> The cofounder of Aerodome, a drone-as-first-responder company, tweeted this the other day:
This tweet is one of the stupidest tweets I have ever read, because it assumes a technological solution to a social problem.
Crime happens in San Francisco because the government of San Francisco does not want to stop it. Making it easier to stop, will not change San Francisco's unwillingness to stop it. San Francisco's criminality is not a result of insufficient resources. It is intentional. If nothing else, we saw that when Xi came to town.
They literally can stop crime tomorrow if they want to. They do not do this. Why would drones make them change their minds?
Commenting while reading, but
> The cofounder of Aerodome, a drone-as-first-responder company, tweeted this the other day:
This tweet is one of the stupidest tweets I have ever read, because it assumes a technological solution to a social problem.
Crime happens in San Francisco because the government of San Francisco does not want to stop it. Making it easier to stop, will not change San Francisco's unwillingness to stop it. San Francisco's criminality is not a result of insufficient resources. It is intentional. If nothing else, we saw that when Xi came to town.
They literally can stop crime tomorrow if they want to. They do not do this. Why would drones make them change their minds?
Their overnight cleanup when the Chairman visited last year was a stark illustration of what they could do if they just wanted to.