Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

I genuinely cannot tell if this (specifically the last line) is satirical or not.

> How do you calculate this value of zero percent?

This gets messy for obvious topological/continuity reasons, but a shocking number of applications are both correct and simple to reason about if you choose to define 0/0 == 0 (kind of like how if you choose to universally define sum(empty_set) == 0 and product(empty_set) == 1 then tons of higher-level formulae just work and don't have to special-case a base case).

In context, there's no good reason to pick that definition of 0/0 per se (other than my prior that 0/0 == 0 probably simplifies some downstream math), but it's kind of nice to see that if crime is at 0% then there is also zero crime.

> And who wrote the headline?

Now we're asking the real questions ;)

1. This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand - you’re literally just pulling a specific criminal case out of your ass in a country of 315 million.

2. The perps were charged and indicted, hardly ‘not enforcing laws’.

3. Law enforcement and prosecutorial discretion exists in every developed country in the world.

Philosophy warning:

I don't know if there is a term for it, or if a philosopher/etc. has written about this phenomenon, but: a noticeable trend to me is what I'll call "the replacement of ethical expectations with specific, written down laws."

Rather than expecting a human being to behave in certain ways intrinsically (i.e., normative ethics) we tend to assume they will behave in the worst way possible, and then pass laws to supposedly prevent that behavior from manifesting.

This scenario is a great example of this phenomenon. Instead of discussing how car theft is fundamentally an unethical behavior, the discussion is about preventing some thing from being sold or existing, whether that be insecure vehicles or Flipper Zeroes. It's designing the playground so that kids can't get hurt, not teaching them how to play responsibly.

My theory is that this is a consequence of relativism and the general cultural exhaustion Western society seems to have with enforcing any sort of religious or ethical norms.

I really don't like the way this is going, because the end result is a world where limitations are hardwired into the environment, while at the same time you have zero ethical expectations of your fellow humans. It's very Hunger Games / Battle Royale, at a less hostile level.

Edit: just to clarify a point here. I'm not saying that there was no theft in the past, or that having ethical expectations instead of laws will somehow reduce all theft. I'm commenting more on the fact that the "new method" results in a different kind of world than the previous one (see the paragraph before this one.) It's a subtle point, but hopefully one I communicated well enough.

That doesn't seem overly surprising. Just as the people who acted in 2010 in a fashion that did not land them in prison probably acted in a way in 2015 that also did not land them in prison, it's not shocking that people who acted in 2010 in a way that landed the in prison might also act in 2015 in a way that lands them in prison.

I don't think that being in prison from 2011 to 2014 caused them to act that way in 2015.

We're not going to randomly assign (mostly) law-abiding citizens to prison to measure whether prison adds propensity to [what would be re-]offend, but there probably is something that is different about the never-imprisoned vs previously-imprisoned population that informs future likelihood to be imprisoned.