This is an indication of a systemic failure. And a human failure. Both.

But be thankful that you have the system that you have. In China, 99.97% of people arrested are convicted. The police use torture systematically to obtain confessions. Sometimes female suspects will be imprisoned with known rapists.

Be thankful that we're even having a discussion about systemic failure with the Flock database error.

You're inserting advocacy research (which is not reality seeking) into a case where the facts are already pretty clear.

About 20 are unarmed people.

About 8 of those unarmed people are actively attacking the police officer.

Of the remaining 12 -- some were escaping, some were attacking someone else, ..., and a proportion were genuinely innocent people.


This idea that "1/3" of people killed by strangers are killed by police is classic massaging the date, because almost every person who is killed or murdered is done so by someone they know.

The police are continually reforming. We need more reform. We also need a reality based discussion.

Data entry mistakes happen. What is worrying is that it wasn't corrected the first time she was pulled over. Also, the police should have issued an apology. It's the morally correct thing to do; however, I suspect they have legal advise specifically NOT to do this because of ambulance chasing lawyers. Nonetheless there is absolutely a systemic failure here that needs to be addressed.

A mistake was still made, in that the entry should have been removed from the database the first time.

PoliceViolenceReport -- an advocacy organization btw -- reports 2x fatal police incidents. So, since 2017, we have about 15 per year instead of 7. So you're way over your skiis. Did you read the "excellent data"?

And it isn't apples-to-apples. Because PoliceViolenceReport is measuring a different *thing*. We're no longer looking at just shootings, but other types of fatal incidents, such as the use of police vehicles.

The Washington Post reviewed shootings of unarmed individuals, and found 40% (!) were physically attacking the officer in question.

When it comes to HARMLESS people SHOT by policy, PoliceViolenceReport and the Washington Post agree.

That means that YOUR SOURCE agrees with the OP.

If there were really justice in this world

I get your point and I agree in principle.

$100M? Really?

Btw, if this were china, they have a 99.97% conviction rate. The police arrest someone. They are tortured until they confess. 3 in 1000 escape prison.

For all its flaws, be thankful that we live in a system that we have. A $100M lawsuit would not make it better, unless most of it went to pay defendants legal fees. We also need way more judges. Like 10x as many judges.

The price may not have been a check. The government was telling them who the boss is. It is morally suspect to shake down business like this; however, maybe Dario really was a pain in the a**. It's hard to know what really happened here.

China is a famously closed ecosystem. Li Keqiang -- a CPP provincial secretary -- candidly said in 2007 that CCP numbers are "man-made and therefore unreliable". on. People interested in measuring China's economy use proxies, which has become an academic cottage industry. In 2020, China famously cut its population by 200 million (!!!) people.

Anyone who takes Chinese numbers at face value is foolish, because the CCP doesn't do that themselves.

Almost all GM cars are built in China. GM basically gave all their technology away for the privilege of doing this. My guess is that these new Chinese cars will be reliable.

The CCPs model is "State Capitalism", which is a far cry from free markets. It's really a variant of socialism; however, that term is overloaded, so we use the term "State Capitalism" for the variant of socialism where the government has the "commanding heights".

The West does massive of amount of government funded R&D. Eg., the NIH, and the NSF.

Precisely. The CCP has relied on widespread financial repression of its citizens to build an impressive industrial base. The key question is this: if Chinese citizens do not exchange exports for imports, then what is the point? It is economically incoherent. China will accrue a massive amount of foreign currency, and then what? Bathe in it while it deflates away?

Economic imbalances have a funny way of correcting themselves eventually. When this happens, China will discover that foreigners can moderate their appetites or find alternatives. The same cannot be said for factories and their workers.

Excellent analysis from economics professor Patrick Boyle.

You were lied to. It's a fun lie, but still a lie. Companies are made of people and reflect the values of those people Mostly top-down. Some companies are villainous. Some are fine. Some are great.

Disney always believed in changing the world for the better. And I think they've done some great work. That's a top-down corporate value. Straight from the head.

The problem with trying to change the world for the better is that sometimes -- often -- we just don't know enough. It's the "fatal conceit", that our imaginations are somehow more powerful than billions of individual decision makers. Kennedy had an ideology. She believed in it. A lot of people believed in it. It was a lemon. The Star Wars IP was trashed. (And same with every Lucas Films IP.)

Corporate values are the values of the humans that work there -- mostly the leadership.

It sure was beautifully shot. If only they put 1/10th as much work into the characters and their motivations.