NullHypothesis
No bio...
User ID: 2718
NullHypothesis
7mo ago
Someone's age in relation to their net worth is also important to take into consideration. Based on birb's description of his interactions with these people, it's likely they are 35 or younger. Having $10 million in net worth at 35 or younger is the top 0.1% of people in that bracket. He also said they aren't working, if true, would be a different class of people than the people who build up their wealth by grinding away at a top 1% income job.
Like you said I do think a $10million net worth is within the realm of possibility for the average Mottizen. It would also entail never really spending the money that's compounding on anything until you reach near retirement age unless the income is much greater than is needed to achieve the investment value you indicated and I think most people would rather have that money go towards something like a home and creating memories than towards accumulating wealth just so you can say you are worth 8 figures.
To be able to reach $10million in net worth and also have a standard of living similar to people within that asset range would require even more income When you factor in how taxes have the function of lowering the amount of money you actually keep the more you earn, and that states where you can find these top 1% income jobs also tend to have state level income taxes, the amount of money you need to actually be earning starts to reach like half a million dollars. That's anything but normal. That's saying to be rich you just need to make a lot of money, or to be in the top 1% net worth of people you just need to make a top 1% income.
NullHypothesis
8mo ago
Speaking of the Atheism+ movement, Scott had an interesting article on that
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/
You would think the atheist skeptics who were anti-feminists would align with the alt-right (or at least anti-woke given their previous anti-feminist stances) but a large number of them ended up on the side of woke social justice.
I wouldn't say impossible, see inattentional blindness. There are a lot of people driving cars that shouldn't be driving cars but do because you kind of need a car to get anywhere in most of the US.
It certainly doesn't help the side that wants to say she had absolutely no awareness, and does help the side that wants to argue she wanted to run him over intentionally. But also, this happens in a matter of seconds, and I'd think someone with the intention of trying to run over ICE with a car would've done it a different way, and invoking Occum's razor I think the answer that she was being wreckless, and a bad driver is more likely than she saw an opportunity to run over an ICE officer and made a split second decision to run him over.
NullHypothesis
9mo ago
From the other videos we can see was filming with a phone using his left hand, he pulls the gun out from the right side of his body with his right hand.
NullHypothesis
9mo ago
Had the vehicle not moved, the spot the officer stopped moving would not have been in front of the vehicle. If you go frame by frame you can see he stops in the area covered by the tree. If you compare that to the angle of the car before it starts moving, if it moves straight forward it would not hit that spot.
I think it's pretty clear the woman did not begin backing up the war with the intention of running someone over.
I also think it's clear the officer did not deliberately position himself in front of the car with the intention of stopping the vehicle.
Considering the officer's previous experience of being run over by a car in a previous incident, it's possible he entered into a fight response, and in response he took out his gun to shoot at a perceived threat. But in reality she wasn't trying to hit an officer, she was in a moment of panic trying to run away from the officer that grabbed the vehicle's door.
It's important to note this all happens in a matter of seconds. There's a lot of analysis about what we can see from behind the car being able to rewind and watch what happened frame by frame. In contrast there is very little analysis about what the situation looked like from the perspective of the officer that took the shot (partially because there is still no footage from the officer's POV).
Stephen Crowder has an attempt at an analysis, although I find it a bit lacking and the positions to be off, but I think the key point he attempts to tackle is general correct, in that the officer has no vision of the direction of the wheel of the vehicle.
Now there could be an argument made about what the officer should've done as soon as the car starts moving backwards. I think my instinctual response would actually to walk backwards, which would actually put me MORE in the path of the car, but it's also possible this may have caused my figure to be more clearly in front of the car and maybe the woman wouldn't have accelerated forward to begin with.
Regardless, I think any analysis assuming he was trying to walk in front of the car is incorrect. I think there can be discussion to be had about his reaction once the car starts moving, but again this happens in a matter of seconds and I'm giving the officer some leeway here considering his previous experience of being run over. (There is also some potential discussion to be had about how someone would react if they had previously been in an incident and how fit that makes them to continue doing their job).
NullHypothesis
9mo ago
I think you mean @zoink instead of @self_made_human for who shared links to multiple angles of the video.
NullHypothesis
9mo ago
- This iceman was hit by a different car previously.
I haven't seen this claim before, so I found this article discussing the issue, in case anyone else here might be curious about this piece of information.
Had the ICE officer not moved left, the path the vehicle took definitely would have hit him.
If you watch the video, he's moving from the right to the left, so he was in the way of the vehicle in the seconds before the car started moving.
Here's what I can see happened from the different videos.
ICE Officer A (the officer that fired the shot) is filming the vehicle of the woman and moves in from the right side of the vehicle to the front of the vehicle. ICE Officer B approaches the vehicle from the left saying "get out of the car" multiple times and as soon as he reaches the car attempts to open the door.
Going frame by frame, the wheels start to move before the officer's hand tries to open the door, but not before the officer raises his hand at towards her.
The car reverses a bit and stops. While this is happening, ICE officer A is in front of the vehicle moving from the right to the left. It's possible the woman's attention is solely focused on ICE Officer B and may not even be aware ICE officer A is in front of her, possibly inattentional blindness.
The instant the car attempts to move forward Ice Officer A pulls out the card and shoots. The time between when the wheel starts to move forward and when he tries to pull the gun out is about 8 frames (going frame by frame on the linked youtube video for angle 2), and since the video is playing at 30 frames per seconds, that is about 266 milliseconds.
So based on what I can see this is what I conclude.
The woman was there to be disruptive to ICE. As soon as ICE shows up and confronts her, she panics and tries to run away. I don't think she was intending to run someone over and it's possible the ICE Officer standing in front of her vehicle wasn't registering in her mind, or the path the ICE officer took walking from right to left in front of her vehicle made her think he would keep moving left out of the way of the vehicle. Perhaps she thought a path was opening up and in a moment of panic was looking for a way to get out as soon as possible. (Which by the way, is an extremely stupid thing to do. Even if you are in the right and an officer is harassing you, trying to run away is one of the worst responses you can do other than physically attacking the officer. In this situation, even if unintentionally, attempting to run away also cause the possibility of physical harm to an officer. The behavior of the type of people to run and resist police might be interesting to dig further into but likely has already been discussed heavily here in the Motte already and this is already going too far off-topic from the point I want to make so I shall abstain from commenting further for now.)
Regardless, when she decides to try to move the vehicle forward, he is very clearly standing in a spot where the vehicle would hit him. 266 milliseconds from when the car starts to move forward to when he starts to pull the gun out is well within standard human reaction time. There's about 36-38 frames from when he begins to pull the gun out to when smoke appears from the gun. I think it is within possibility that the moment he detected the car driving towards him the ICE officer felt his life threatened and used his gun as a response, and not that he was waiting for an opportunity to shoot someone. If he had been pulling the gun out sooner, I think the arguments that he was looking for an opportunity to shoot someone would be stronger, but here that is not the case.
I don't think a lot of people understand how dangerous vehicles are due to being around cars all the time. Due to their size, even at a small speed it can do significant damage to the human body. For example, if you had a 4500 lb SUV accelerate from 0 to 5 mph in 1 second that's approximately 10,000 N of force. For comparison, a punch from an elite level boxer would be around 5000 N of force. From what I saw in the video, I don't think the vehicle would've killed the officer if it hit him, but it could've done significant physical damage if he didn't move out of the way. If a guy was running towards an officer trying to punch him and got shot, it would be very hard to defend that. A vehicle accelerating to even 5mph when it would hit someone possesses way more power behind it. Intentional or not, that was the level of physical force that could've hit that officer. Driving a car is an insane privilege with great potential for damage that I think a lot of people simply don't respect.
EDIT: There is a 4th angle video that makes it clearer what happened.
Officer A went to the car in front of the woman's car with the door open (perhaps to grab something or check something on the system), then he turns around and starts moving towards the woman's car, but he is NOT in front of the car. When she begins moving backwards, that positions the car to be angled towards him. Officer A stops his walk. The charitable take for the officer is that this triggers his memory of being run over previously, and he enters a fight response, causing him to pull out his firearm and shoot. It's important to note that the decision for the women to reverse and for the officer to shoot happens in a matter of seconds.
I think this makes it clear several things
-
The woman did not purposefully attempt to run over an officer when she made her decision to back the vehicle up. It's very likely her attention was focused on Officer B that grabbed her vehicle's door and in fact Officer A was clearly not in front of the vehicle when she begins backing up.
-
Officer A did not deliberately position himself in front of the car to block the vehicle from moving. It just so happened that the vehicle began moving backward while he was moving towards the car. If we go frame by frame and look at where he stopped moving relative to the direction the car was facing before it began backing up, he would not have been in the path of the car had it moved straight forward instead of backing up first. So my initial assessment that he was walking right from left in front of the vehicle was completely wrong.
What pisses me off is that on Twitter and Youtube and Discord the culture war warriors are arguing over the demonstratable facts of the case rather than the interpretation of the events. Everyone has the same access to the videos I do and linking the exact same video I watched and yet they seem to have missed key details entirely and then forming their entire opinion and analysis based on it. The "analysis" videos are even worse, I saw one circle the random pedestrian (not the officer) and add an arrow to officer B (but no highlighting of Officer A) and now people on Twitter are sharing that video as proof that the Officer A was not in front of the car. Or the screenshot of the officer shooting at the car but not the frame before showing that the car would've hit the officer. Are the people liking and sharing this dishonest evaluation, not watching the video? Are they mentally blocking any information that would provide evidence towards the conclusion they don't like, and only looking for the conclusion they would like?
This is nothing new, of course. There were people that believed Rittenhouse shot a black person even though the video evidence was available even before the trials. But you cannot even have a proper conversation when the core facts of the situation is in dispute and one side refuses to acknowledge the reality of what happened. You can have an argument about who is in fault here (is shooting the right response or a reasonable response, do you deserve to be shot if you're running away in a vehicle and in the process put someone in harm's way), you cannot have an argument with someone that believes that the officer was trying to block the vehicle with his body or that the vehicle was never pointing towards the officer because the fundamental assumptions of their argument is completely false.
NullHypothesis
11mo ago
Some people have gone and fixed stuff on their own, only to be fined and ordered to stop by the very city that hasn't fixed those issues for one reason or another. When you have to fix problems on your own while also hiding your identity, it's sign of a failing society. The problem shouldn't have gotten this big to begin with, the system should've solved the issue when it arrived, and it shouldn't be punishing people for solving the problems it failed to fix to begin with.
if we accepted donations like the one you suggest, there would be an imbalance between neighbourhoods. Richer neighbourhoods would have better amenities and poorer neighbourhoods would remain slideless. But you can pay to install a bench with your name somewhere in who-the-fuck-knows-where. We'll take your money, but you can't tell us what to do with it.
This kind of ideology, the need to value equality above all else, is really upsetting and possibly one of the worst ideas ever to come into the public consciousness as a "virtuous" idea. The implication here is that every slide in all the neighborhoods are broken, and unless they can fix every single slide in every neighborhood and give them all access to slides, nobody should have access to slides. Insert meme about the equity solution to three people of different heights watching a baseball game is to cut off the feet of the 2 taller ones.
I'm left to wonder if they really think that or it's just the excuse given to hide some other reason, such as embarrassment from not being able to fix the issues plaguing the city or laziness or greed (donate money, we'll build a bench for 50% of the donated money and pocket the rest).
https://youtube.com/watch?v=S-sqsvcZJ2w
Forgot who shared this bop before.
More options
Context Copy link