Hopefully not using nginx.

Call me a cynic, but I would think this is less of reaching out a hand than trying to find ways to offset the costs.

Yes, and the rate at which other things occur, like cops being good, or flowers sprouting roadside is irrelevant.
All that is relevant is how often cops go bad. Not how often cops do good things or eat donuts or change underwear.

Darwin and Wallace called this artificial selection. They might not have had any idea how prevalent artificial selection would become in a mere century. Today, it likely is the primary evolutionary process for almost all higher order species.

Natural selection is still valid - how could it be otherwise? It now selects for those who benefit from artificial selection.

No, it isn't relevant. That's like countering a claim that poison ivy is systemic and widespread with "But look at all the pretty flowers! There must be hundreds of pretty flowers for each poison ivy plant!"
Whether true or not, it is completely irrelevant.

Never attribute to heroism that which can adequately be described by stupidity.

I think he was just too dumbfounded by what he saw to consider running (or, smarter, sneaking away, giving that running from this cop might not lead to a good outcome).
Check his background exclamations, for example. And how he repeatedly obstructs the camera, or tilts it - it seems clear that heroic filming wasn't at the top of his mind, being struck dumb by what he saw.

But that's okay - we don't want heroes. We want the average Tom, Dick and Harriet to be themselves, and be able to be themselves.
It's the police that are supposed to be the heroes, laying down their lives for the innocent. And they not only aren't - they're at the opposite end of the scale.

Allegedly he feared having to go to jail because of outstanding alimony, and that's why he ran.
That should not warrant being shot in the back.

No matter what good things cops do, it can never justify police brutality and murder - at any ratio. The two are separate things and do not stand in perspective to each other.

500:1? If it were 5000:1 or even 50000:1 ratio of showing cops doing good deeds vs police butchers, it would still be irrelevant. It's not about perspective, it's about catching the criminal police and letting the man know that we find this unacceptable. No more.

"He's no uneducated, he's just anti-science."

I can't help but to read this in a Cletus accent.

I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't niche.

A good friend of mine attended a lot of Esparanto conventions. He met lots of Japanese people in the process.... but it's just one anecdote.

The reason English is is widely spoken around the world is not just that England had a long period of aggressive expansionism. It's also because English is an extremely flexible and expressive language, with a rich literature - literally millions of texts, many tens of thousands of which are fine works of art. Of course, this is true of many other well-established natural languages, from Farsi to Mandarin. But it isn't, and cannot be, true of any new artificial language.

I'd guess it would take any artificial language at least a thousand years of hard use by millions of people before it could become a contender to supplant a natural language, and by that time it would have mutated into a natural language.

I have been told that it has more popularity in Japan because it's an easy gateway to learning European languages.

By "popularity" I mean slightly less overwhelming disinterest. It would be interesting to hear from a Japanese-geek on it.

Anyone interested in Esparanto should watch Incubus http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059311/. A must for Shatner fans too. Pre-trek. The mix of Spanish, Italian and French "accents" also shows a subtle problem with synthetic languages.

I turn 60 this year. And your problem is?

Either you're good at your job (and if you've been doing it for twenty-five+ years you almost certainly are), or you're not. If you're good and experienced, you won't have any troubled getting an interesting job at a high salary. In my present employment, I was specifically recruited to mentor (and teach software engineering discipline to) a group of good but inexperienced junior developers.

When I was starting out in this game, thirty years ago, the person who fulfilled the role I now have in the team I was then working in was Chris Burton, who, as an apprentice, worked on the build of the Manchester Mark One, and who (after his retirement) led the rebuild of it. He was one of the best software people I've ever worked with, and he was already in his sixties when I met him.

Nothing breaks immersion so much as the player character being killed. Suddenly you're jerked out of your game world and you're just a sad individual sitting in front of a computer again. It is epic fail for anyone who's trying to build a world in which players are expected to become immersed to allow the player character to be killed.

This isn't to say I think there shouldn't be setbacks, and that they shouldn't be severe. Of course they should. You get beaten in a boss battle and you should expect to lose all your accumulated weapons, armour, loot. You should expect to be left for dead, and have to crawl until you can find herbs, salves, bandages or aid. It could even leave you with permanent scarring or disabilities which make future battles a bit harder to fight, or have an impact on what endgames are available to you. It should be an outcome which motivates you highly not to lose the next battle. If a non-player-character companion is killed in a battle, their death should be permanent, no matter how important they are to the plot. But you should not die.

If you die, it isn't you who have failed. It's the designer.