>Have you tried to confirm this hypothesis, by for example looking at studies that examine the crime rate by both socioeconomic status and race?

This isn't a hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_S...

>BLM's problem[1] is that it's a national movement about local problems. It's city cops, not the FBI, that kill people with impunity.

Which happens because black people are overrepresented when it comes to crime, which happens because they are overrepresented in being poor as dirt.

There is racism in the police force in the US, no doubt, but constantly dealing with criminals and seeing a disparity in a race is bound to make people racist. If you were to wave a magic wand and make all racism in the US disappear overnight, new racism would appear in the span of a month because poor people are still poor. This is why I think BLM was headed towards failure from the very start.

It seems to be a very common theme in Western journalism to describe Asian countries as dystopias or dystopias in the making. Often this is based on the idea of a dystopia floating around in Western pop culture, influenced by books like Big Brother or Brave New World.

This comes with a habit of putting these societies in contrast with the western societies, and claiming the obvious superiority of the latter. This sentiment could be paraphrased as "these people are surely living in hell, and that's because they don't know how to preserve their freedom".

It's also phrased as a warning to their own people: "be careful about all those new political ideas, or we'll end up like those Asians (or Africans)".

This to me seems very much like a mixture of arrogance and ignorance which leads Westerners to believe that things are the best where they live, and it's so because they're just so smart that they could set things up this way, and they have the best culture.

It's bizarre if you take a step back and think about it, as if they're collectively patting themselves on the back, and at the same time are trying to convince themselves that the issues that they're having are nothing in comparison to the issues that others have.

The Rittenhouse defence has requested a mistrial after the prosecution just admitted that they sent the defence only a compressed copy of the drone video. This whole issue has been rather an eye opener. Really the judge I don't mind being technically inept because his job is to study those huge law books, but there needs to be better use and understanding of the tech in the process.

A detective air dropped the file to the prosecution but then emailed a copy to the defence, and they where all oblivious to the fact that this would compress the video. Originally the prosecution blamed the defence since they where sure they sent the full video, it must have been the recipient who compressed it. Eventually they admitted it was compressed by their side, but they where unaware at the time. The defence did not know that they had received a lower quality video and they argue that they would have done things a little differently had they received the full quality video, so they ask for a mistrial.

The whole thing is painful to watch from a technology perspective. They had to debate for 2 hours about if they where going to let the jury view the videos, should they view them in court room or in private, how many times can they watch them? Do they use windows media player? No VLC player. Ok how do you spell that?

Even the process of watching videos in the courtroom was painful. Like "play video x now, ok pause there, no go back a bit, thats too far, ok play it anyway, stop, can you slow it down and zoom in? No, ok back up again lets review again."

It seems to me thay there is a lot of low hanging fruit here, to improve this process, from evidence handling to court room presentation.

> I wasn't aware the EU had such authority to decide how programs on a users private computer must behave.

Why not? They publish directives that result in criminal law in member states all the time.

A directive is published, member states are obligated to turn that into domestic legislation, and yes, ultimately a state can criminalise lots of things if it wants to.