Probably because there are international agreements with the minimum fields required on travel documents and "Sex" (Yes, Sex - not Gender) is listed as a required field (though actual values permitted are not specified from what I could see, so 'X' appears to be perfectly valid to add if a country wishes to do so on their documents). https://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/9303_p3_cons_en....
Indeed! That's been my route out of trouble on multiple occasions.
The setup for the first time takes some effort to get it working and that first fail-over event is both panic inducing and wonderful to see when that replica becomes a primary.
Like every disaster recovery plan, the secret is to regularly test it - do not wait until it is needed as that will be when you discover some small, but critical, element has been left out and things will not work either as expected or as needed. I've also been there and done that, unfortunately more than once - some lessons need learned more than once to get through.
While replication can be a key part of your disaster recovery plan, I think it's more often useful for operational HA, allowing you to perform database server maintenance with low (seconds) downtime. Actual real disasters where you need to fail over to the secondary in an uncontrolled manner and recovering the primary is not an option are rather rare events for any single database system.
In an actual disaster scenario, the simplest option is to always try recovering the primary database if at all possible, especially if your replication setup is a simple asynchronous one. If you just fail over to a secondary, you will have to deal with data loss from asynchronous replication due to replication delay and whatever effects that has on your application (monitor your replication lag!)
You can also set up a cluster with synchronous replicas for "true" DR, but that gets much more complicated, and honestly is likely unnecessary for most systems.
I think there is an important word missing from the title, it is Police /Disciplinary/ Records that are being referenced. That is a significant difference and there is a very strong case that these should be retained in exactly the same way criminal records are retained (essentially forever) and for the same purpose - so they can be looked up and referenced should any officer come to attention and a fuller picture of their character is required.
There was a rumor that in the Rittenhouse case, one of the other folks involved had a much much larger actual criminal history then the one they released, but that a lot of the history was hidden in various ways?
This was supposedly misinformation but the details were pretty specific, and they seemed to indicate that there might be a method to basically hide past convictions so a full picture would not be available.
Has anyone heard of something called "Expungement"?
Most US states have some form of expungement law which allows past criminal records to be cleared. It's mostly intended to help ex-cons with reintegration, because it can be so difficult to get employment (and in many cases voting rights, public services, housing, etc) with a criminal history. Basically criminal records are a major part of the "cycle of criminality" that causes recidivism because former criminals are unable to support themselves by means other than crime (can't get a job, etc), and so expungement policies are expected to have a positive impact on both crime and social welfare. The details all vary from state to state, often there's a limit on how severe of an offense can be expunged, it has to be a certain time in the past, and typically the records are not really "expunged" but removed from public reports---law enforcement and judges can often still see them, as well as federal background checks, and sometimes anyone can ask for a court order to unseal. The expungement itself usually requires a court order, so the court makes a judgment whether or not expungement serves the public interest (i.e. will allow the person to contribute more fully to society). There are a lot of law firms like that that specialize in expungement because there are many people with criminal records and in most cases the process is a pretty straightforward paperwork exercise, so you can make a steady profit stream with a few paralegals preparing form letters.
It becomes a different matter for people who are charged with crimes and otherwise in court, as courts have rules about what criminal history can or cannot be introduced in the court. There's a general principle that a jury shouldn't know about a person's unrelated previous convictions, since it will bias them towards the person being a criminal despite not actually being evidence relevant to the case in question. But I think there are plenty of exceptions, i.e. if the person has been convicted for pretty much the same crime before it can usually be introduced by the prosecution as circumstantial evidence that they apparently have the skills/means/motivation to commit such a crime. But you can't just tell the jury that they have a rap sheet a mile long. I'm not a lawyer and only know so much about this but I believe that usually pretty much the same rules apply to witnesses. You can bring up that a witness has a criminal record if it's somehow directly relevant to their testimony (i.e. they have lied to a court in the past) but you can't just tell the jury that they have a criminal record to try to ruin their reputation. Although it usually fails in practice, the justice system is at least theoretically built around the principle that people can and do change, and so prior criminality shouldn't be held against them if it isn't somehow contributory to the current situation.
To add to this, a lot of times expungement isn't very useful because there are a ton of private companies that scrape these records (including arrest records) constantly. Some of these companies have business models built around conducting background checks and an unfortunate number of them have business models that rely solely on getting people to pay them to "remove" these records.
Yes, this is a big issue! Part of the reason why e.g. California and other states have introduced "ban the box" legislation to restrict employers asking about criminal history, when they already have an expungement process, is because of this issue exactly. Most pre-employment background checks are done through vendors like LexisNexis that pull records at the time of the incident and then retain them permanently, so expungement doesn't do anything. The whole private background check and criminal records industry can be surprisingly sketchy, including behavior that looks to reasonable people like extortion, but it's resisted almost any regulation or oversight. Some of this comes from an inherent tension between public records and personal privacy (are the actions of law enforcement a matter of public interest or a matter of personal privacy? the line can be very blurry), but a lot of it is also just because this industry is politically and financially powerful and any action against it tends to look "soft on crime."
The accused's criminal history comes up more in sentencing than it does in actual criminal cases - in the US system you're being tried on the crime before the court, not anything from your past. There are obvious exceptions - someone who is suspected of murdering their spouse who has prior domestic violence charges is one you see a lot - but in general, that comes up during the sentencing, where the judge has a lot of leeway to tailor the sentence to the circumstances.
Expungement is a thing, but even more importantly in court it’s usually at a judges discretion whether or not evidence is allowed and criminal history is a type of evidence.
Sometimes evidence is not allowed because it is considered prejudicial.
The purpose of a criminal trial is to determine guilt on a specific crime rather than character. That excluded evidence is sometimes allowed at sentencing.
There was controversy in the Rittenhouse case about his prior comments and actions not being allowed into evidence.
>There was a rumor that in the Rittenhouse case, one of the other folks involved had a much much larger actual criminal history then the one they released, but that a lot of the history was hidden in various ways?
As an aside, there's a ~2hr video floating around the internet of bodycam footage from arm guy's DUI arrest between the shooting and the trail. They dropped it, presumably because an active DUI case makes for a crappy prosecution witness. Police officers don't even get treatment that good. If they get as far as being cited (vs a free ride home, which is what they often get) the prosecution typically makes them plead down and spend thousands doing so rather than just dropping it.
That said, the DUI in question is an example of a lot of things that are wrong with policing (the cops in the video are professional and civil the whole time) and I think it's worth watching just for that.
> If Facebook reversed the decision, it's not censorship.
Using a different example, I wanted to eat in a local restaurant [a privately owned company providing a public service entirely on their own terms] but I was refused entry because I am black and their "policies" [which is the reason I am given] prohibit entry to black people. I call attention to the situation by standing outside with a placard saying this restaurant treated me in a discriminatory way because I am black. The restaurant manager then comes to me and says, sorry that was a mistake caused by the 'patron classifier' [i.e. some vague entity that implies no actual person is at fault anywhere], and I can come in now.
So, do I understand correctly that you would say the restaurant is not operating any type of discriminatory policy because it reversed the decision when attention was publicly drawn to it?
To me, that reasoning does not seem to make sense. Being embarrassed into changing a decision does not stop your original decision being wrong in the first place. It simply means you want to stop attention being drawn to it and hope I will stop making a fuss if you make an exception for me on this occasion. You can continue making that same [wrong] decision for everyone else that is unable to complain and draw attention to their plight.
> homeless people might ask for your empty bottle and do the collection
I lived in Alberta 10 years ago and this was totally a thing. One homeless guy hung around the apartment and if you were carrying drink containers he would come and say "Can I take them to the store for you?". Of course, he meant could he get the deposit money on them too. He would hang around until he could fill two or three large garbage bags then head off to the return center to collect the deposit money. In all the time I lived there, I never found out where the actual return center was as I never needed to. The few $ involved was no loss to me (or anyone else in the apartment) but went towards the homeless guy being able to buy food. Never once did he seem drunk or high so he really did seem to be doing it to get food. I would see other guys like him walking along the street with garbage bags of bottles too, so it appeared to be the thing they did and it seemed to work out for everyone as I spoke to lots of people who said they also had a local homeless person that did the same at their apartments.
When I lived in Brazil there was no reliable municipal recycling in my city, and no bottle deposit, so instead of throwing paper, cans and bottles into the common garbage, we just left it properly separated at the door and a homeless guy with a cart would pick it up weekly and get it recycled.
They were pretty much running a public utility service I'd otherwise have to pay for with taxes.
The price increases (10% per year since 2011) have created a market for stolen and counterfeit cigarettes already. Creating a slow-roll prohibition will not stop people wanting to smoke tobacco products - in fact, previous evidence (e.g. alcohol and cannabis as things most people know about) shows that people are motivated to partake by the very idea of it being illicit.
The product of US prohibition was the creation of extremely wealthy alcohol running families who are nowadays big (legitimate) businesses in North America, built up through the wealth of the illegal operations during prohibition.
While the intention (zero smoking) would save many from suffering horrible deaths, observation of basic human motivation suggests the NZ experiment is more likely to make a few people extremely wealthy and not actually stop tobacco smoking at all, no matter how much better off people would be by not smoking.
While both alcohol and weed can give you altered reality experience, tobacco can not. Tobacco smokers are a major annoyance and a nuisance to the public, on top of killing themselves slowly, so if the tobacco cigarrets would've been strictly illegal and you coldn't smoke in public I can't imagine people willing to organize into small secret clubs to smoke a few cigs a day in a place you have to go to.
>While both alcohol and weed can give you altered reality experience, tobacco can not.
What does that really mean? Cigarettes are psychoactive. Passed that, it's just a matter of degrees. To be honest I remember being 18 and smoking cigarettes with my friends and spacing out. In retrospect it was very lame, but kids will try to alter their consciousness however they can
Good points. Like you said, kids drink underage and kids smoke underage. People buy heroin, etc. even though it is illegal. We'd be better off making these things legal for those 18+, tax them and use that to fund addiction recovery (we already have addicts but no one is paying for recovery).
> the NZ experiment is more likely to make a few people extremely wealthy and not actually stop tobacco smoking
The trend is pretty good, and numbers are steadily falling. E-cigarettes have been vowing though.
The below stats obviously pre-date the change announced.
Canadian internet is a dumpster fire due to the Bell/Rogers monopolies. Anti competitive behavior is ignored - Bell configure their 'VDSL2' lines into a non-compliant signal to lock out non Bell modems (anything that implements real VDSL2 standard cannot synchronize to showtime so does not work), 3rd parties like Teksavvy are forced to pay for system access and then on top have to pay a compensation ['inconvenience'] fee for each line which ends up passed on as a cost to their customers who get screwed with some of the most expensive and poorly performing internet in the world. ISPs who install their own infrastructure get screwed on insane backhaul fees which get passed to consumers as high internet service fees and the ISP has to bandwidth shape and restrict line speed to avoid backhaul saturation or 'excess usage' fees. The Liberal government actively encourages the abuse and blocks attempts to get anything fixed either through the courts or parliament (which, like any dysfunctional democracy, rarely sits now - but that's a different story).
Are you sure about that? The CDC suggests many similar complications (which would cost exactly the same to treat regardless of the genesis of them) according to their website and indicates [mostly un-vaccinated] people die from chickenpox too. The comparison surprised me too, but seems to be remarkably appropriate.
I'm not sure I understand - do you mean these suggestions are placed there by Twitter to deligitimize the original tweet [who, in that case, would have a valid complaint but is being maligned by association with the addition of "crank stuff"] ?
Or are you saying the original tweet is from a crank and the placement by twitter of additional "crank stuff" is proof of the crank label?
BTW when I view the tweet (also not logged in), I got no suggestions at all, so Twitter are presenting it in a different way to different visitors (i.e. you and me for sure). Perhaps you were part of an A-B test?
I don't know why it was showing this content. I don't believe there is any motivation like de-legitimisation, it's just their algo, possibly it thinks showing that content boosts engagement.
