That typically requires an officer to determine if a life is actually at risk because of the dog. Call me crazy, but I don't think anyone who interprets a Chihuahua as a life risk needs to be serving on a swat team.
If you haven't already, give divinity original sin 2 a try. BG3 was built on the back of a game just as complex and satisfying, with a ton of the same exact mechanics, that went under appreciated because Larian wasn't a big studio with a well known ip.
You can catch it on sale pretty regularly for like $5. I bought it on release back in the day and I still play through that game like once a year.
Conservative media has been boiling the frog on culture wars since Nixon, and by design.
No one who listens to right wing drivel realizes the absurdity because their version of politics is like football to them: a game to win with the only real consequence being their ability to shove it in people's faces, or shoved in back in theirs.
Conservative media is designed to be that so it is trivially easy to hide actual unfavorable news from their viewers, like $14 billion disappearing over night into Isreal or their god king standing trial on actual, provable charges.
It's what the old gold used to be. They rebranded it and added a tiny incentive for content creators (like a dollar per gold, regardless of the level of gold, once you reach a certain karma level)
Really it's just shittier reddit gold and another way reddit is trying to make money off of colorful arrows
It doesn't have to do with what I think. That is what they do. Why don't you put any amount of effort into verifying what I said instead of insulting me like you think I just made it up?
You don't think that loss prevention would be doing that stuff regardless of whether they had employed cashiers at registers or not? Loss prevention has been around since long before self checkout lanes, doing the same things they're doing now. They already pay those guys. Self checkout is still cheaper if they don't also have to pay a dozen cashiers.
Also, you seem to be imagining a whole fbi crime scene setup in every store for a job that's basically handled per location by 2 guys and a computer.
A "database" doesn't have to be (and usually isn't) centralized across stores. "Hard drives" can be a single multi-terabyte hdd in the age we're in now. "Programming" is just out of the box software they teach their prevention guys to use. The facial recognition and knowing items part comes built into the self checkout machine.
You must not be an engineer either, because an engineer would understand that the cheaper option isn't necessarily lower tech.
Again, take 10 minutes and learn how to utilize a search engine. It's not something they want people to know, but it's also not exactly a secret. Target pioneered the kind of loss prevention techniques big box stores use today.
Look up the target method. They can automatically connect your face/payment ID to items you haven't scanned. They get you after you've racked up enough cumulative value that you haven't paid for to count for a felony.
So no, they aren't sticking you with a felony charge for a loaf of bread. They're sticking you with a felony charge for enough loafs of bread to value a serious theft charge.
It's not going to effect you if you only ever stole one loaf of bread. Waiting until you commit enough theft is the cutting corners part you're talking about.
I would argue that this explanation still requires a working knowledge of the Pythagoras theorem, even if you don't employ the formula directly. Specifically the knowledge that the hypotenuse must be longer than either of the sides unless the angle of the non-90 degree sides are 180 and 0, essentially making it a line.
You deducted the hypotenuse must be longer than 30 since they weren't aiming directly at the ground. Believe it or not, that's not common sense.
His perspective is like a kid kicking a sandcastle that he gave another kid $10 to buy because he thought it was neat.
What does he care if Twitter doesn't make money? He is personally set for life, and the world would basically have to end for that to change.
Why does someone worth 11 digits of greenback currency have to understand what brand safe content is? He could shoot a man in the middle of the street and toss his equivalent of pennies to the witnesses and never see consequences.
All of this criticism he's seeing on public airwaves, and his reaction, is revealing him for what he actually is: The single most richly spoiled baby in all of human history.
I think the point is more that we live in a time where "because we cut napkins to add pennies to our bottom line" is an answer we have to seriously consider. Even if it isn't the case, it's plausible enough to be awful.
This is it exactly. Positive changes in inflation mean prices aren't going up as fast. They're still going up. They're never going to go down because businesses don't charge less when the alternative is making more money. They only ever charge more with inflation.
Ok, and I'm saying that a platform can make money without causing a privacy crisis that requires a government to step in. Plenty do.
I'm saying that the thing that makes sites more bloated and unpleasant is when they get retooled to squeeze every last drop of profit from their users.
We don't have to turn this disagreement into "sites need to make money" vs "everything should be free". There's a middle ground, in which my original point sits.
I suppose you're going to argue that other video hosting sites that are an objectively better experience than youtube can't last? Or that youtube is better now that it's owned by someone else?
The point is that online sites that are around to make profit are actively sapping online communities. It's what's happening to reddit as well.
That typically requires an officer to determine if a life is actually at risk because of the dog. Call me crazy, but I don't think anyone who interprets a Chihuahua as a life risk needs to be serving on a swat team.