> Kristian Saucier, of Arlington, Vermont, appeared in federal court in Bridgeport, where a judge also ordered him to serve six months of home confinement with electronic monitoring during a three-year period of supervised release after the prison time. He pleaded guilty in May to unauthorized detention of defense information and had faced five to six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.
> Saucier admitted to taking six photos of classified areas inside the USS Alexandria in 2009 when it was in Groton and he was a 22-year-old machinist mate on the submarine. The photos showed the nuclear reactor compartment, the auxiliary steam propulsion panel and the maneuvering compartment, prosecutors said.
> Saucier took the photos knowing they were classified, but did so only to be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy, his lawyers said. He denied sharing the photos with any unauthorized recipient.
This just illustrates the DoD's hysterical obsession with secrecy. The US, UK, Russia, France, China and India have nuclear submarines. Brazil is building a nuclear submarine. Australia is buying nuclear submarines.
In 1960 you had a good argument for classifying reactors, but it's ridiculous to pretend the US still has a nuclear monopoly sixty years later. This is declining-empire stuff, a fading power trying to keep up a pretense that has long since grown thin.
That could be it but his other videos recently have been over-long too. Paraphrasing:
> "In this video I'm going to try fusing two bullets together but uh, I don't want to 'break the internet' with clickbait so actually 30 minutes of this video will be about me talking about the safety measures I took."
[Spoilers: the bullets didn't fuse.]
It's fine I guess, his videos are usually still worth watching. I just wish the youtube system was better at rewarding concise videos that are as long as they need to be, not rushed or stretched.
He (and his crew)did smack the bullets together, they just shattered instead of fusing. And honestly I agree with him that the safety measures and perseverance stuff is important.
The root of the problem is the electorate (not the leaders, who are downstream from the electorate), and that problem mainly falls under category A. They, the voters, have this idea that more social services, more compassion and understanding and more tolerance for the minor sorts of crime like vandalism and shoplifting will eventually bear fruit and cause the crime rate to drop. The failure of the plan to deliver the promised results is explained away as a matter of needing more time, more funding, more reforms... The plan hasn't failed; people failed the plan.
And of course there is a lot of D, people denying there's a problem at all. The "this is fine" response.
I love Pipewire, Pipewire fixed bluetooth headphone reliability. For years I had frequent trouble where the bluetooth headphones and bluetoothctl would both say they were connected, but there was no audio sink for pulseaudio. Sometimes there would be audio, but it would be crappy mono audio in "headset mode". For three or four years I had this problem several times a week. I believed this was an issue with the linux bluetooth drivers until one day, after several unsuccessful cycles of reloading, restarting and rebooting everything I got fed up enough to install Pipewire (which was unexpectedly painless.) From that moment on, not once have my headphones failed to connect on the first attempt. I've concluded that there's something fundamentally wrong with the way Pulseaudio recognizes and responds to a bluetooth speaker being connected, and Pipewire obviously doesn't have this flaw.
There's a popular narrative of "linux enthusiasts hate anything that's new"; you hear this a lot from people defending Pulseaudio and SystemD from "the trolls". It was never true. People love new things when the new thing solves their problems, and hate the new thing when it introduces new problems. The haters narrative is little more than cope; a way for the authors of buggy software to rationalize the negative response to their software.
In related news, an ABC reporter for Good Morning America recently revealed on air that he was told not to report live from the location of this mall because it wouldn't be safe.
"But it is worth mentioning that we are not at Union Square or the Westfield Mall this morning because we have been advised it is simply too dangerous to be there at this hour"
That seems insane, it’s not a dangerous neighborhood?? Unhoused people are (sometimes) mentally ill, not murderers. And why would they attack a news crew?? Baseless fear mongering
> Unhoused people are (sometimes) mentally ill, not murderers.
It is true that the mentally ill are overwhelmingly not dangerous. But as the number of mentally ill people in one place goes up, so do your odds of encountering that minority of mentally ill who are aggressive. In most of the world, you might see one mentally ill person in a day and they are harmless. In parts of California, sometimes it feels like you see a dozen mentally ill homeless in a day, and one of them is berating passersby or worse.
San Diego County data from 2021 showed that member of the homeless population there were murdered at 19 times the rate of the non-homeless population, and were 27 times more likely to be subjected to attempted murder—as well as 12 times more likely to be assaulted and nine times more likely to be sexually assaulted.
Damn it sucks to not have a house. Maybe crime rates are high among those communities not because they’re all crazy people waiting to stab random passerby (“or worse”), but instead because the conditions are mind numbing and brutal and scary and psyche-destroying in a way few recognize. The solution is to of course… what, beat them? Jail them? For how long? Forever?
You seem to assume from your interlocutors here hostility and hate towards the homeless. Me, I simply wish there was better housing policies and better mental-health care available to the US population, such as is found in plenty of other developed countries. A mentally ill person who gets the anti-psychotic medications and psychiatric consultations he or she should, is much less likely to trouble other people in the street.
Hey fair enough, I guess "I'm too scared to walk in my city" and "I want their lives to be improved" are not mutually exclusive opinions. I don't agree with the former, but definitely was out of line by reading intent into your comment without justification.
Please accept my apologies and thanks for the level-headed response
Not to split hairs, but the murder of a pregnant (Asian) woman in Seattle’s Belltown by a mentally ill unhoused person indicates that they can be murderers as well. We are pretty shocked as a community, there is a protest going on right now actually.
Yes, the guy was well known to act violently but was mostly harmless until he wasn’t (the police dealt with him many times, but didn’t make an arrest until he killed someone p). This is the same area where that poor girl who worked at Amazon got her head bashed in a coupe of years ago by some crazy guy in supportive housing. The streets aren’t really safe these days, and it isn’t just “fear mongering”.
Sorry, emotions are running pretty high right now. If you made this comment at her vigil, it wouldn’t have ended well I think.
> If you made this comment at her vigil, it wouldn’t have ended well I think.
We're not at her vigil, nor are we talking specifically about it.
It makes the already-shitty life of the homeless even worse when folks paint them as crazed murderers. It is -in truth- no better than asserting that any other broad group (whether you group based on ethnic, racial, state-of-origin, or any number of other overly-broad categories) are crazed murders.
Every single death is a tragedy. I very sincerely believe that, and will be angry at myself until my dying day that I did nothing to help try to fix death.
However, it does the living no good to dehumanize an entire group by saying "Oh, well they're a member of $BROAD_GROUP, so they're murderers. Better stay away.".
Seattle doesn’t have a high murder rate, much of the killing is homeless on homeless, yes, when drugs are involved things get violent. Other people take note, however, when the violence starts affecting other people. Nothing new there.
The sad fact is that this person was already committing crimes, was already considered violent, but our system in place gives them a free pass unless it comes out to homicide. No, don’t dehumanize the homeless, but yes, hold them to the same standards as everyone else. You commit a crime, you get arrested and go to jail; then maybe it doesn’t have to get to murder for the system to take action.
When I think of dangerous street people, I don't think guns. I think knives. The times I've been threatened by street people, they showed me or made reference to knives. A gun seems like an expensive liability to such a person, which could be sold or traded for a substantial amount of drugs but could get them into a lot of trouble if they were caught with it. A knife though is worth basically nothing and won't get them into very much trouble if they're caught with it either. So a low rate of shootings doesn't give me much consolation. I'm more interested in the rate of stabbings and beatings, robberies and assaults... violent crime generally not specifically those done with guns. Why even single out one particular kind of weapon if you're trying to reassure somebody that a neighborhood is safe? That's weird, particularly since the people who are cause for concern are unlikely to have that kind of weapon in the first place.
"Too dangerous" obviously includes robberies and assaults, but you've neatly excluded those to narrow the focus of the conversation to murder. Where is this idea coming from, that violent crime doesn't count unless somebody is murdered (or specifically shot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36374483)?
This attitude exemplifies the problem; that all manner of crime should tolerated from homeless unless they shoot or murder somebody. Only then does it rise to your concern. And in the case of tlogan's comment that I just linked to, even somebody getting stabbed to death doesn't count because they weren't shot. This is how you get situations as described by seanmcdirmid here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36374451 Crazy guy known to be violent is tolerated by local authorities because he hasn't yet killed anybody. No big deal until he murders somebody, only then do people care. This is why the electorate of these cities is the root of the problem, because the electorate don't give a shit about the crime until somebody gets killed.
Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
You broke the site guidelines badly and repeatedly in this thread. Please don't do that again. Fortunately it doesn't look like you've been in the habit of doing it before, so it should be easy to fix.
Ooo good one I used a term you don’t like so you zinged me. Heavily zinged. When oh when will I leave a comment convincing people like you that sometimes other people deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Secret answer: never)
Weird. From time to time, I stomp around that part of the neighborhood late at night and also early in the morning and I disagree with this assessment.
Whenever I hear shit like this that doesn't mesh with my on-the-ground assessment, I have to wonder if there's an ulterior motive, and what that might be.
Is someone trying to get Federal funding for policing in the city? Is a group of someones trying to trigger some "I don't have to pay to break my lease because conditions around my business are 'obviously too terrible'" clause so that leaving the city is much, much cheaper? Is someone trying to prevent folks from airing yet more footage of folks sleeping on and doing drugs on the street? Something else?
Wow, that New Yorker article really is something. She hires private investigators to obtain sealed court records about an allegation of child abuse and de-anonymized the child. Then when the university reprimands her for this and tells her to turn over the documents, she calls that an "Orwellian nightmare". Orwellian? Who's the one doing the spying, procuring documents they have no right to possess? Loftus herself was the Orwellian nightmare but she saw herself as the victim in this. Even if Loftus's hypothesis about the case is correct, she clearly caused a great deal of emotional anguish for this person but was more concerned with the university telling her to leave it alone. The whole of this article paints her as a narcissist if not a psychopath.
The whyevolutionistrue rebuttal is insubstantial, it doesn't address this at all.
SBIRS is intended to use infrared to track ballistic missiles through all stages of flight, including decoys and debris released during the mid-course phase in space (so we know it's meant to be extremely sensitive, not limited to tracking hot rocket engines during the boost phase) Seems like a good bet that orbital systems with such sensors could be used to track LEO satellites too.
There's an interesting question concerning why (most) US stealth aircraft are black. Black isn't the best color to make an aircraft invisible at night; a dark blueish gray is best for that. One possibility is that the radar absorbent material is inherently black so they don't have a choice, and indeed the U-2 was originally a dark blue color before it received a new black RAM paint. That is probably the real reason I think, but another possibility is that when missile and radar technology made visual intercepts less relevant, they were freed to paint these secretive aircraft a less optimal black, which everybody knows is the proper color for secretive aircraft.
Incidentally the new B-21 apparently won't be black. Maybe they have a new RAM paint formulation that doesn't force the choice of black.
Whatchu talkin' 'bout Willis? Neither the B-2, nor the F-22, nor the F-35 are black, they're all this bluish gray you mention, same as most non-stealth aircraft. The only stealth aircraft I can think of that was black was the F-117.
You're right that the F-22 and F-35 aren't black, but neither are they the blueish gray I'm talking about which is much darker: https://dragonladyhistory.com/2019/04/30/u-2-black-paint/ The B-2 also isn't very blueish, it's more on the dark gray end of the scale but I can see how that's subjective.
And you're forgetting the U-2 and SR-71, which lacked full blown RCS reduction geometry but were still fitted with the black RAM coating (the SR-71 also had some stealth geometry; that was the purpose of the chines.)
> They are even offering to pay companies the extra cost to reinforce their payloads to try and get customers and they still can't get anyone to do it.
It certainly can't help that Spinlaunch can't put anything into space.
No it isn't, the "energy costs" are negligible. That link is a joke, he's fear mongering about the effect of satellites falling back to earth but can't point to any specific harm; "Effect? WE HAVE NO IDEA." Classic Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt; aka FUD.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us-navy-sail...
> Kristian Saucier, of Arlington, Vermont, appeared in federal court in Bridgeport, where a judge also ordered him to serve six months of home confinement with electronic monitoring during a three-year period of supervised release after the prison time. He pleaded guilty in May to unauthorized detention of defense information and had faced five to six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.
> Saucier admitted to taking six photos of classified areas inside the USS Alexandria in 2009 when it was in Groton and he was a 22-year-old machinist mate on the submarine. The photos showed the nuclear reactor compartment, the auxiliary steam propulsion panel and the maneuvering compartment, prosecutors said.
> Saucier took the photos knowing they were classified, but did so only to be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy, his lawyers said. He denied sharing the photos with any unauthorized recipient.