11–20 of 241 posts
This doesn't seem to make sense. By more accurately predicting where crimes will occur, the police departments can reduce the amount of patrols needed.
I urge you to read Minority Report, or watch the movie.
This doesn't seem to make sense. By more accurately predicting where crimes will occur, the police departments can reduce the amount of patrols needed.
Nothing that these people are doing makes sense or demonstrates any capacity for forethought.
This doesn't seem to make sense. By more accurately predicting where crimes will occur, the police departments can reduce the amount of patrols needed.
This doesn't seem to make sense. By more accurately predicting where crimes will occur, the police departments can reduce the amount of patrols needed.
If they inaccurately predict where crime will occur, their recommendations could cause an elevated number of patrols in some neighborhoods.
This doesn't seem to make sense. By more accurately predicting where crimes will occur, the police departments can reduce the amount of patrols needed.
Indeed, sending a police patrol will only catch the kind of crime that happens in socio-economically disadvantaged communities, which in turn contributes to skewing the data to suggest that more crimes there, which leads to more policing, which leads to more crime, and so on.
Meanwhile, wage theft, over twice the size of all other kinds of theft put together, keeps growing year after year.
Police patrols should be entirely reactive, and not proactive. Proactive policing does not work.
Using math to improve the effectiveness of the police is a good thing. This effort - however well intended maybe - would throw out the baby with the bathwater.
This doesn't seem to make sense. By more accurately predicting where crimes will occur, the police departments can reduce the amount of patrols needed.
Nothing that these people are doing makes sense or demonstrates any capacity for forethought.
Predicting where you will need to send patrols is proactive policing.
There is no question that the advancement of science has been good for humanity as a whole. Using math to improve the effectiveness of the police is a good thing. This effort - however well intended maybe - would throw out the baby with the bathwater.
This doesn't seem to make sense. By more accurately predicting where crimes will occur, the police departments can reduce the amount of patrols needed.
Yes, having more liberals working in policing is probably more inline with the goals of those liberals than not, but that's not the point of a boycott.
If the police can't get the help they need from mathematicians because of a large enough boycott then it gets them to the table and forces them to reform.
I'm not arguing whether or not this will work, or making a value judgement, I just see a lot of comments which don't seem to understand this point.