No, it just means that they create work and then hire people, not the other way around.

1. That person was hired to imagine them. 2. The corporation then hired other people to implement that imagination. They did not hire people and then try to imagine what they would have them do. There are rare situations in which a company might start a new line of business because they had employees with a set of skills. But that is not the usual way companies grow.

Corporations hire human beings to do work that makes them money. They don't create work to hire human beings.

Can someone explain the difference? Or its significance.

There is nothing in the story that indicates the police had the picture prior to responding.

Where is the evidence that the dispatcher knew the source of the information or had the picture?

from the actual story:

Sounds to me like the picture was at the school.

And that is a stupid argument. They had no reason to doubt that the kid had a gun. That's the information they actually had. Trying to look at a picture while negotiating traffic art high speed is an even more stupid idea. If you were arguing the dispatcher should have looked at the picture you might have a point. If you said that dispatching police based on unverified AI is stupid you would have a good point.

What makes you think those are the basics of police training?

"Gee. Sorry I killed him. Will try to do better next time." That will make people trust the police? If you called the cops, trusting them, and they just killed your out of control kid, you don't really care whether they are sorry.

Its not a bad thing for people to mistrust the police and consider their intervention a last resort. Police see the worst of us at their worst, the best of us at our worst and only rarely deal with anyone at their best. The result is their view of the world is distorted, jaded and cynical. They are trained to believe their safety requires they take control and to use violence to ensure that they keep that control. And they carry guns to make that happen.

My bet is that what was on the police officer's mind was not whether the kid had a gun but how to disarm him without getting shot.

You need to look in a mirror more often so you can recognize one.

This is 30 year old news. There was at least on study of women's economic status in the 1990's that found working class women who had children in their late teens were better off economically than if they had waited until their mid-20's. But that was not true for affluent women.

The researchers concluded/speculated that the difference was that women in their late teens still had their family support network in tact. Grandma just naturally stepped in to take care of the kid when needed. By their mid-20's they had been living independently for several years. Grandma no longer felt responsible for them.

The other issue was that in their late teens they had jobs with little responsibility. If they missed work to care for a sick child their employer tolerated it. But by their mid-20's they had jobs with responsibilities that employers couldn't easily replace. The example was someone working as one of many clerks in the store and being promoted to assistant manager responsible for opening. A very different scenario than having gone to college and got a law degree.

I am not sure how that relates to overall decline in children. But as women have taken on more responsibility in the working world, it seems natural that they will devote less energy to having and raising children. That becomes an even bigger issue in a world where relationships, including marriages, are often temporary. Many people, men and women, no longer have the security of a life partner to share the raising of children. Having children you see once a week is not the same as having a family. So perhaps the real issue is strengthening families, not focusing on making it easier./cheaper to have children.

From a human perspective, I hope the world isn't entirely a result of random events either. They both take away my agency. Which is why discussions of fate have probably been happening since the first human being asked "why am I here" and different cultures address the question differently.

You could say the same thing of the "big bang" or "god" for that matter. But that also denies human agency. Thus Albert Camus.

Cops are trained to go charging in with guns. Its a part of their job. The information they had said they were dealing with an armed suspect. Your argument is they should be standing around verifying the information they were given by the dispatcher rather than acting on it.

There are plenty of neighborhoods where people don't call the cops because they know from experience that cops are armed and dangerous. Maybe calling the cops should be a last resort for that reason. You are living in a fantasy world if you think this incident is that unusual. If you don't want cops charging in with guns drawn you should vote for people who will disarm them. Instead of calling cops "complete morons" because they do what they were hired and trained to do.

That is true. But they had a report that there was a kid with a gun out on the campus. That's not exactly anywhere at any time.

Who had it? I doubt they even looked at the picture before heading off. Why would they? They had was a dispatcher sending them to a school to deal with an armed student. The kid didn't have a gun when they got there. Now they had to determine if he had a gun earlier. They got the picture and showed it him. That was the point at which it became clear the whole thing was a mistake.

That is complete BS. The police response here did not depend in the least on the student's "trust". And your trust seems to be based on a completely idealized version of real police work. Did you know TV and movies are fiction?

How is this any different than what has happened to folk music. It has been mined and used over and over again to create new music with no real acknowledgement of its province. There has been no significant additions or modifications to folk music in the modern era.

The owners of AI are going to try to claim ownership of its output even though that output relies on mining the commons. They will have effectively claimed a monopoly on of humanity's common ownership. Its either the end of intellectual property or the end of new human creativity.

So they have a possibility of an active shooter and they are studying the picture to see if the kid in the picture has a gun instead of finding the kid?

They showed the picture to the kid who told them what was in it. So apparently it took more than a glance for someone who had been prompted to see a gun.

The more people there are who tell kids that the better. Cops are armed and dangerous. They should be treated as such. And this incident is a perfect example of that with the exception the kid is still alive.

The fact that their minimum standard allow flares that burn out is probably because they are a readily available and reliable option.

I am not going to get in over my head in a discussion of quantum mechanics. Or the difference between deterministic and random in that context. Its hard for me to figure out how you know whether a past event was predetermined or random. It would think its pretty clear the universe has not been expanding randomly. So there seems to be a pattern to the "randomness" which seems to me a contradiction in terms.

I am not sure how something that is contradicted by appearances does the best job of explaining something. As far as I can tell its just the best mathematical model human beings have and no one has yet come up with one that is better. Its not clear whether that is because of our limitations or because there isn't one.

There is a whole set of people who believe the entire universe is deterministic. Its a very old concept currently popular among those who believe the universe started with the "big bang".