MSC

On 11/16/2023 at 10:43 AM, Markus Hanke said:

As it should be, of course  

This doesn’t actually rule out MOND, it just means that even if MOND holds true, you still need dark matter to fit all observational data, though presumably in lesser quantities.

No necessarily. In fact other research may have thrown doubt onto dark matter too, at least there are theories that explain observational data without invoking dark matter. 

Quote

This discovery challenges the conventional understanding that dark matter constitutes approximately 27% of the universe, with ordinary matter making up less than 5% and the rest being dark energy, while also redefining our perspective on the age and expansion of the universe.

“The study’s findings confirm our previous work, which suggested that the universe is 26.7 billion years old, negating the necessity for dark matter’s existence,” Gupta explains.

“Contrary to standard cosmological theories where the accelerated expansion of the universe is attributed to dark energy, our findings indicate that this expansion is due to the weakening forces of nature, not dark energy,” he continued.

https://www.earth.com/news/dark-matter-does-not-exist-universe-27-billion-years-old-study/

By integrating covarying coupling constants with tired light theory, and a new 27billion year age of the universe, then why would the universe need dark matter?

It's been a long time since the existence of dark matter was theoriesed and other than indirect gravitational effects, there is no other evidence for it. Which to me still means we've gotten something wrong about gravity. 

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And now you've made several words meaningless. Conscious, breathing, alive. If stones breathe, now words like lungs, aspiration, and inspiration are worthless, as are reproduction, growth, and adaptation.

This is a classic specious argument. It sounds wonderful until you realize just how impractical and misleading it would be.

Yeah that's where I zoned out too. Maybe they meant that a mountain is a living ecosystem, but then they said the rocks themselves are conscious so being charitable with what they might have meant is difficult. 

Still, it wasn't as bad as Cladking saying animals live in four dimensions while humans live in one... sometimes I really do wonder how somebody made it through school. Reading that made me wish I really could squish myself down into just being in one dimension. 

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

That would depend on your field of inquiry.  Neuroscience gives serious attention to a functional definition of consciousness.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222861/

Normal human consciousness is defined as the presence of a wakeful arousal state and the awareness and motivation to respond to self and/or environmental events. In the intact brain, arousal is the overall level of responsiveness to environmental stimuli. Arousal has a physiological range from stage 3 non-REM sleep, where strong stimuli are required to elicit a response, to states of high vigilance, where subtle stimuli can be detected and acted upon². While arousal is the global state of responsiveness, awareness is the brain’s ability to perceive specific environmental stimuli in different domains, including visual, somatosensory, auditory, and interoceptive (e.g. visceral and body position). The focal loss of awareness, such as language awareness in aphasia or spatial awareness in left-sided neglect, does not significantly impair awareness in other modalities. Motivation is the drive to act upon internal or external stimuli that have entered conscious awareness. In the next section, we describe the brain regions that support these three aspects of consciousness and show that they are not independent, but rather heavily interact with each other....

I like this definition. 

2 hours ago, cladking said:

I haven't read this so can't swear it's completely relevant;

Oh it's relavent but you really really should have read it. Honestly if you're not going to read stuff before claiming it supports what you say then you're not arguing in good faith as far as I'm concerned. I mean if you won't even read what you share, how can anyone expect you to be willing to read what anyone else shares? 

I'm going to suggest that you read Cohen's preface to logic. You probably won't, but there is the suggestion. You've fooled yourself into thinking you actually know what you're talking about. You have a grasp on some philosophy but it's not very well structured or consistent because the more you speak, the more you contradict thing's you've previously said, betraying a lack of understanding of some topics and how they relate to subjects you have some understanding of. This is one of those situations where the only one looking at shadows on the cave wall and is calling it reality, is you. 

If you were to put a name to your belief structures and philosophical ideologies, what would that be?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So it seems you want to redefine “think” and dilute it to the point where it’s meaningless.

To be fair, he seems to have a habit of diluting his own thinking closer to meaninglessness the more he speaks so of course he'd expect us to redefine it that way!

5 hours ago, cladking said:

The nature of our existence is to build models of what we believe and to communicate about these models in abstractions.  Historically these models have always proven to be wrong or woefully incomplete.  We have no means to know whether anyone's beliefs are any better today other than science and we know science changes one funeral at a time.  We have no means of knowing what future scientists will think of our current models but it is "certain" they will have better ones. 

Above good. Below bad. When I said earlier to stop trying to be smart, I said so because you are obviously intelligent and some of your writing has insight, nothing I've not heard before but better insight than you get from your average joe. The problems start when your ego starts to outstrip your ability to articulate insight and you get caught up in trying to convince us you're smart when you really don't have to. Not saying this to put you down at all but to help you succeed, and there are plenty of people here who know I am speaking from experience when it comes to my ego outstripping my ability to articulate insight and I'd get caught up in trying to prove how smart I was, by putting so much weight into everything I said, even the bullshit. Then I'd take it personally when people called out said bs, flame out and get temporarily banned from posting here for long periods of time.

5 hours ago, cladking said:

But our existence is largely a chain of thought.  Animals succeed so well on so little knowledge because they exist in four dimensions where we essentially are in only one.   We succeed because we can pass learning from generation to generation through language and gain knowledge through induction, deduction, and experiment.  The nature of our existence is unlike things that are not alive and unlike all other living things.  

Okay, why this was bad? Because you've crushed me down into a single point in space to my Schwarzchild radius and I've turned into a very small black hole. Not cool. 

As for the rest of it, 2 things, go on youtube and type in "Crow documentary" then go on google scholar to find out what linguists actually have to say on bird language(cue the IASIP bird law meme). You'll see generational learning in the crow documentary and that they can solve puzzles and mimic human speech. Why? Well because the linguists say birds have language. In a nutshell.

7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Whole lot of stuff here and a bit of misrepresentation of character, mixed in with bad sentencing on my part.

Same bandcamp we are! just that we do seem to do more thinking than others. Dolphins do a lot, but less than us and insects do a lot, but possibly less than dolphins.

I hold these views not on emotional thinking, but research and observation.

A) I was always arguing since the begining that animals think, sorry for the confusion. Most in science believe that it is about information processing without thinking. I see it as information processing with thinking. Repeating myself for clarification purposes.

B) all of these plus more coming as they are published. Fun videos added for pleasure.

https://www.britannica.com/science/animal-intelligence-animal-behaviour

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-023-01518-4

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-bacteria-memories-generations.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-silky-ants-aphids-medicine-sick.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s0LTDhqe5A

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/octopuses-keep-surprising-us-here-are-eight-examples-how.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579101/

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-honey-bees-inherit-altruistic-behavior.html

https://uk.whales.org/whales-dolphins/how-intelligent-are-whales-and-dolphins/

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-reveal-hidden-sensory-mechanism-hair.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-soil-viruses-interact-bacteria.html

https://scitechdaily.com/single-cells-are-more-intelligent-than-scientists-previously-thought/

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-female-animals-unusual-malesnew.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-chloroplasts-photosynthesis-theyre-key-player.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-10-cell-walls-mechanical-properties-division.html

Animals – Jon Lieff, MD (jonlieffmd.com)

https://jonlieffmd.com/category/blog/plants

https://jonlieffmd.com/category/blog/microbes

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-extracellular-vesicles-exchange-genetic-cells.html

https://phys.org/news/2023-11-underground-fungi-forests.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZM9GpLXepU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6ChEmjsXCM

I am not smart, but being myself.  

You asked and I delivered.

 

 

Oh no I'm so sorry, half of my response was to you, the other half was to cladking. You've said nothing that has bothered me at all and my tone towards you was always meant to come across as more pleasant and collaborative. 

12 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am not smart, but being myself.  

You asked and I delivered.

You're smart Luc, seriously those comments were for Cladking. He's smart too, just less secure about believing it enough to be himself. Being smart and trying to look smart are very different and you haven't done the latter as far as I can tell, you're just enthusiastically engaging with the subject as best you can which is the best all of us can do. Like most discussions in philosophy, this one has and will rage for a long time still.

Forrest Gump famously said "Stupid is as stupid does." Which applies to being smart too. But what he means is, you're only stupid while doing stupid things and only smart while doing smart things. Otherwise you're just you. 

46 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Therefore, you are in the majority view that lower life-forms process information without thinking and I am in the minority view that they do think!

Who defines lower? 

We are sort of in the same bandcamp where animals thinking is concerned, however if asked to point to conclusive evidence that they do in fact think based on empirical standards, I'd say I don't know any. So there are some caveats, linguistic thinking and impressionistic emotional thinking ought to be differentiated here. I have some reasonable certainty that the deductive case for; other animals do have some capacity to think, is based on deductive reasoning about motivations for animal behaviour and basic mathematical probability. Do birds tweet or whistle their tunes in their heads? Do whales sing their songs in their heads and take time to think up lyrics? Can a dolphin have an internal dialogue? Does my dog dream? 

Billions of current and past species and sub species of all shapes and sizes and the ability to think is confined to one species? The furthest I'd go, is to say that the burden of proof is on saying they don't think, since I'd wager that the best models that would constitute what thinking is, are in line with the behaviour we observe in some forms of life. 

2 hours ago, cladking said:

Every experiment shows people see what they believe and I am extrapolating from this.  If bees don't think then how can they communicate?  

A) You weren't arguing that animals could think at all on the previous page of the thread. Now you're flipflopping. 

B) And what experiment are you talking about precisely? Oh and don't say the double slit experiment. Our looking at reality isn't what defines it, how reality is, is what defines it. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum phenomena implies that the problem lies in our ability to perceive reality as it is, leading to the phenomena seen in the double slit experiment. My explanation is very poor tbh this isn't my area of expertise at all. I recall reading once about something called the quantum eraser experiment lending credence to the Copenhagen interpretation. Will try find the links this weekend. Unless someone else here wants to explain that stuff, it's beyond me and hurts my brain.

Can you provide any clarity in the form of a paper you've read or something anything that will help me figure out what you're trying to say? Stop trying to be smart and just be yourself... also reread the rules around providing sources when asked while understanding you are more than welcome to ask the same of others. 

8 minutes ago, cladking said:

We have both thought and consciousness but experience only thought.  

Other life has no thought but do have an individual consciousness which they do not really experience.  In our terms you might say they think but aren't aware of it. Our abstractions are a great way to communicate complex ideas and use for inductive logic but they do not exist in reality.  

Obviously there is more going on in the human brain/ body than just chemical processes and thought and we are aware on some level of many of these.  We still live and exist in our thoughts.  We see the world from the perspective of our thoughts.  We are still animals and still hooked up like other animals but unlike other life we have a "one track mind".  

All consciousness, even human consciousness, seeks patterns. Even without thinking a dog is still trying to understand its master. Where we model beliefs dogs model reality itself to the degree their limited knowledge and capacity allows. The brain/ body/ life of other consciousness resonates with reality.  In reality humans experience thought so even a dog can pick up on this and possibly imitate it in small degree.   

So unlike other life, you're saying humans thoughts are often preoccupied with just one subject or interest? Because that's what a "one track mind" is. 

16 minutes ago, cladking said:

All consciousness, even human consciousness, seeks patterns. Even without thinking a dog is still trying to understand its master. Where we model beliefs dogs model reality itself to the degree their limited knowledge and capacity allows. The brain/ body/ life of other consciousness resonates with reality.  In reality humans experience thought so even a dog can pick up on this and possibly imitate it in small degree.

Anyone able to make it make sense? I dislike when people try and pass off word salads as absolute.

34 minutes ago, cladking said:

This is most probably a reflection of the way they each think; no abstractions.  

You literally claimed earlier that you believe only humans can think and are now backtracking with a word salad and not even an appetising one. 

36 minutes ago, cladking said:

In our terms you might say it is axiomatic

Define axiomatic.

37 minutes ago, cladking said:

I think this would apply especially to dogs through imitation and porpoises through intelligence and the observation of humans.  

How do you imitate an internal brain process? Is it self evident to a dog that we think too?

38 minutes ago, cladking said:

Reality is a collection of discrete logic operating in four dimensions with every event affecting every other event. 

Logic is a particle now? 🤨 

All I can say is that what you are saying, doesn't make as much sense aa you think it does and isn't consistent in having a point. 

On 3/19/2024 at 2:51 PM, cladking said:

There are no "laws of nature".  There only seem to be because reductionistic science can only reveal one data point, one experiment, at a time.  

Your response above is very at odds with your response below. The one above sounds silly, while the last paragraph of the response below sounds like it's coming from a person smart enough not to say things like "there are no laws of nature" mere paragraphs away from saying truth and logic exist. 

20 hours ago, cladking said:

Non-mystics rarely have mystical experiences.  

We are each different and each a product of beliefs so almost anything becomes possible.  Even entire cultures going insane is possible.   

There is often a sort of truth or logic even in the most baseless beliefs and experienced phenomena.  Truth and logic exist just as much as falsity and illogic exist everywhere.  

As for what you said about us all being a product of our beliefs, which comes first? Our experience of an event, or a belief about that experience? 

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Math is math and all math is logical by nature.  Reality is infinitely complex and we are always inventing increasingly complex math in attempts to learn about nature and to explain existing phenomena. 

I will try to keep  evidence out of this but remember I believe that it is entirely consistent with all experiment.  This is interpretation.

"Consciousness" and thought are distinct.  Only humans today think.  It is the product of comparing all sensory input to beliefs and models.   

For all practical purposes "life" and "consciousness" are the same thing.  All life and all consciousness are individual.  Consciousness arises from the individual's "wiring" which is logical so consciousness is logical.  Other than humans individuals act on experience/ knowledge and logic.  Some things are axiomatic to consciousness and these include cause precedes effect, no two identical things exist, reality exists as it appears, and that reality is complete unto itself.  

Survival is wired into every individual and is the chief purpose of consciousness.  Pattern recognition exists to explain and predict reality supporting survival. 

Consciousness is digital (binary) except in humans.     

 

There are definitely claims here that require evidence. You've not convinced me that a hungry bear would not or could not think that we'd both make a tasty meal and believe it to be true enough to try to take a bite. If you want to link consciousness to thought, instead of the awareness of thought, that's fine. To believe that animals are not similarly endowed, because you won the evolutionary jackpot of linguistic expression through the right vocal chords, dexteritous fingers and thumbs etc; that to me just reeks of an unjustifiable anthroprocentrism on shaky grounds. Especially since the bear is privy to a world of scent perception that you and I could never begin to understand. We literally cannot have the same thoughts about scent, that a bear can. 

If you want to carry on down the wiring route, bears have brain wiring and some mammals have more complex brain wiring than we do. Whales and Dolphins are good examples. 

Maybe it's better to think of consciousness in terms of degree, rather than type. 

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Actually I believe I'm the only one with evidence.  But this is a philosophy forum so evidence is off topic and nobody, I can assure you, is interested in such evidence.  Suffice to say that every experiment ever performed agrees with this interpretation, or at the very least, no experiment counters it.  

While I understand why you said this, I just want to nip it in the bud. This is the Philosophy section of a Science Forum.

In philosophy though, there are some standards for at least backing up your line of thinking by supplying some references to someone else who's line of thinking is in line with or strengthens your own. The idea here is that if you believe you are arguing on the side of what is true, if you're failing to convince someone of it, it's because you're not explaining it in a way that your conversational counterpart can understand or accept, assuming they are arguing in good faith, which is polite to assume until proven otherwise. Sometimes, someone else said what you wanted to say, better. 

Quote

One cannot conceive anything so strange and so implausible that it has not already been said by one philosopher or another.

 - Rene Descartes 

The above is a small example. Depending on the topic, more than 1 line is expected. You'd be shocked at how many people could get a decent grade on a philosophy paper, where the majority of the text is references to other texts. 

Wow! Lots to catch up on! Thanks for all the contributions to the discussion (Even you Dim, maybe especially you!). Will have some responses for y'all tonight. 

Dw about off-topics too much for now, so long as whatever you're discussing is something that aids in your understanding of reality and your existence and we can put a pin in anything interesting that comes up that should split off into it's own thread. 

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

There is a special happy feeling knowing one is not part of a garbage fire.

Didn't walk from Springer Mtn to Mt Katahdin, but I walked some of it in Vermont and NH.   It's all common sense stuff - pick your time (e.g. not winter in the north, not high summer in the South), bring a partner you don't mind having inspect you for tics, bring mosquito repellent, sturdy hiking boots, etc.  Keep food in a bag and hang it from a high tree branch when you sleep, never in your tent.  Take increasingly long walks before the trip, for several months, to build up muscles and spot any joint/tendon issues beforehand.  Keep socks dry.  Watch out for the protozoan fiend of Appalachia, Giardia lamblia.  Do your homework on finding a high quality water filter that will strain out Giardia - pump filters are the best.  Boiling water is a monumental PITA.  Ditto cooking.  Dried fruit, oat bars, pemmican, peanuts, trail mix, powdered milk or powdered non dairy drinks, are all handy sources that don't need fuel to prepare.  Don't gather trail sources of food unless you know exactly what you're doing.  Blackberries yes, mushrooms no.  No sustained eye contact with bears. Etc.  

Thank you so much! Yeah I'm doing just a section of the trail from Massachusetts to Maine. Trying to find a trail partner too. I'm especially grateful in regards to the water filter advice and protozoa warning. 

Planning to hike a section of the trail, wanted to get advice from someone who has been on it before and since other social media platforms are flaming piles of garbage... y'all are the only folks I'll trust for sound advice.

On 2/19/2024 at 12:40 PM, dimreepr said:

How many of US are there? And what do THEY have to do to become US?

The rules of the game is arbitrary, it's up to you if you want to play???

Who is they? Kind of get the feeling you're just here to troll.

On 2/16/2024 at 1:46 AM, naitche said:

No worries. I've been away too long myself. 1st from p.c troubles, then other causes. I will get back to this topic asap, currently recovering from surgery to both wrists a day ago, makes this typing too difficult yet...

Completely understand. I hope your recovery goes well. Definitely don't push it, we're a patient lot here... well @dimreepr isn't, but the rest of us are!

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Hello, my name is Samantha but I'm not an aardvark!  

 

Please tell me you did this?

Also can you do the same thing but in Almonds?

8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Some TVs have 5 or more microphones in them, listening for keywords. Ditto other devices.

Yup. Especially the newer smart devices with voice recognition and activation software. Only way for those to work, is for the mic to always be on waiting for the magic catchphrase. "Alexa! Stop listening to me!" Does not work. All it takes is a pipeline for that mic data to get to advertising platforms. 

I imagine if we go and take a look at the fine print on some of terms and conditions on AI assistants and different software, there is probably a bit about agreeing to the mic always being on, but that gets tied to the data they sell and if we've agreed to them using that data... I mean data is a pretty broad term when you think about the amount of sensors in these things. By agreeing to the use of your data, it's pretty all encompassing. If soul were just defined as the part of you that exists externally to you, it's data. 

I mean obviously if you want to use voice activation technology you've just gotta have a hot mic. No way around that without engineering some other conditional for an on/off switch (flip phones that have mic off when closed, mic on in use.) 

I'm gonna do a social media, data driven advertising and influencer culture thread soon. If people are gonna bite the hand that hosts these discussions, better to have a discussion about the larger issues and the actual problem cases. A grounded and structured science based forum doing what it needs to do to get by and pay for it's maintenance and server needs, isn't even a molehill let alone a mountain. YouTube, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok. Those are some mountains to talk about.

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Some TVs have 5 or more microphones in them, listening for keywords. Ditto other devices.

Yup. Especially the newer smart devices with voice recognition and activation software. Only way for those to work, is for the mic to always be on waiting for the magic catchphrase. "Alexa! Stop listening to me!" Does not work. All it takes is a pipeline for that mic data to get to advertising platforms. 

I imagine if we go and take a look at the fine print on some of terms and conditions on AI assistants and different software, there is probably a bit about agreeing to the mic always being on, but that gets tied to the data they sell and if we've agreed to them using that data... I mean data is a pretty broad term when you think about the amount of sensors in these things. By agreeing to the use of your data, it's pretty all encompassing. If soul were just defined as the part of you that exists externally to you, it's data. 

I mean obviously if you want to use voice activation technology you've just gotta have a hot mic. No way around that without engineering some other conditional for an on/off switch (flip phones that have mic off when closed, mic on in use.) 

I'm gonna do a social media, data driven advertising and influencer culture thread soon. If people are gonna bite the hand that hosts these discussions, better to have a discussion about the larger issues and the actual problem cases. A grounded and structured science based forum doing what it needs to do to get by and pay for it's maintenance and server needs, isn't even a molehill let alone a mountain. YouTube, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok. Those are some mountains to talk about.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

I don't think whatever algorithm selects the ads to display considers the forum they are displayed on. It's probably much more to do with what it thinks based on whatever it has gleaned about your browsing  and on-line purchase history. Since I do what I can to minimise this , e.g. via blocking trackers, I get weird ad selections: funeral services, drilling machinery, women's fashion and ads in Chinese characters. (When I looked up a few words in Dutch for another forum, I started getting Dutch websites popping up on my search engine too - it's all rather creepy.)

All a bit baffling and  annoying, but I tell myself the alternative would be that we would have to pay a subscription for a forum like this, so it doesn't do to grumble too much.  

Actually that makes sense. My ex converted to the church of latter day saints and I've hosted their missionaries for dinner and sometimes had to google something to do with their beliefs. It's not you science forum, it's me. 

Sometimes I swear the algorithms are getting data from our phones mics though, there have been more than a few occasions where we have definitely not keyword searched or clicked on anything related to something we've talked about and all of a sudden... it pops up, unless it can also make predictions about what people are going to be thinking or discussing? Either prospect is creepy as hell.

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

Tired of harassment-level ads that constantly drop over the page one is trying to navigate to.  Is there a way to get some feedback to @blike and go back to the usual banner ads or other formats one can scroll past?  Does anyone really think they're going to sell a product by shoving it in our cyber-faces over and over?  I would think there is an inverse relationship between rudeness of ads and sales generated.  SFN is better than this. 

And no, I don't want to change my wifi provider, thanks.

Some of the ads are also pretty... tasteless or just don't fit the venue of a science forum. I had one telling me my guardian angel was watching over me, but since it was an ad I couldn't comment asking it to provide hard evidence of angels. no fair!

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

WHAT? You don't wear a kilt? Talk about no true Scotsman! 

Mate it's pure cauld here ken!?You try havin aw the baw shrinkage that comes wi wearing a kilt, ya mad wee rocket. Bolt!

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Especially if/when you’re trans, black, jewish, gay, liberal, and all of the great many other groups so often culturally dehumanized. 

Yup, the USA in particular even has it's subtle prejudice towards non Americans who are "white", until we open our mouths. Not as bad as the treatment of the groups you mentioned, but still there. Then you have the very generalised european stereotypes and caricatures some Americans believe in. It does come up in police interactions but how can vary, sometimes positively like I've had a cop be very kind and informal with me because I'm from Scotland but also have had the assumption that this means I'm an alcoholic or keep a kilt at home... 

12 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Right, that's what the cameras are for.

Exactly, that is what the cameras are for. Whether that's the officers own bodycams or the cameras of civilians during their encounters with police. Video documentation from many angles is what gives investigations more clarity. 

I do understand where you're coming from though, where a youtube auditor is being a complete ass and escalating things needlessly for views and likes, I've seen those videos, but I've also seen plenty where the audit was warranted. Also police aren't required to wear body cams in every jurisdiction. Berwyn PD in Illinois as an example doesn't wear body cams and they have a lot of abuse of power allegations against them. Illinois has cop watcher laws that make it a right to film the police in their public duties. Why? Because a lot of PDs are still not adopting bodycams.

And some cops straight up turn off their cameras and hide their badge numbers still sooooo.... what are people expected to do? If they were trustworthy in the first place nobody would feel the need to point cameras at them and no civilian is to know if it's a good or corrupt cop in front of them. Assuming either is ignorant. Always be cautious when interacting with police officers. 

I believe almost any group of humans is going to be made up of individuals with and without questionable ethics. True of police, true of auditors hell it's even true of killers because some of them killed out of self defense, not malice. 

If you're suggesting the act of auditing the police to be morally questionable, then I think that's ignotant. Everyone in a position of public care requires oversight, checks and balances and corruption does exist soooo? We done with this discussion now?

On 2/3/2024 at 9:11 AM, Sensei said:

Are you living under a rock? People don't "tweet" anymore.. There's an X. Apparently shortcut from "eXcretion".. Once the moderators were fired, it may fit better with the new profile..

If only Elon was competent enough to make a name stick, tweettweet lol

On 2/8/2024 at 7:20 PM, MigL said:

hope none of you guys ever get mugged or robbed.
When the cops ask you whether the perpetrator was male or female, I have no idea what you'll say

Have been, it was clearly a dude. Even if it had been hard to tell, I think folks would forgive me misgendering a criminal whom is without recourse lol 

That said, I'd actually love to see cops interviewing someone trying to get out of a mugging charge because the victim misgendered them!