I miss pc at power systems.
"Is it off?" was never a question.

Considerably more difficult than you imagine. Between them, they have almost 70 command-line options or flags. Taking into account that many of those behave differently depending on the presence or absence of other flags, there's a couple hundred different code paths. Then you need to handle directories, files, sparse files, sym- and hard-links, on and across different filesystems, not to mention the various file-like things scattered around (pipes, streams, etc.)

It's not rocket science, but neither is it trivial.

We knew that. But now we have proof.

Will anything happen because of that? Nah, I don't think so. A few token gestures maybe. A friendly mail to everyone saying to write better reasons, followed up by an informal mail that tells them to ignore the previous one.

This isn't a mistake. It's intentional. The more arbitrary and uncontrolled the police can act, the more it is feared, the more it is a tool for oppression and not a part of civil society, the more likely the cops will stand on the side of the powerful when there are protests or uprisings against the increasing oppression and economic divide.

I wonder how much of that is based on human actor motion capture used for the animations?

Is this true for animated films too? What about hybrid live action and animated? Animated films that are CGI based rather than hand drawn/painted? Hand drawn that are computer "painted"?

At some point we may have a human writer an a human director, and they prompt an AI. Is that still art? Aren't human words still being brought to life?

While AI will certainly lead to a lot of slop, hollywood is hardly without a lot of slop already.

I also expect that some currently unknown indie writer and director will create something very artistic and enjoyable. As we have had artistic and enjoyable animated films in the past.

AI films are just a new form of animated films. Its all just CGI. Some live action films are already CGI heavy. If too many (?) human characters are AI based then the film falls in the animated category rather than the live action category? Hybrid live action and animated films are not anything new, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", "Space Jam", comes to mind, but they go back much farther to the classic disney era.

You are mistaken. The vehicle code refers to a driver being a traffic safety hazard. As a driver distracted by following someone else would be.

You are mistaken, the vehicle and public roads were used by the activist to follow the worker.

Nope, a public safety only requires suspicious behavior. Not a specific crime. For example a stranger following you.

Walking up to you at an install and trying to talk is something expected and likely covered in instructions. Someone following you around on the road is not. When weird suspicious things happen, the normal reasonable reaction, and likely instructions, is to let the police sort it out. To not try to resolve it yourself.

Imagine having TDS since 2016.

The "reason" needs to be a warrant number, full stop.

Nonsense. The training materials not only guide towards correct behavior, they also push candidates to self evaluate that they are here for the correct reasons. There is also screening to help ensure they are here for the correct reasons. Do bad ones slip through, there are obviously some that do not have the intelligence, temperament, or judgement that the job requires and they should be removed. However they are the exception, the outliers.

Funny but that's kind of what you are doing. Frankly your personal incidents are of far lesser weight than the training and screening. Again, they are literally told that they are expected to go into harms way to protect people when the situation calls for it. That will be your duty. And if you think otherwise or think you could not do so, leave now.

And sometimes it is an extreme form of emphasis. An indication of extreme seriousness. It all depends on context.

That is just your erroneous opinion.

You are literally contradicting yourself here. Dismissing the more common behavior due to personal anecdotes.

Claimed misbehavior like is this thread? Debunked misbehavior..

And the source of your bias. Plus your opinion is this story suggests that you may not be the best evaluator of what is actual misbehavior.

A red herring. Police and Military are trained to not obey illegal orders.

No, I merely acknowledge that people who should not be officers slip through the screening. They are however outliers, hence "generally".

Amusingly you are projecting, what have you offered other than your questionable interpretations of your personal anecdotes?

LOL - maybe now you understand why I used words like "generally".

You conclusion displays poor logic and reading comprehension of face value. I have said there are people who slip through the screening that may be unfit due to intelligence, temperament, and judgement. Obeying an illegal order would be one of those judgement failures.

Thank you for confirming your bias and a tendency to believe misrepresentations. You seem to not understand the reality behind what you discuss.

Did "not a venue worth much time" confuse you?

Guilty here too. In real life I am also well known for playing devils advocate to keep people honest. Friends sometimes test me for fun, picking a side and having me argue that position.

100%. But hearing the other sides falsehood and illogic, although I would characterize it as their shallowing thinking and/or shallow information, can be quite informative. (1) To learn the common arguments made by opponents. (2) Your political team does not always tell the truth, their political team does not always lie. Both teams will lie to manufacture the desired perception, both teams will tell the truth when the truth coincidentally supports the desired perception. One needs to listen to both sides to discover the truth. Much like police officers have to have a conversation with the journalist rather than just accept the employees claims of harassment or threats, again motivated not by the claim but the suspicious activity of following.

In general I think you are being intellectually honest hence my continuing to interact. I think our disagreement is more a matter depth of knowledge regarding law enforcement. I suppose it might help to confess that I am NOT a sworn law enforcement officer, however I have gone through some of their formal training. My involvement is of a Search and Rescue/Recovery role. That role needs some formal training with respect to the handling of evidence. However the intro classes are designed for future patrol officers and cover many other topics and skills. Among the extras were interviewing techniques, which was helpful in this thread.

I also once interacted with a journalist in the field during one callout. The journalist was quite fair and reasonable, I have no problem with such pros.

With respect to convincing a 3rd party, sure, too deep into the thread for that. Still there is seeing if the other party will add any interesting info. Again, you seem to be intellectually honest, not just regurgitating party talking points (well, you got close to that with respect to illegal orders), so you might add something interesting in a rebuttal. And, I suppose, there is a slight possibility I am stubborn. :-)

Until it isn't. I lived in an extremely safe neighborhood, nothing ever happened. One night an officer pulls over a car on our main road, the officer walks up to the car, the driver fires three rounds into the officer, his vest catches all of them. He's knocked down and in pain, he barely crawls back to his vehicle and calls for help before passing out. The next day there is a photo of him in the hospital with his shirt off. He has three large orange sized bruises on his abdomen. The call he pulled over for a minor traffic offense was an armed robber fleeing from a robbery 7 miles away that had not made. Patrol officers had not received notice yet. This can happen anywhere.

FBI stats indicate traffic stops are one of the most dangerous things that officers do.

Officers are used to getting conflicting information from callers. The fact that the employee claimed harassment does not mean the officer would believe it, they too would notice that videos and pictures is not necessarily harassment. What would get their attention is "getting followed". That is the key here. That is what escalates things as following is in a different category than videoing.

Nope, it was the employees claim of "getting followed".

Nope, standard interview technique. Get the person to talk, to explain, to self incriminate. Questions along the lines of "what else did you do", "what else did you have", etc typical sort of lines of questioning to get a person to provide additional information. They want long open ended conversations. If someone is lying that provides more opportunities for inconsistencies. The more points to compare and contrast the two stories they are hearing.

No, that is a subjective opinion. As I indicated earlier, officer won't take that as a given. They will ask what did the other person do, what did they say, what did they have, etc?

Untrue, what really motivated all this was the following. And both sides agree that happened?

Mark Twain once quipped: