I don't know, but I doubt free training would be a driving force for people joining the police.

Forcing someone to do something they've lost interest in is a poor way of encouraging them to invest themselves in and commit themselves to their work longer term. If the aim was to get them to thumb it in just enough, this would be ideal. Cycling on 2 years would not be ideal as a general target to aim for.

The first point is intended to be an unlikely extreme, put there predominantly to highlight the more realistic 2nd point, which is currently in use. I agree that there would be other options, but I'm not aware of any that have been employed. Checked with my brother-in-law (a NSW 'beat' cop, who doesn't like being called that) who couldn't offer another viable option either, even from his side of the fence.

You do not have to start as a beat cop. An easy example is, Forensics units, they tend to come from other avenues that are specifically science based with no prior affiliation to that of a beat cop. Administration, is another easy to see example, as well as criminal psychologists.

Do you see how those with higher IQ's will still be targeted, but towards different roles, completely bypassing the more rudimentary or 'on-show' (as my bro-in-law says) roles?

There ARE police who start as detectives. There are courses that gear them up with the required knowledge for the role. Sure some (not aware of the %) will go the longer career advancement path.

A great form of stability for any organization in its hiring procedure is to keep an individual in the same role for close to a decade. It's cheap, largely efficient, and by the 3rd to 4th year they are essentially a master at that role.. why then would the administration want to pull them out of that role, only to have to start the cycle again by training another (currently) inferior for the vacancy? Granted this method would offer some strengths otherwise missed.

Nothing is clear cut and exceptions can always be made. But policies such at the one featured in this video, exist to create predictable balances of resources that will make managing the overall organization easier and more stable.

Last one = Homer "eat the pudding, eat the pudding, eat the pudding, hom"

As much as we would like those who pass judgement on us to be intelligent, the notion that this test-range is based on, is stable from a governing perspective.

Take the emotion out (concerns of ones personal safety/punishment) and review the situation again.

i.e. Businesses are financially driven and therefore do not hire people that are over educated for a role, as they do tend to feel unsatisfied and eventually will leave for a reason that falls within a bell curve (knowing they can do more). This sensibility is in direct relation to sustainability. If as a standard they kept hiring people unnecessarily skillful who will likely get bored and also know they could do something more intelligent/challenging/satisfying, they would blow all their money and go out of business.

Would you rather have,
1. No service (or and including, a perpetually collapsing service that exists only by way of endless cash injections that drains a countries budget), or
2. A relatively ok service that is trained to follow a fairly simple set of guidelines, with a dispute system (courts) to back up any non-time sensitive poor decisions?

There's no justifiable value to a required service if it's not sustainable.

They will still hire intelligent people, but for the right roles, which will be with different testing criteria. Not the more common base-level operator (widespread foot soldier) roles.

lol @ the bus

There's no indication that the guy blocking the door works there. The YouTube video state's "people blocking the door".

Probably a passerby seeing the scene, closed the door to trap and distract the robber while not endangering themselves. The employee was already in a bad situation which couldn't really be helped without direct and dangerous intervention.

It's only racist if you want it to be. Otherwise it's a joke. Chuckle at the intended value and move on.

I see this a lot, truckies are great for it.

Brave, smart and lucky girl.

Right as the video switches from 4 to 5 seconds, you can see the kitten roll to a stop after it tumbles. Due to it's position on the road based on the next 2 vehicles to pass and the car it appears behind not having any back window open/moving and that it falling on it's back suggesting it didn't fall very far, it seems to have fallen out from under the larger silver vehicle that it appeared behind.

@VoodooV One of my favourite quotes is roughly "Intelligence isn't explaining simple things in a complex way, it's explaining complex things in a simple way".

@Chairman_woo I enjoyed your posts and appreciate the effort that you put in.
To save you a bit of time I'll give you the blurry formula: Quote scripture, word-play/twisting, mental-gymnastics, confusion via expansion of points, and all of these include subject relation/alteration by way of small technicalities.
There's also the exhaustion effect, but this is more a byproduct from Shiny's genuine (and respectable) effort to converse on matters of interest.
Also what you detected from some sifters is due to many trying before you.

@Drax lol. Nailed it.

54 years, that guy would have a lot of experience and patience with carving.

Yeah but you're using rational thought. If you stop doing that, it might make sense.. somehow.

The changing of 's' to 'z' is a bit annoying. Mainly due to Microsoft among others passing English (English) and English (Australian) off as being English (US) in their software's due to not including proper English for the respective language settings.

Very well done.

Looks alright.