NY and 2nd Circuit Courts have upheld far more egregious rules and laws than this, there will be no lawsuit.

>New York City usually gets this right. It has decades of muscle memory for doing hard things in public, under pressure, without panicking.

Not something I would say about Stop-And-Frisk city but whatever.

Imprisoning all men between the ages of 15-30 would reduce crime rates. It'd also be a monstrous policy. Civil rights are important.

Crime rates reduced during the time stop and frisk was implemented. But when it was removed, crime rates remained low:

https://www.brennancenter.org/media/5670/download

Strongly suggests correlation but not causation.

CPD generally does whatever NYPD does. The difference is that New York isn't Chicago. Different geography, different forces at work. Peter Moskos wrote a whole book about how NYPD turned things around in the 1990s, and "stop and frisk" and "broken windows", whatever Malcolm Gladwell wants you to believe, don't feature prominently in it.

Chicago had tried Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) in 90-s it was so famous that even I heard about it during my lessons on urban planning. In Russia.

And it was not entirely unsuccessful, but definitely much less effective than policing in NYC.

I read multiple articles from both conservative and progressive sources about the drop of crime in NYC. The evidence is decidedly mixed. "Broken windows" policies probably helped a lot during the 90-s but lost their efficacy by the early 2000-s. Stop-and-frisk probably reduced the rate of serious crimes, mostly through incidental arrests but undermined some of the community trust. It also was unconstitutional.

Again, I think, read the Moskos book. It's good, it's new, and it's about exactly this topic.

Well, I bought it. It's a jumbled mess.

I obviously haven't read it completely yet, but I read the parts that mention "Broken Windows". So far they seem to basically affirm everything I said:

> Now Bratton had some success in Transit, and well-publicized success, because he decided to stop people from jumping over the turnstiles. It was rampant. They wound up locking up some guy who had like $10,000 and a gun and couldn't be bothered to pay the dollar subway fare. The idea was, if I keep these guys out of the system, crime will go down. And crime went down in Transit, which is why Bratton got Boston and why he got back here. It was like, "This guy might be on to something."

> Operation Alternative

> But you can use the Broken Windows theory. Stopping a guy for drinking beer gave you a chance to run him for a warrant. Is he wanted for a violent crime? Stopping a guy for pissing in the street gave you a chance to issue a summons. Which meant if he couldn't produce ID you could bring him into the station, run his prints, and then find out he was wanted for one of last week's shootings.

Chicago was run by Richard Daly 2 for 20 years during the Guliani era. I’m not sure what a no-nonsense mayor is but Daly resolved a dispute over an airport by having the runway jack hammered over night in the middle of negotiations.

During the 80s CPD ran a torture warehouse. They are currently operating under court direction for their mass use of pre textual traffic stops.

I’m not buying your “just so” story about mayors or hard nosed policing being the difference.

As you said, a large part of crime is committed by repeat offenders. Enough time has passed that those people are back on the street. If crime rates have remained low after the end of S&F, then it can't be that.

S&f operated at a time when we didn’t Willy-nilly release criminals.

According to Mayor Bloomberg; a politician is always going to say their policy worked.

Ok let’s start with you, up against the wall

Look up Sean Bell - not a stop a frisk, just an open fire.

Once, my wife and I were stopped, but not frisked, and cited for riding bikes, on a sidewalk at 2AM on a stretch of Atlantic Ave that would kill you to ride on. It made no sense, until I found out that my neighbor and his friend had been murdered at a street party. There was a drag net out trying to find the killer and they stopped anyone for anything.

A tough city.

Where’s the evidence?

> With A.I./ML and high def aerial and street video + other electronic signals you don’t need stop and frisk.

Imagine believing that this stuff is effective.

Imagine believing that stop-and-frisk was.

Is digital stop in frisk run by a shadowy corporation better or worse than physical stop and frisk run by the police? Maybe it's better, but I'm not sure we should be ready to cheer it on either.

Well, a corporation can't arrest you on bullshit charges, much less so for the bullshit reason of resisting arrest.

Difficulty of enforcement has never stopped such things.

NYC (and other jurisdictions) have a long history of categorizing things as "not a weapon" so they can more strongly restrict them without 2A challenges.

The older Metro games are of note, while they're available as the Redux versions there are a surprising number of non-graphical differences between the original THQ published versions and the graphical updates.

If your goal as a historian is to "tell a better story" then you are not fit to be a historian. You should go find a job as a political hack or maybe federal judge.

For what it's worth, the "fact" Greco-Roman statues were painted garishly was taught in a packed auditorium to me in an art history gen-ed by a PhD. The specific judgement of painted "horribly" wasn't used but it was obviously incredibly ugly.

No, you see the instant a western power interferes with a region, all agency is immediately stripped from every single person there. It's really sad, they all become puppets or automatons reacting purely to external stimulus.

Worst part is the agency never returns. Anything that goes wrong for the next 500 years is due to that original western intereference. Tragic really.

> Circa 2010 when Xi came to power, the CPC also essentially destroyed the CIA's footprint in the country, something that was not widely reported in the West. And PRC has done very well since...

The PRC was doing just as fine before they executed all the CIA's agents. I don't see any relation. There's never been any hint from either the US or China that those agents were doing anything other than passive intelligence collection, as opposed to actively interfering in domestic Chinese politics. And in any event, the scope of historical CIA operations has always been overblown. In every case I'm aware of, the CIA leveraged a tipping point already well underway to nudge things one way or another. Developing countries are often already highly unstable and prone to regular disruptive power shifts; it's a major cause of their poverty and inability to fully develop. And in many of the outright coups the CIA has been implicated, the extent of the CIA's involvement was simply talking to and making promises to various power players already poised to make a power grab, Chile being a prime example--the Chilean Senate was the architect of the coup, and the CIA merely offered safe harbor to nudge Pinochet, who was waffling because he wasn't convinced it would succeed. The exceptions were during the middle of the Cold War, ancient history in modern foreign affairs.

The KGB/FSB has always been lauded for opportunistically taking advantage of preexisting situations with small but smart manipulations, but that's just how intelligence agencies have always worked in general. When your interventions are too direct and obvious, which they always will be if you're creating a crisis from scratch, you risk unifying the country, Iran being a prime example.

> There's never been any hint from either the US or China that those agents were doing anything other than passive intelligence collection, as opposed to actively interfering in domestic Chinese politics. And in any event, the scope of historical CIA operations has always been overblown. In every case I'm aware of, the CIA leveraged a tipping point already well underway to nudge things one way or another.

Beyond being self-contradictory (CIA is passive but also they interfere on key issues) this is just false. The West has spent a lot of (covert) resources undermining China in the past decade in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Taiwan, trade and tech wars, COVID, and so on. All attempts which have failed dramatically, perhaps partly due to the lack of IC penetration into society and government.

> Beyond being self-contradictory (CIA is passive but also they interfere on key issues) this is just false

I said the CIA's intelligence network in China which was dismembered was passive, the same way China's network in the US is passive, not that the CIA is passive everywhere else. But maybe you wouldn't describe either as passive, which is fair, but I don't think that definition fits with how most people conceive of what active political manipulation looks like. Note also I didn't mean to imply that promoting a coup by offering safe harbor is passive in the same sense; I would definitely categorize that as direct domestic political disruption, just not of the kind Hollywood or conspiracy theories depict, which is what people assume when CIA involvement is implicated.

And I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding Hong Kong, Xinjiang, or Taiwan. Is public criticism interfering in domestic politics? Sanctions arguably are, which the US uses regularly around the world, but in the context of China, it's always about money and trade wars and international disputes. The US is active militarily in Taiwan in terms of training and arms supplies, but this is largely at Taiwan's insistence, and the US does much less than Taiwan wants. And none of this involves direct CIA involvement beyond the intelligence collection and sharing networks, both with and without the local government's approval.

I'm curious if you have specific examples. I know the US has proposed sanctions for China's policies in Xinjiang, but I don't remember anything actually coming of it. If I'm misremembering, that's fair, and I understand why China would consider actual sanctions domestic political interference, but note that this is also a cultural divide between Chinese and Western political philosophies--the latter is much more moralistic, and interventions against perceived human rights abuses aren't necessarily considered to violate the principle of state sovereignty.

Iran has been openly funding and training actual terrorist organizations, as recognized by many countries. If fighting that is terrorism to you, then I’m not sure what you’re doing here on the enemy’s social media…

The point of the CVE system is to alert downstream users of security bugs, and giving Linux their own CNA has resulted in a deluge of reports to end downstream users of bugs that are ultimately not security related and in that respect Greg et al have completely failed.

osv.dev exists and is worlds better