I have this discussion quite a bit with colleagues who specialize in communication.
I want to convey technical and scientific material. My presentation isn’t to motivate a billion people to buy an iPhone. My presentation is meant to inform 50-100 people to learn a new technique. And the slide deck is markers for where they can follow up later for detail and references.
I too see presentations with walls of text. I go to academic and scientific conferences. This is helpful to me. I like it better than posters. I don’t want to go to a conference and have a bunch of Steve Jobs (or more likely Elizabeth Holmes) giving one word per slide presentations.
I also don’t have 100 people working on my slide deck. It’s just me. I don’t need a TED talk.
I wish people would recognize the different purposes and audiences for presentations.
The inside joke among academicians is that our slides have wall of text because we make them on the flight while going to the conferences! Our presentations tend to be bland because the audience is reading off the slides and ignore what the speaker is saying. That's why for our doctoral students we make it mandatory to present at least twice internally before presenting to external audiences. Otherwise, they have these giant tables copied from the manuscript and pasted on the slides, which most people can't read without binoculars.
Yeah but people will put 40 lines of code on a slide and read through it, expecting that it will explain the underlying concept while I’m trying to parse a ton of code in front of my eyes.
Most of the time that I am presenting technical material, I spend it on explaining the concepts through short descriptions, hand-draw illustrations or diagrams.
If there’s code to show, it will be smaller snippets interspersed between those slides. If attendees want to deep dive into 100 lines of code, it is best that they do it on their own time at their own pace after I send out the materials.
I actually talk about code but this applies to non-technical presentations too. Yeah, it’s also not a sales presentation but don’t wall-of-text me.
That’s not really a viable recourse as it will result in that state being force ably retained in the union.
I think a better remedy is to work within the laws of the country and to elect different federal representatives (president, senator, house representatives).
Secession would definitely be worse for any state attempting it.
I would like for cops to be more humane in arresting people and stop going to place of work to grab people in front of their coworkers. But this seems like just as rude when they go to a “regular” person’s office in the middle of the day and arrest them.
The argument is that if they notify the accused beforehand they may flee. But I don’t buy this as many people will likely turn themselves in if notified. I’m guessing an ai could predict with 99% accuracy people who will self surrender and save everyone embarrassment (and money).
I’m talking about the reason why ICE was unable to arrest the suspect that is the nominal reason the FBI arrested this judge.
It seems as if the facts that the suspect was in the judge’s court and then not arrested by ICE at that point aren’t contested. And that seems like a weird thing to happen.
ICE works on “administrative warrants” that are different than “judicial warrants” [0]
I didn’t know the difference until today when I was reading about the case. I think the difference is the ice warrants are like detention orders and are different than a judge’s arrest warrant that grants a lot more power.
I thought they were misdemeanor crimes [0] punishable by jail time.
So they are crimes, but not huge.
I’m not a lawyer or a law enforcement officer, but I thought that local law enforcement can certainly hold someone charged with a federal crime. Eg, if someone commits the federal crime of kidnapping, then local cops can detain that person until transferred to FBI.
Imagine that someone is being charged with shoplifting and literally at trial. Some other law enforcement agency shows up to the trial and wants to arrest them for jaywalking.
It seems dysfunctional that the court would release them when they know a different law enforcement agency is literally in the building and wanting to arrest them.
Is this how it works when the FBI comes to a county court looking for someone the county cops have in custody?
Talk to the cops, not the judge who is in a proceeding? Go talk to the chief justice?
The idea that the judge did anything wrong here, based on the description given by the FBI themselves, is absolutely beyond the pale. There's zero reason for ICE agents to barge into court and demand to take somebody.
They didn't even leave one of the multiple agents in the courtroom to wait for the proceedings to end. To blame the judge at all in this requires making multiple logical and factual jumps that even the FBI did not put forward.
Edit: the Trump administration has also been attacking the Catholic Charities of Milwaukee, which this judge used to run:
> Before she was a judge, Dugan worked as a poverty attorney and executive director of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
It seems pretty clear that this is a highly politically motivated arrest that has zero justification.
Oh, I’m certainly not endorsing the arrest of the judge.
But wouldn’t the bailiff hold the person?
Is it typical for the FBI to lose a suspect in this manner? If so, this seems dysfunctional as if someone is in the court system then jurisdictions need to coordinate to just operate efficiently. It needs fixing so if ICE wants someone and a local courthouse has them in custody that ICE can pick them up.
But arresting judging is not going to help fix this bureaucratic silliness.
On what grounds would the bailiff hold the person?
I'm not sure why the courthouse should hold someone for ICE, it wasn't even necessary here they still got the person. All they had to do was stay where they were.
What federal warrant was there? I don't see any mention of one but the best that ICE could issue is not a judicial warrant and does not meet most of the requirements under the 4th amendment for detainment of a person.
Generally state and local law enforcement and courts have no legal requirement to enforce most federal arrest warrants. This is due to our dual sovereignty system. Of course they also can't actively interfere with federal law enforcement or lie to federal officers, but it doesn't seem like that's what happened in this incident.
Different people have different view preferences.
reply