The last few cases that come to mind (Breivik, Tarrant) are from lone wolves that had radical ideas but were not affiliated with any group.
It must be very difficult to catch (unless you want a surveillance society where everyone is suspect).
Even in cases where it's planned and announced it's difficult to stop (Al Qaeda did announce they would assassinate Charb, editor in chief of Charlie Hebdo, and despite police protection they managed to do so).
I suspect you're just disagreeing on what "keeping tabs" actually means.
The government shouldn't put someone under (specific|personal) surveillance without strong evidence of course. But I don't see what prevents them from reading twitter, going into public chat rooms, etc.
I would say this is a 5-year-old's understanding of the police, if not for the fact that 5 year olds (at least boys) typically like anything related to the police.
The cartels would obviously immediately stop chopping up journalists in pieces and would retrain to become car mechanics, bakers, factory workers, etc.
Radical affirmative action. Not radical in the rioting / revolution understanding of the word, but in its application.
So, if the issue with systematic racism is such that it endangers the foundational core of American society, it's time to take a big risk: literally pull random people to sit on VC and companies boards, in skilled jobs, etc. (a bit like the Diversity Visa Lottery the US already does for immigration). And train them on the job.
Sure, there will be issues here and there, but it would definitely solve the issue once and for all. It wouldn't even have to be explicitly racial. If it's truly random, you would end up with an accurate representation of the population.
It would also desegregate schools and neighborhoods, too, because with such a disruption people would have to move to match their new jobs.
Now, an exception should be made of course for professions where an error would mean life or death (or injury): doctors, airline pilots, etc. But I suspect 95% of careers at least could be desegregated in this way.
And perhaps an exception for jobs that truly require special abilities: professor of physics, professional athlete, etc.
You cannot possibly avoid testing software, unless the software is literally useless.
So testing will definitely happen _at some point_. The debate is about where it happens: on the developer's computer, on a tester's computer, on a CI agent, or on the user's computer.
I like to cover as much code as possible before the software reaches the user, but that's just me.
More important than this change of terminology, I think it's good that Twitter decided to donate ten million dollars to NGOs fighting slavery around the world (it's still prevalent, especially in Africa and Asia)
An even bigger mistake than starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the mistake of keeping those wars going forever.
And that mistake is still ongoing.
Of course, I'm assuming it's a mistake and not a deliberate strategy. But the people advocating for keeping troops there should make explicit again their reason for doing so.
Point taken, although I don't think I was engaging in that.
I did not make comments about Islam specifically, and whether it is "good" or "bad" in the absolute sense. I could have made the same argument by pointing out that protestant and catholic Christians have had trouble living together in Europe. My point is more generally that cultures that are too different can't live together in the same place; Islam in France was just a contemporary example I'm familiar with.
It must be very difficult to catch (unless you want a surveillance society where everyone is suspect).
Even in cases where it's planned and announced it's difficult to stop (Al Qaeda did announce they would assassinate Charb, editor in chief of Charlie Hebdo, and despite police protection they managed to do so).