer, fire sprinklers add significant cost but really do help contain fires, etc.
(Not that it's all good, e.g. I don't like Washington's WAC 51-11R which just seems way overcomplicated.)
>A lot of the stricter codes have very real safety benefits though
And it comes at a cost of slowly destroying our society and turning everyone into landless peasants. Is that worth it?
Nevermind that a lot the IBC is ghost written by industry to the benefit of industry. A lot of local addendums are the same but for local interests. A lot of the permitting process is hack garbage to obfuscate how bad it all really is.
And then when you end up with actually accessible version of those it is different again. Which I had for a few years as student. No under sink cabinets. Even more massive bathroom. The bathroom was nearly the size of those small bedrooms.
I really liked the 12" MacBook (although my all time favourite computer was the 12" PowerBook G4 - chunky by today's standards but I just loved it).
I saw a review of the MacBook Neo where the reviewer was yearning after the 12" - but suggested that Apple has made UI elements so big with such ridiculous spacing and border radius that it would be almost unusable at anything less than 13".
Which would not surprise me in the least - I struggle with my 16" MBP and this crappy UI "framework".
> it would be almost unusable at anything less than 13"
Native resolution on a 13" MacBook Air is already pretty unusable. Out of the box, the 13" MacBook Air (physical screen resolution 2560x1664) is configured with display scaling so that the “looks like” resolution is 1470x956 (i.e., macOS renders everything at 2x1470x956 – 2940x1912 – and then scales it down to match the display for output). If you dial the “looks like” resolution down to 1280x832 (so that the rendering resolution matches the output resolution; because, say, you prefer that every UI element not be a little bit blurry from being scaled down), you'll find yourself unbelievably short (ha) on vertical resolution. You basically have to turn dock hiding on. Even then, fixed-position headers are very common on websites these days, so between that and browser chrome, you'll often find that actual webpage content is crammed into the bottom half of the display.
gotta have dock hiding & menu bar hiding & compact toolbar/tab settings for browser. only 80-90px of wasted height. The rest is web view. I can't think of any website I frequent having that fixed-position header either, so I'm gucci.
My partner (who isn't in tech, and isn't generally interested in tech) would probably literally stand in line for an updated version of the 12" MacBook on day one.
As long as they provide the same utility / $ I don’t see why not. It’s not like the open weight models are that far behind and Claude code itself shouldn’t be very hard for the commmunity to replicate if Anthropic start acting up too much.
Yeah you’re actually right I was looking at the API section instead of the Hooks section. Perhaps another demonstration of React’s verbose API surface.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/1c0e24s/american_...
reply