ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
8hr ago
The proper lesson to learn is to rush in without stopping
TEC-9s are only available on T side though; CTs are at a disadvantage in Hostage Rescue.
(It also occurs to me that Uvalde is the institutional equivalent of "door stuck".)
Basically, ten jihadists will have more influence on what rules are enforced by society than a thousand quakers.
Yes, but that smuggles in the assumption that jihadists are bad and Quakers are good. All the Quakers need to do is send 10 of their own to face down 10 Jihadists, so if the Jihadist wants the consent of the Quakers to govern them, maybe he should consider respecting their ways.
All progress depends on the unreasonable man, so it's probably OK if he is in charge.
Once it stops being progress, you have a bunch of mechanisms to make sure there's always room for the next guy to take charge- he's not allowed to stop that process, that's why you're allowed to freely denounce him, retain the ability to wage war on him, refuse to quarter his army in your house, hide plausibly-deniable resistance to him, never have to witness against yourself if you run afoul of his law...
It seems really hard to make a society out of people each itching to prove that they are a crazier motherfucker than all the others around them.
Yeah, a society full of insane ideologues would definitely never amount to anything- such a system would never work, much less grow so powerful it dominates the entire world.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
10hr ago
His delinquency probably saved the lives of his school bullies and likely the teacher for telling him his health wasn’t important.
Was the fact they ultimately survived a net positive for society, though?
I get that "just let them leave" is a very effective solution (and one that we mostly outsourced to illegals and to the Chinese more generally- cheaper than employing indigenous young men, women and bullies favor that solution partially because it does that, total mystery why that would be), but that's not really one that imposes accountability on people who by all rights were themselves [social] criminals, and society suffers from that kind of social criminality remaining unaddressed just as much as it does from young men meting out the punishment for that themselves (arguably it suffers much more from the former, but in a more diffuse way).
It's not something we really have a concept for since "just let them leave" has worked so incredibly well for most of human history; there's an entire book of the Bible about supernatural justice befalling an entire nation that failed to "just let them leave".
Years later I heard from a distant peer I had in school that this guy is doing really well for himself, is making it big in his line of work and things really picked up for him.
How much the better for us would it have been had be been allowed, and had space, to start that transformation at 16 rather than 26?
But the pattern still seems to hold: a teenager, most likely a male
And the rest of the statement is just a bunch of ways to say the same thing.
Fact of the matter is, these are young men, and young men expect life. And the fact that most of them accept the bullshit concept they shouldn't expect that to occur until they're at least 40 is honestly an incredible feat of modernity- 100 years ago they'd organize and kill a society that expected that of them, and they'd be right to do that, but 100 years ago you still had to go outside to take a shit.
Most of this demographic tend to be very rules-oriented, and this isn't a marketable skill for men yet reminders of a time when that used to be the case are omnipresent (this does include the trans shooters, which is perhaps why there are more of them now). This is the claim they all seem to make (aside from the ones for whom "I feel that I shall commit the violence" is a trapped prior, and those ones are different- those ones would probably benefit from a prescription of psychedelics); maybe taking it seriously would help?
notice if they seem to be spiraling or taking a sudden interest in guns and shooting
These guys appear to fixate all over the equipment previous shooters use. Young men take an interest in guns and shooting because guns and shooting (and the things that involve it) are fucking awesome; I'm more concerned about the one guy whose interest is exclusively TEC-9s. (But not Sub-2000s- yes, it was used in a mass shooting too, but that shooting was so hideously uncool that it's probably an anti-signal to be interested in one.)
(Ironically, if you wanted to prevent mass shootings, the "anyone who wants to buy that as their first gun" heuristic for that one is pretty good simply because of how garbage of a gun it is compared to how much of a universal symbol for mass shooting it is. The kind of 'here's your universal basic weapon that is very boring and illegal to modify or paint, come back in a year for the other stuff' is legitimately a great place to start for a culture that inherently requires weapon use, because if someone's had a shotgun for a year without deciding to go out shooting the ability to buy more firepower doesn't actually make them more dangerous. Of course, we can't have that because it always turns into 'also you must jump through 7 flaming hoops, file paperwork in triplicate, and you may only now own the single universal rifle because fuck you'.)
don’t know of any female spree shooters
The last female spree killer was international news about a month ago. Complete with copycats.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
11hr ago
Under 35: $33,000
I get that this is kind of hiding a couple of things, but this is kind of just "why TFR is rock-bottom" in microcosm.
Really hard to kill a tank with your AR-15.
Why would you need to kill a tank with an AR-15? AR-15s are for shooting the people who have control over where those tanks go; a tank that doesn't show up to fight is no different than a dead tank, a voter that doesn't show up to vote is no different than a dead voter.
I will remind you that this actually happened to the guy who is currently in control of those tanks.
More generally, it's why soldiers in third-world countries all wear face coverings. Sure, maybe the drug cartel can't get through the tank, but they can definitely kill the families of the people driving those tanks, or the families of the people those tanks are used to provide cover for.
That's why the personal firearm is so powerful in terms of political change. Your enemy doesn't need to defeat the military; what it needs to do is to defeat you. And your enemy, if he's mad enough, can thus appear at any moment and delete you- yeah, it'll cost him, but that won't fix being dead.
Therefore I suggest that you structure your rule in such a way that the enemy (and his delete button) chooses to stay home. Because 2A means him deciding he's had enough, for any reason, is ultimately on the table.
Which gets us back to the existential angst about mass shootings, and my claim these are one-man civil wars. So, we could rule in such a way that people don't want to do that- which is what we want- or we could just ban the guns because we're too lazy and selfish to do that (and in so doing discard our ability to be that kind of political actor- naturally, those who believe in mob rule/Democracy and fancy themselves in charge of that mob are most in favor).
The days of Washington when an armed, motivated local population could defeat a great power (though not on their home continent) in open battle are long over
Yeah, you don't even need guns for that (though some AR-15s were indeed used here). If you want to resist the Federal government deporting the collection of humans you illegally trafficked, all you have to do is complain real loudly about it.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
22hr ago
Well, in the early 1940s, the US government would just straight up pay violent men who wanted to shoot people. This was also the case in the early 1950s, and the late 1960s to early 1970s, and from late 2001 until about 2006 or so (I know that war went on for a bit longer but the enemy had been more or less completely defeated by then).
In the later half of the 1940s up until about October 1973, there was an unprecedented economic boom that meant you could quit school right at the cusp of biological adulthood (14-16) and have an easy middle-class existence until you retired at 55.
There were things to do and a future. Not so much now.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
It is a heavily social contagion based phenomenon and if the median outcome is a few minutes and then the perp quickly taking the room temperature challenge, it will lose a lot of its glory.
This is why you don't hear much about church shootings any more- they just started wasting every jackass who tried it.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
Pretty much only the north-westerners (UK, Ireland, Island) do the unarmed beat cop shtick.
There's a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand there since European nations don't draw a distinction between police and military (the UK does but they have both running around anyway; the fact the US intentionally divides them is a reaction to the problems that inherently creates, because when criminals are also inherently military targets, illegal speech is logically equivalent to waging civil war, and the US [being an extremely progressive nation] is obsessed with stacking the deck against itself so that if a civil war must be waged, it can be won).
[Such a civil war is why the police in North Ireland actually are armed, of course. I'm informed freedom of religion has a lot to do with why.]
Anyway, this permits an attitude of "the cops aren't as militarized" when talking to New Worlders (and it not be a lie), but at the same time conveniently ignores all the soldiers who are also patrolling. I've never seen a New World police officer with a rifle out, so the culture shock of "these people are armed to the fucking teeth, you can't even walk down the street without running into someone carrying an assault rifle- wonder what they're supposed to be protecting against? [Should I be taking cover right now?]" was quite apparent to me when I visited the Old World.
(Honestly, I don't want to go back to visit there partially for that reason, but at least it yields some perspective when understanding Outgroupers who are terrified that guns exist in the first place. Difference is that if I don't see their gun, they won't see mine, which is... also very much an attitude unique to New World nations, as I understand it.)
German patrol cars carry at least an MP5
I'm surprised; I'd figure they'd go UMP9/G36 like the French seem to have just because they're cheap if you buy in bulk and the main thing they need to do is look scary.
And around 80% of those suspects end up surviving, supposedly because the officers aren't mag-dumping when they shoot.
Or they're missing, or not actually getting good hits, or medical assistance is far closer at hand in Germany. Maybe all 3?
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
That is indeed the steelman of the case, and the direct cost of freedom. So (as I'll expand on in the sibling comment that misses the point a little) these are more properly viewed as a type of [civil] war death, and the dead citizens in this case viewed as soldiers on guard for that [civil] freedom to not be locked in cages.
One should expect them to be buried with full honors for this exact reason. We won't do that- this event will be memory holed because this ended in a fight against two straightwhitemen (the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems)- but the freedom side gives away the right to properly frame the conflict in terms of what is, from the anti-freedom perspective, that the sacrifice to the freedom part of the civil religion is being properly (and muscularly) acknowledged.
If you think that's too harsh, let teachers and social workers anonymously blacklist specific children they think shouldn't be trusted with a gun when they grow up.
They already do this in a process called "voting". The blacklist they've settled on is "literally all of them", which is why the compromise is on "scary features" mostly as an effort to make kids self-select out of wanting guns because it's boring.
The misunderstanding of how guns work is a feature, not a bug. Fixing the remaining violence from straightwhitemen would require the least bit of attempting to understand them, and why understand them when you can just hold up examples of misbehavior to justify oppressing them mitigating their inherent risk further?
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
So does a pocket pistol, if you shoot the guy enough times in the same-ish place. Shotguns are only .32ACP tier on a per pellet basis, they just make up for that by firing 9 of them at a time.
It’s a distinction most people don’t make, but then again, most people don’t understand why machine pistols exist, for magdumping for an audience on Guntube isn’t the best way to demonstrate that.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
I would have expected any obvious red flags from the shooter to come out by now.
"Straight, white, male" was released immediately per media protocol.
though I’m not sure what the point of [prosecuting the mother] is
Chilling effect on the tens of millions of citizens whose kids have access to the gun cabinet- again, standard protocol. Arresting mothers who let their kids out to play is standard protocol for the same reason.
There would have to be a lot of new legislation in place to be able to spy on someone enough to track their pre-crime enough to involuntarily commit them if they’re planning something crazy like this.
Gun bans (and restrictions on liberty more generally) make far more sense if you consider them a form of involuntary commitment.
He then made his way to the special education classroom just to the left of the entrance and fired as many as 15 rounds.
So he came with a full tube (Maverick 88s usually hold 9) and a few shells in his pocket. No need for stealth if you can't just walk in, I guess. An over/under (or a .22LR, for different reasons) is about as effective; indeed, there was a case in the UK where someone did that.
Shotguns (in anti-personnel loads) are not meaningfully distinguishable from taping together 9 handguns so they all fire at the same time. Now, handguns are generally poor at killing things and are hard to use as a tradeoff of being able to wear the gun everywhere, but that assessment goes out the window once you consider you can shoot more than one time. A good hit from a shotgun with 00 buckshot is ballistically equal to dumping 9 rounds from a handgun, and it's far easier to get all 9 pellets on target with the shotgun (in 1 trigger pull) than it is 9 rounds with the handgun. Worse with #4 buckshot, as equivalent to an entire 25-round magazine of .22LR.
Most parents don’t suspect their kid will shoot up a school.
Sometimes you really do just have to lock mental cases away. The alternative is death by gunshot.
More scattered thoughts:
We could probably use more male teachers. If men go for careers and you can't make a career out of being a teacher, maybe we really should have paid teachers more?
We're only serious about affirmative action in one direction, and it's related both to why "straight, white, male" are red flags. One notes an inverse correlation between the number of male teachers and the increase in mass shooters; in my opinion this is not a coincidence.
Apparently, gun murders are not as important as being antiracist! That dovetails nicely with this other incident where a mass shooter was released to home detention
Tends to happen with trans shooters for the same reason.
or that drugs and robberies and organized crime aren’t the cause as much as “young men getting mad at each other”
2A states "you have the right to retain the means to wage a civil war" (as does 1A; the pen is mightier, but without 2A it's only mightier on paper). Drugs and robberies and organized crime, as an extension of "young men getting mad they have less than other young men and taking it out on everyone else by waging private military action", are literally what 2A is for.
2A advocates, especially old men, tend to be really uncomfortable with that; that's why they compromised on gun control in the first place. Modern young men now see those old men as those who perpetrate the drugs and robberies and organized crime (but in a far more passive-aggressive way), which is why the Overton window has shifted [back?] towards military firearms.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
1d ago
Neither is "Have you considered shifting the balance of power towards the outgroup? Surely it'll work this time". Socon/crypto-feminist system prompt meets equality/liberal system prompt, tale as old as time.
Really, though, it's more a disagreement on how valuable sex is, or when the payment was made for it. The woman claims the intent of selling sex was buying a future privilege that was then revoked, so the woman "sues" for breach of contract.
Contract violations are not generally criminal matters. Women find it very convenient that this one is, because criminal accusations force the matter into social court, complete with scarlet letter if they win their lawsuit. This is a privilege thing; it worked OK back when a lack of automation meant you had to make a sex and obedience contract called a "marriage" just to get a meal.
But to properly address a contract violation, you have to set the value of sex at some dollar amount. Contracts go bad and people feel taken advantage of in various ways literally all the time- that's half of what divorce court exists to adjudicate. Of course, you can't get into a contract if you don't offer your services in exchange for money, and as any crypto-feminist will tell you, sex isn't a requirement for life.
Of course, you'll recognize that as "a woman must get over the fact that inherently means she's a whore". Naturally, that conflicts with female privilege (and father privilege).
The obvious solution is "fathers have zero privilege in an individualist society; if women can't psychologically handle the act of putting an explicit price on sex, save it for marriage, simple as". But letting more liberated women operate that way means they might get more male rewards, which is something feminists/fathers cannot abide that.
In the general case, is the answer to why a conservative/progressive can't leave a meritocratic system alone. They don't believe being less [morally] capable should result in an unequal outcome. Progressives literally say this, it's just that letting them do it means you let bad people set the rules because demanding them follow the rules was "too hard", and those people cannot deliver anything other than a crooked outcome.
I, too, remember '80s movie posters.
I posit that a protagonist that is 'born awesome and talented, and even in his darkest moments he cannot keep himself from being competent' is by definition a man.
(By contrast, I posit that a protagonist that is 'born beautiful and virtuous, and even in her darkest moments she cannot keep herself from being valuable' is a woman.)
So, while we're on the topic of Eastern media, I submit Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid as being a male Cinderella story that features a man protagonist [complicated by the fact "he" is female; this is played completely straight with the Lucoa/Shouta relationship though].
(Elsewhere in this thread, I discuss Onimai, which is a female Cinderella story that features a female protagonist [complicated by the fact "she" is male]. It's very explicit about that last part.)
The 'muscular barbarian standing on top of his slain enemies carrying [her as a] scantily clad girl' image is the root of how Tohru sees Kobayashi (and how Lucoa sees Shouta, to the point of explicitly offering him this[1], and on the opposite side how Mihari views Mahiro [though in a more implicit way, which is how she can get off to [what sounds like] him getting off, while still being repelled by actually grabbing his male-ness]).
[1] Which is also why men [including Shouta himself, of course] tend to find that uncomfortable- because that creates, in large degree, a demand for future 'muscular barbarian does the thing' whose results aren't even directly measurable; and leads to instant existential anxiety about "seller decides it no longer wants that future" on the demand side that is fundamentally not resolvable. (Kobayashi's situation is a bit more stable, for she is already established and Tohru has already accepted that what Kobayashi does qualifies as 'muscular barbarian [carrying her]'.)
Actually, most mid to late '00s Western cartoons have this going on; usually Lauren Faust/Craig McCracken works feature characters that have similar inversions, but I remember it being more than just them.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
2d ago
I wouldn't class "a man gets sole custody of a baby he committed a sex crime to father and is now extracting child support from the victim" as simply "rare". Not even if she marries her rapist.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
2d ago
They're based on replacing welfare given to the custodial parent.
Yet it's abundantly clear that if the woman doesn't consent, she can unilaterally and forcefully terminate all her child s[upport] whenever she chooses no matter what the other parent believes, even if they have 100% joint custody (usually called 'a marriage').
Sure, you have to argue that you were insane in front of a judge in the most extreme case, but even in that case your peers will nearly unanimously agree you have the right to end that agreement whenever you so choose because that Protects Women.
The entire problem is that the double-standard that used to be viable (because it was compensated for in other areas of life by the conditions of reality) is no longer so, and the compensation traditional human instinct assumes is there... isn't. There were always other more even-handed ways of dealing with this problem but those seem to have been deliberately ignored.
But hey, US foreign policy even in nations it was supposed to be building is "permit the local aristocracy to get its boy-rape on so the women could have a future"- I guess if nothing else, it's a consistent approach.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
2d ago
Can you think of a male Cinderella story where the male protagonist kind of just has awesomeness and acclaim dropped into his lap?
Sword Art Online?
No lack of punishment for false rape claims.
Feminism empowered this woman to act that way; maybe we should try something different than "more feminism"?
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
3d ago
ME2 isn't even really an RPG any more
True, but neither was ME1; when I went back to play it, it was ME2 except emptier, even less of an ability to re-class (hope you picked Soldier so you can use more than just a pistol), and without the Vanguard charge. I found the other non-gun-related abilities very difficult to determine if they're even doing anything, and most of the others boiled down to "press 4 to remove Marauder's Shields".
Interestingly, I'd argue that the ultimate evolution of Mass Effect's formula is Doom 2016 (Eternal turned that up to 11, but sadly the great sound design from 2016 reverted to... literally just fart noises). In those games, every power you could get in Mass Effect is a gun, and cycling through the powers (and figuring out which to start with) is how you win the fights.
Multiple marriages and divorces, mostly caused by his inability not to cheat.
Well yeah, because he's a giant slut [denotation only]. Which is the entire reason he even can function in oncology; if I recall correctly, that's stated more or less explicitly even outside of the traditionally sexual (there's one episode that's explicitly trying to get him to put out a different organ to fix a friend and long-term patient).
Interestingly, I think that's also what allows him to get along long-term with House. Both of them are in it for the love of the game (and receive the love through the game of driving back physical reality [House, stereotypical male trait] and driving back emotional reality [Wilson, stereotypical female trait]). I feel as if the larger conflicts in that series arise specifically when the foundation of that relationship breaks down, or at least that's the impression I get from the clips.
Weakly held opinion: perhaps the reason that neither men nor women can tolerate depictions of women with female character flaws is because it exposes a strategic liability that hurts them more than men would be if acknowledged? Maybe the framing should not be "Women are Wonderful" as it should be "the consequences of Women Not Being Wonderful are way more destructive than they are for men, thus, the trade-off human instinct makes for men always being flawed punching bags is that they're the only ones who may be Great in the end"?
Maybe that's the root of why female characters doing that (re: "Mary Sue") feels so uniquely uncanny vs. the male version of this, which is... well, Superman?
If that is the case, the issue with Modern Day Media is fundamentally a reflection of Modern Writers growing up in a Modernity that [for various reasons] is no longer able to naturally instruct Modern Humanity about why that compromise was made.
Then, the vanity of modern generations decried can be properly seen as rational- for when that compromise is no longer base reality, other concerns, like claiming that 'oh, you just want that because it's your instinct, and so we'll put all our effort solely into owning the Cons shitting on the Lesser Human Beings'... well, that makes sense too, as does the inevitable rejection of their works when they go bankrupt (for human instinct is ultimately what makes stories resonate).
[And then, due to the fact women use 'is already aware of that knowledge and bold enough to capitalize on it' as a differentiator between men, women cannot instinctively self-moderate on what they choose as a filter. So, by the time they figure out they need to be screaming that from the rooftops to get men to finally approach them... it's too late.]
...oh, wait, maybe that's why progressives feel no dissonance when calling themselves liberals, isolate 'Ref 1', because that's what liberals are famous for doing, and they interpreted the reason why we did that purely as hatred for the old ways (and... not going to pretend it's not some of the time) rather than the pride and joy that comes from doing a new thing.
and there are explorations during the series of how maybe this is kinda messed-up co-dependent that is not so good for either of them.
An observation one could perhaps make of any successful marriage. (Maybe marriages that don't have those flaws are not stable solely because they don't come with their own continually/tacitly acknowledged costs simply because otherwise there's no strongly defined right and wrong with respect to the other partner?)
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
4d ago
in the same way that gloryhole stuff is more about the story than the actual pragmatic rocks-getting-off bit
Sounds girly as hell to me. What kind of story is even supposed to exist for a random dick through a hole other than the object-level details?
but they come with their own infohazards -- reacting to a grindr ping is now a test of its own.
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
4d ago
Mass Effect 1 is a love-letter to a very particular architectural style common to Canadian government buildings in the 1980s that is now largely disappearing.
(Noveria is literally just Edmonton, and the highway to the danger zone is exactly how the roads look after a snowstorm, just with less Geth.)
Other than that, yeah, ME1 was still leaving the KOTOR school of live-action D&D game design and as a result the gameplay was kind of ass. And you couldn't even romance Garrus. And yeah, they did get better in 2, and way better in 3, but by the time they had figured out how to make a fluid third-person shooter that didn't randomly send you 100 feet into the air the only thing you got to pick was what color explosion you wanted.
(Maybe it says something about me that when I first played ME2 so long ago I was actively disappointed that I couldn't romance the only party members you can't, in fact, romance? Or at least, the two that don't get sexual pleasure from headbutting you. I kind of get why you can't do either one of them since their 'routes' wouldn't be meaningfully distinguishable from the plot and loyalty missions, but like...)
ThisIsSin
:when you get the answer to the halting problem wrong
4d ago
I go to sign up for sniffies and at one point it asks you "Are you a real cruiser?"
Maybe I need to buy a Dodge Ram 2500 and grow a beard or something.
If you desire to change the class of naval vessel with which you are publicly associated, perhaps you should instead consider a Corvette?
Yeah, but nitroglycerin? That stuff tends to result in an ignobel fate on a good day.
More options
Context Copy link