blotter_paper

You know how after the last big civilization all-out-war it turned out that the losers had secretly engaged in gross scientific experiments on humans? I think it would be naive to imagine that the winners didn't do so as well, they just didn't have their file cabinets put on display to retroactively justify the extreme violence that the world had just witnessed. Governments do scary things in basements, and they keep those basements as secret as possible -- we only get to see behind the veil when a government falls and an opponent successfully takes their files/scientists and that opponent has an incentive to make those files public. Not having brains attached would be a huge improvement over the current state of the art, in my opinion; I believe that we're probably already living in a world far more dystopian than the imagined one being discussed.

Zoe gods have chips: https://youtu.be/jT-jmq8KBw0

(Some chips aren't actually signing anything, they're just another way of reading the same info that's on the strip. It depends on the company issuing the card. This isn't covered in the video, but it's true.)

As the video shows, there are other vectors of extraction than ATMs.

It's probabilistic, like everything, but N-95 masks do protect the wearer from particles that small. The CDC purposefully lied to you so that you wouldn't stockpile masks they (understandably) wanted to use elsewhere.

/https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Filtration-Performance...

>Consistent with single-fiber filtration theory, N95 and P100 respirators challenged with silver monodisperse particles showed a decrease in percentage penetration with a decrease in particle diameter down to 4 nm.

It's funny you use mask wearing as an example -- when the CDC told us that masks would not protect us[0] there was no theory to back it up and no homework to do, it was just a realpolitik lie. Be cautious of experts wearing the skin of science.

[0]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/01/corona...

From the about section (emphasis added):

>Subreply was created by Lucian Marin from the desire of a having a simple to use, English only, public forum that has nothing in common with ancient and untrustworthy social networks.

[...]

>Limitations

>480 characters per reply ASCII only because it works everywhere

I could see this being a xenophobic thing, but I could also see it being more about the limited character set (for minimalism). I'm not making a claim about the motivations, but either way your desire seems counter to his vision.

Reputation?

Could you expand on that last sentence? I haven't had coffee yet, and I'm legitimately failing to grasp which regulations you're referring to.

>So in your view, anything that is a composite of two or more primitives is by definition "made up".

Yes. If we start calling higher order configurations "real" then we have to contend with all of the potentially imaginable subdivisions of the noumenon and either grant them all realness or find some arbitrary criteria upon which to deny some of those subdivisions the property of realness. If we grant that an insect is a real thing then I get to make up a new word, say, "kokirombo," that describes the front two-thirds of a grasshopper combined with the left half of a ladybug, some air, a pinch of grass, and the rear bumper of a 1998 Ford Taurus. You can come up with some arbitrary standard by which your gerrymandering of reality is allowed and mine is not, but there isn't anything that makes your standard more valid than mine. In practice we typically use usefulness as our standard for categorizing things, but dogmatically claiming this as the criteria for realness leads to absurd positions.

>Therefore, given a standard definition of natural numbers [1], any number except zero is made up?

I still haven't necessarily accepted zero as not being made up, but I think your Succ function implicitly depends on one being defined as well.

>They are actually, within the domain for which they are valid.

Strongly disagree. If you believe in quantum mechanics then you believe that things move probabilistically. I'm obviously arguing that every scale except the smallest is made up, but even if we hypothetically accepted the validity of larger scales then we would have to admit that there is an ever-so-vanishingly-small chance that any given cannonball will spontaneously jump three meters to the left thus deviating from it's Newtonian trajectory. The fact that you could launch cannonballs from now until the heat death of the universe without seeing this effect at a scale you would typically notice is inconsequential, Newton's equations are still merely a useful approximation and they are not isomorphic to the behavior of the noumenon.

>Then define "made up".

That which is not a part of base reality. If base reality were operating using the same rules as Conway's game of life then cells would be real, but gliders would be made up. Since Conway's game of life actually runs in a simulation on some computer or another, cells are also made up.

>Suppose it is merely a useful tool. This tool then necessarily has a structure that's isomorphic to part of the structure of the noumenon, otherwise it wouldn't actually be a useful tool.

Newton's equations are now accepted as an approximation; they are not isomorphic to part of the structure of the noumenon, yet remain useful when firing cannons. Myths and legends have been useful in compelling people to wage wars and donate to charities, yet we do not suppose that this usefulness means they are isomorphic to part of the structure of the noumenon.

Perhaps fermions and bosons correspond very closely to real parts of the noumenon, but they could also be a phenomenon which is emergent on top of something else -- as made up as chemistry, biology, psychology, and economics.

No prob, but if mdszy reads this I want to explicitly note that this is not meant as a caricature of their statement, I'm just trying to distill my meaning down into the most simple terms I can muster.

Alice buys a status symbol instead of donating to a charity. Bob says "Alice, stop and think about whether you care more about status symbols than charities!" Even if I agree with Bob's implicit condemnation, I can still see how Alice would feel attacked by the wording. Perhaps Bob wants Alice to feel attacked (this could be an attempt to jar Alice into recognizing her own greed), but it does Bob no good to not understand how he might be perceived by Alice. If Bob understands how he will be perceived then he will be able to craft his message in more useful ways -- ways that I would expect to be significantly friendlier on average, but which may sometimes actually be more combative. Ignorance of the perspectives of others does the message writer no good.

I also feel like I agree with your point, which is significantly more empathetic and less realpolitik than mine.

I wouldn't say that being found in nature means that something is not made up. Issus coleoptratus evolved gears long before humans invented them, yet gears seem purely phenomenal -- I wouldn't expect the noumenon to have anything directly corresponding to gears in it, "gear" is just a useful concept we have that lets us categorize part of an insect or a bicycle (both of which are made up themselves, of course).

There may be discrete math in the noumenon, but I'm not convinced of that. For all I know the noumenon could be dealing in something else entirely, and math might just be a really useful tool we came up with (like classical physics, and probably modern physics). Math is the simplest case you can make, but I don't see a compelling reason to accept it as a given.

Strongly disagree.

While I don't disagree with my reading of your statement (which may differ greatly from your intent -- I'm not sure), I also don't see it as another way of putting my last comment; I was attempting to make another point entirely.

I, for one, both agree with your perspective and see how the last sentence of your original comment could be taken as engaging in a "political slapfight" (a pretty vague term) when viewed from the other side. I think being able to view the world from the eyes of the other is a useful skill, even when the other is a literal fascist -- I'm not even arguing that you should necessarily come across differently, just that you should understand how you may come across to people with different perspectives.

I'm disappointed by how much sympathy for cops was expressed in the video I'm about to link, but when Killer Mike tells me that the destruction of black-owned businesses is a problem in his community while wearing a "kill your masters" shirt[0], I sort of tentatively take his word that this is a real issue. I just think that some people are using it as a substitute for the issue they really want to raise, and it feels very disingenuous to me. Let's talk about precinct buildings.

[0]: https://youtu.be/kSWasOhArfM

Without conceding that this topic should be our main focus right now I feel like we should draw a clear distinction between, say, local businesses on one extreme and police precinct buildings on the other. I see voices on the right, such as this article, invoking the destruction black-owned businesses as their examples of property damage and I can't help but feel like they tactically know this is more likely to draw a reaction than the destruction of buildings that belong to racist government institutions -- the American right wasn't too concerned when the KKK (a precursor to many southern police departments) burned down black businesses, churches, and homes. I can totally agree that the destruction of local businesses is a shame, but I'm not really worried about the big boxerinos and I'm downright ecstatic about police stations going up in flames.

Host it on IPFS, which was literally made to be eventually consistent across planets:

https://docs.ipfs.io/how-to/host-single-page-site/

...and also a blood thinner :/

I would recommend watching the George Floyd murder video, and not for morbid reasons. I think it helps to understand how calmly, with his hands in his pockets, this cop sat on Floyd's neck for 8 minutes (the last 3 of which Floyd was unresponsive for) while an EMT asked for a pulse to be checked. This was not an accidental death.

I don't think the man who killed Tamir Rice understood that he was shooting somebody holding an airsoft gun, but if the killer wasn't a cop then I seriously doubt that they would have decided his actions in that situation were reasonable as self defence -- they probably wouldn't clear me of all wrongdoing if I claimed that a 12 year old kid pointed an airsoft gun at me before I killed him. There's a double standard. Despite the victim being a 12 year old, I can see how this is less egregious than what I consider to be the clearly intentional killing of a known-to-be-helpless George Floyd -- I brought it up as an incident in your specific community where this pattern of violence bubbled up so dramatically that it received nation wide news coverage. I think you misunderstood some facts around the hiring and firing of the cop. He lied on paperwork at the original (Cleveland) police department, which is the technical reason he was fired -- it came up during a review of him following the shooting. The other (Bellaire) police department knew what they were buying. A quote from the link in my last reply:

>“He was cleared of any and all wrongdoing,” the Bellaire police chief, Richard Flanagan, told The Times Leader of Martins Ferry, Ohio, adding that it was unfair to “crucify” the officer. “It’s over and done with.”

I could see there being a causal link between how your city handled this incident (as well as others like it) and how much violence you're seeing now, a few years later, when everybody is focused on this other prominent example of the pattern.

I had named an example, the one which just happened. Reading that question sandwiched between my last sentence and your next one I was legitimately unsure what you were asking. Therefore I made it clear which question I erred on the side of you asking, and proceeded to answer. Please consider considering your own lack of clarity in communication before insulting others in the future.

You want another example of riots leading to change? The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was signed into law during a storm of riots that had broken out following the assassination of MLK.

>Have you got an actual example?

Of a cop murdering a black man in broad daylight and not getting charged for it? Hell, here's an example I just pulled up for someone else of a 12 year old black kid being murdered while he played airsoft in the park[0], the cop faced no charges and was subsequently hired by another police department in the same state. It's like paedophile priests getting shuffled around by the Catholics, absolutely absurd.

[0]: http://archive.is/jDQv3

>Name one example of this strategy succeeding

Uhm... when the 3rd precinct got burned down and George Floyd's murderer faced charges the next day? Cops don't normally face charges for murdering black men in broad daylight, so I don't take the timing of arson and charges as coincidence.

>Yes, deliberately preventing anyone from providing care or defense for a person who's being murdered makes you an accomplice to the murder.

Are we in agreement that this was documented as happening, and the other cops present were accomplices in the murder of George Floyd? If so, why do you think they aren't being charged?

>Who should the city of Cleveland have charged justly to prevent this?

I assumed GP meant Minneapolis, which I feel is reasonable given the context. But okay, random US city accepted. Let's see if your city has a history of letting cops get away with killing innocent black people... oh yeah, one of your cops killed a 12 year old kid who was playing airsoft in the park and was subsequently hired by another police department in the same state without facing any charges.[0] So maybe charging Tim Loehmann would have helped make your city less sensitive to this pattern being repeated elsewhere in the country.

I don't think violence against businesses is helpful, but I do think violence against the government is helpful; it seemed to get a cop charged. They need to stop this pattern of violence ASAP, and they need to face time for crimes committed.

[0]: http://archive.is/jDQv3

In this pattern of cases, the system is the perpetrator of extra-judicial violence. We've had plenty of time for the system to correct itself, and it hasn't. Now a precinct gets burned down, a cop gets charges the next day, and I'm like, okay ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ that seemed to work. It's not about revenge, it's about fixing the system by any means necessary. Fire works, protest signs haven't been.

6 paragraphs, 0 answers as to whether George Floyd deserved the form of justice you would extend to his murders or why he got an extrajudicial execution instead.

If there weren't riots, the topic would be whether to charge the direct murderer. Because of the riots, the discussion has shifted to charging his accomplices. This is progress, but not enough progress.

And yes, I definitely want to see them convicted. If there was a video of me preventing an EMT from checking a man's pulse while my co-worker choked him to death for 8 minutes, the last 3 of which the victim was unresponsive for, I wholeheartedly believe I would be convicted of being an accessory to murder. I want the same for these cops. This isn't a grey area where the person could reasonably be innocent, we have the video of an unresponsive man being executed in broad daylight.

The topic of the week is an extrajudicial murder committed by a team of four cops; where was our restraint in deciding the fate of George Floyd? Do these officers deserve nicer treatment than this system gave Floyd? Did Floyd deserve this treatment, too? If so, why didn't he get it?

What if you stop an EMT from checking the pulse of somebody who your co-worker has been choking to death for minutes? Does that make you an accomplice, too? If your city charged these cops justly then nobody would be burning it down; cure your disease and the symptoms will go away.

The more that protestors refrain from violent property destruction, the less likely it becomes that the three cops who were accessories in the murder of George Floyd get charges brought against them. Burning down one precinct got one cop charged (albeit with a 3rd degree); I would really love to see the other three charged, even if it requires some anonymous protestors to light up three more precincts. I'd gladly trade in police destroying citizen lives for citizens destroying police property.

>You don't have to make a bit fuss or be rude about it, but I don't see anything wrong with pointing out something is wrong.

In industries where people tend to treat each other sanely, I would agree. I believe that most kitchens are managed by assholes who chew out their cooks over minor mistakes, so this is a particular case where I don't think I have a choice about how feedback is given. I can be nice to the server, but the only way I can be nice to the cooks is to not make my issue known. If the restaurant industry wants my feedback, the restaurant industry needs to fix this horrible work culture problem. If they could stop sexually assaulting their staff on a regular basis that would be cool, too.

In most situations I would probably note the mistake to my friends after I was sure that the waiter was out of ear shot, but not make a big deal out of it. I can think of one person who I wouldn't say anything to until we'd left the restaurant; I know from previous experience that he would bring it up to the waiter.

I think my treatment of the service industry changed significantly in high school, when I actually knew people who were working at restaurants and heard their stories of horrible customers. Having since worked at a restaurant and eaten out with lots of food service people, I believe that food service people tend to treat food service people better than others do (though I've seen exceptions both ways). I'm not trying to say this in a claiming-moral-superiority-via-kindness way, it's just a pattern I think I've seen in the world, and I think it kinda makes sense given the nature of granfalloons.