Pattern Ghost

Yeah, I was trying to watch the one that the YouTube clip was from last night, but the stream kept freezing at a certain point. I'm going to try again later tonight.

I consider everyone under 30 children, so with you there. I agree. But we won't figure out how to make it harder for them to access guns if we keep coming up with stupid solutions. Frankly, I haven't seen everything Stewart has to say on the subject. I tried to watch the full episode of his show that the YouTube clip was from last night, but the app kept crashing on me. Still, what I have seen is the same "common sense" nonsense that will do nothing to solve the problems it's supposed to. I say again: I am NOT against doing something on the firearms end of things. I'm just against doing stupid crap to make people feel good in the moment, instead of look for actual solutions that solve the stated problem. Nothing Stewart mentioned in the clip, in the first half of the episode, or any other time I've seen him go off on an emotional tirade on the issue, will actually do what he wants. Intervention and diversion have proven to be effective in reducing deaths, yet . . . we don't hear a damned thing about them when we talk about that demographic. If people like Stewart keep pushing for "common sense" gun reforms to "save the children" constantly, but NEVER mention intervention or diversion programs . . . they are part of the problem. Try this: Search for the following terms: "John Stewart on gun control," and "John Stewart on reducing gang violence." Tell me how many videos you find of him talking about the latter. By continuing to mislabel these preventable deaths as simply "children killed by guns" and not as gang-related violence, the root problem continues to be ignored. I'm still looking for evidence that gun tracing does anything to actually solve crimes. And I'm also still looking for evidence that solving crimes prevents them.

Note: I'm responding to this quote first, but don't take the length of the post as I continue on into the weeds personally, Tricksta. I just found myself expanding on a thought that started here. Microstamping isn't really viable. But, let's say it works exactly as advertised. The police recover a spent casing at the scene of a crime. They run it through a database and determine who the last owner was. Does this solve the crime? Another point Stewart makes is that it should be easier for the ATF to trace gun transfers. Which they can already do. Do gun traces solve crimes? These are essentially the same result as microstamping. I don't know the answer to that, because Google doesn't return any results for searches for crimes solved by ATW traces (and you can't prove a negative). I suspect the number of crimes actually solved by ATF transfer traces is low, because most crimes are committed by people who aren't the original owners. In the case of mass shooters, most of those (I'm guessing) seem to be legally obtained, but ATF traces are a moot point, because the person is usually caught or killed without the need for a trace. But, let's look at this more optimistically and say that microstamping and better ATF tracing of firearms increases the solve rate for homicides by a significant amount. Does that prevent gun violence? I don't think it would. The death penalty isn't a deterrent, so I doubt an increased chance of getting caught would be. So, even with the best rose-colored glasses on, these things that sound like good, "common sense," ideas just aren't going to curtail our murder rate. Which is another lie told by Stewart in that interview, using statistics. Here's a decent, unbiased (as far as I can tell), analysis of gun death data from Pew: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ So, how is Stewart lying about the increased number of murders? He isn't. But he is using the numbers disingenuously to sow fear.* So far, so good. The number of gun homicides has clearly gone up. Horrible. We must do something. Stewart says we must reduce the number of guns (probably won't do squat), fund the ATF (agreed), research gun violence (agreed), require microstamping (disagreed), while Fox News says we all need to fund the police better (agreed, but not for their idiot reasons), and all go out and buy a gun (disagreed), because blood is flowing in the streets! Chaos! Calamity! (disagreed, as denoted by the sarcastic exclamation points). OK, so what's the problem? The problem is that the number doesn't have context. Fortunately, the Pew report seems to be pretty clear at providing context: OK, we can all breath a sigh of relief. Numbers are up, but it's not quite as bad as the raw numbers show, since our per capita rate is only slightly up. Well, there were still 45,222 gun deaths in 2020, according to CDC data. That's a lot of people dead. This is a picture of a 44,000 people protest in Vienna, and it doesn't even have all the people in it: Imagine the United States losing all those people in 2020 from gun deaths. If we could reduce that, we could save a lot of people. According to the CDC, there were 3,358,814 deaths in the US in 2020. I don't think I can find a picture of that many people in one place. The percentage of people who died that died from firearms: 45,222/3,358,814 = 0.013463, so about 1.35%. Now, saving some of those 45k+ lives is a good thing. But you aren't very likely to get shot just walking down the street or engaging in normal daily activities like going to school, going to the movies, going shopping, etc. You might, but it's unlikely. How's our overall death rate looking? Surely we're dropping like flies, right? Here's a sortable ranking of death rates from World Bank. The numbers are from 2020 and per 1000 population. The whole list is rather long, but here are some highlights: Bulgaria is the winner with 18 Ukraine is 3rd with 15.9 Russia is 7th with 14.6 OK, that was just to show the higher end of things and the Ukraine/Russia pairing. Not to pick on them, but to give a baseline. Let's look at some countries who have it "good," or at least should: Canada, Sweden and Japan. Just pulled those out of a hat b/c they're frequently mentioned as pretty decent, civilized places. Canada in 84th place at 8.1 Sweden in 50th place at 9.5 Japan in 29th place at 11.1 OK, I thought those numbers were going to be better, especially Japan. How about the US? USA in 38th place at 10.3 What does this mean? Means we're not quite as horrible as some people would have us think, but we're also not as awesome as others would have us think. We can do better, but we could do much worse. And why did I zoom out to deaths in general vs. gun deaths? Partly for the obvious perspective. We could reduce gun deaths to 0 and it wouldn't move our death rate dial by very much at all. The panic is disproportionate to the threat. This does not mean we do nothing, it means, as the Hitchiker's Guide reminds us: So, my first point in all of this is we can, and should, approach the problem rationally. My second point is that just as "national death rate" is too broad in scope, so is "gun violence" or even "homicide rate." I'll reiterate my basic stance on the issue again: We need to solve root causes. We need to interpret the data not for the sake of drumming up fear for our proposed solution (including that of "do nothing" that some hold), but for a study of the causes of violence and homicide. At the end of the day, acting like guns alone can cause or prevent homicides is not productive. Neither position is true. And that's why both Stewart and his interviewees annoy me. How much has been spent by either side on root cause analysis and removing the root causes? I'm betting it's a low number. My point is this: We are not a society of Mutant Biker Cowboy Barbarians. We're a Confederacy of Dunces ruled by an Idiocracy. *Note: That sounds nefarious. I don't think Stewart is nefarious. I think he cares deeply and is simply engaging in his own fears and spreading them around due to not looking at the subject dispassionately.

I understand, and I agree with you on the hypocrisy of said politician. But I don't like Stewart's tactics, either.

I saw that. Stewart's argument is kind of weak when "children" are defined as up to 21* years old in those stats, and the majority of those deaths are gang violence related. The more accurate conclusions from that "statistic" are that a) statistics can lie to play on emotions, and b) gang violence and diversion needs to be addressed. To address the number one killer of children, as Stewart laid it out, you would first spend massive funding on gang diversion and gang intervention (encouraging and teaching gangs how to resolve conflicts without killing one another) programs across the country. The fact that we have a politician sitting there who couldn't come to that simple counter to Stewart's argument and that Stewart has (I've recently watched several of his "take down" videos regarding different topics recently) has begun restoring to poor research and talking over his interviewee are both disheartening. My takeaway? The best argument for taking weapons from the population is that we have become an infantile society who as a whole doesn't possess the capacity to be trusted with the power over life and death. People can't even sit down and weigh the pros and cons of an issue with each other from different ideological standpoints without resorting to dirty debate tactics (Stewart) and without the awareness required by their office of public responsibility (any of his victim "interviewees"). I'm saying this as a fan of Stewart who mostly agrees with him and respects a lot of the things he's done. He's become deeply (or at least demonstrably) emotional and "fed up" when it comes to 2nd Amendment issues the last few years. He needs to get back to good research and critical analysis of all of his information sources, and be more aware of his own confirmation bias. *Edit: That 21 is likely wrong. It looks like the CDC is currently using 19 years old as the break point, and that's likely the source Stewart was using. That same data shows that firearms take over as the leading cause of death starting at age 15. Which reinforces the point about gang activity being the root cause here.

Trying to watch Blonde, but it's so very, very bad. Ana de Armas was wasted in this. Finished up seasons 4 through 7 of Fear the Walking Dead. Apparently, the showrunners changed after Season 3. Seasons 4, 5 and 7 were pretty bad, occasionally rising to moments of mediocrity, though season 6 was better. Started watching some new sitcoms, Shrinking (Apple TV)(more of a dramedy, from the Ted Lasso folks), Animal Control, and Not Dead Yet. All three of those were pretty entertaining. Tried a couple episodes of That 90s Show, but was only mildly entertained, and mostly by the cameos. Verdict's out on whether we'll continue watching that one.

I'm torn. I didn't like the quality of that article, but I agree with the general premise.

Do you play CCGs, LCGs or deck-building games? Play those* extensively, learn how they work. Nobody here can give you the expertise to create such a game, after all. Once you have your experience, come up with an idea for a unique twist on one of those genres. Grab some index cards. Create your cards. Playtest the heck out of it. I think Drive Thru has a POD option for cards, so you might look into that when you're ready to publish. That's it in the nutshell. *One you might want to check out: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/102652/sentinels-multiverse

How does he get up to 90? (I'm actually fine with him getting 90 consecutive life sentences, or whatever keeps him locked up. I'm just curious how they arrived at that number, based on the number of victims killed.)

That sounds like something an AI would say.

MS Presentation about Bing's AI integration: https://news.microsoft.com/the-new-Bing/#webcast

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but it doesn't seem any more of a stretch than the contortions the Commerce Clause has been twisted into, so maybe it'll work? Probably won't work with the current SCOTUS lineup though.

I'm good with whatever.

Correction: Four copies, one of those was to your mother and one was to me!

Update: Looks like Hemphill was fired. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sixth-memphis-officer-fired-tyre-nichols-death-rcna69121

I tried to edit my last post, but it wouldn't save, so: Here's an update from CNN: https://www.localmemphis.com/article/news/crime/sixth-mpd-officer-raising-questions-in-memphis-tyre-nichols-police-department-traffic-stop-ude-of-force-white-officer-five-fired-indicted-murder/522-621200ce-9170-4d40-a015-74cdafc53c9c Two things noted here: 1. White officer wasn't at second scene (where the beating took place) 2. This quote: While regrouping, Hemphill can be heard on his body camera saying to one of the officers, "I hope they stomp his a–". That second one says something about his mindset. Given that it was made in the heat of the moment, in and of itself, it's probably not enough for an immediate firing. However, I think a deeper dive into this guy's character should be done, with termination being a likely outcome, since he doesn't seem to have the right temperament for the job.

While it could well have been because he's white, it could also be due to the nature of use of force investigations. There are a lot of factors that come into play from policy, to training, to legal, to the officer's knowledge and perception of the situation, as well as whether there was malice on the part of the officer. Suspension rather than immediate termination was probably the correct call based on what that article states. Further investigation will surely be done, and may lead to termination or criminal charges. According to the article, he pulled the subject (victim) out of the car, and TASED him, as well as contact stunned him. Is pulling someone you intend to arrest out of the vehicle excessive force? The answer is it depends. The act itself is within reason if a) you have cause to arrest or detain the person and b) you give them ample opportunity to get out of the vehicle before yanking them out. Note that the article doesn't ask these questions. That's because the author and editor are more concerned with a catchy headline and getting their article published ASAP to try to keep up with the breakneck speed of online "reporting." And those are just two of the questions that need to be asked on the matter of getting the guy out of the car. The TASER use begs MANY questions, again, beyond the scope of the reporter's expertise. They'd have had to do a deeper dive and get an expert to consult with. But that's slow, and provocative headlines being put out quickly is what the media thrives on. I watched the body cam videos. My take on this guy is that the force he personally applied very likely did not contribute to the subject's(victim's) death. Pulling people out of cars generally doesn't kill them. The TASER use also generally isn't fatal. It's unclear to me if the white officer used any language indicating malice in his intent. There was a lot of inappropriate language, but it's impossible for me to identify the speakers. He also didn't look like the person driving the situation. IMO, the action (benching vs firing) was appropriate based on what very, very little the public knows about the incident, as given on that body cam footage. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the blunt force trauma inflicted by the officers who were fired was the likely cause of the death. It looks like the black officers were the ones who got fired, because they were the ones who most obviously contributed to the death and who were most egregiously outside the law, policy and their training.

I'm not saying you were any more or less hyperbolic than average. From time to time, I like to point out when we start to veer in the direction of early assumptions. Not always -- I don't try to run around policing the thread, as that'd be obnoxious. It's not personal, and no offense was intended. I just tend to think like an investigator, both by nature and profession at some points, including recently, so it's a kind of pet peeve. Jumping to ascribing a motive to political, racial, or other reasons that are hot buttons can sometimes obscure the truth, even if they're depressingly accurate assumptions much of the time. This certainly looks premeditated, and political motives are definitely high up on the list of possibilities. Anyway, sorry if I offended you. I do believe you to be a reasonable sort of person and respect your opinions.

I think the rank and file of these guys are just uninformed morons who could use a civics class to learn the difference between a party stance and the law. I believe the leadership know damned well what they're doing is wrong and are twisting the meaning of the oath to their own ends. Frankly, they're the " . . . and domestic" enemies that their rank and file think they're protecting against.

We're definitely struggling as a nation, but there's no evidence yet that this was politically motivated.

Seems like an eclectic mish-mash for someone looking to create a cohesive universe. I saw a YouTube video that said the Rock tweeted that he's out of the DCU. After having suffered through Black Adam, no big loss IMO.

I don't remember any bait and switch. The season follows a consistent story line. Is it a great story line? Eh. It gets us to Season 3, explains some things about Burnham and Spock (quite a bit, really), and isn't terrible. It's worth watching, IMO, to see how the spin off is set up, but not strictly necessary.

The acronym and the attire are cringe. I can't believe any responsible adult signed off on this concept of policing.

Here's a funny experiment I just tried: Kind of reminds me of Data trying to learn about human emotions.

I've been playing around with Chat GPT today. It's sort of like having a really bright assistant who's great at research, but also has a short attention span, doesn't follow orders, and lies about their mistakes. Its writing capabilities are far overblown. I tried to walk it through writing a blog post on a topic that involved making a list of things and explaining them. It was great at generating ideas for the list, but when asked to remove something from the list and add something else to it, would make its own deletions and additions after being given explicit instructions not to. It has a buffer limit of about 500 words, so after giving it a corrected list, I asked it to write an article about the list that was 2000 words, and I'd tell it to continue after its buffer filled. Which used to work when it was writing longer things, but it decided to start the article again from scratch until I reiterated it was to pick up where it left off. The quality of the writing it produces is poor (but better than many humans), though grammatically correct. It makes factual errors or fails to follow directions closely, then attempts to rationalize or lie about its errors. It's pretty human in these regards. When used within its limits (which is basically a story telling box), it's pretty dang impressive. It would make an exceptionally robust interface for a true expert system (it feeds expected words back, but clearly doesn't understand the concepts behind them), and I think has untapped potential for automation. As far as its writing goes, it's better for short factual things (that you must confirm, because it lies like a rug and its data only goes up to some time in 2021), or for generating things like outlines, lists, etc. It's good for bouncing ideas off of, to a point. Here's an example of working out a hypothetical plot point: ME: I'm writing a story, and I need your help with plotting. Are you able to help me? GPT: Yes, I can help you with plotting your story. Can you give me more information about the story, such as the main characters, setting, and overall theme? This will help me understand the direction you want to take with your plot. ME: The story is a coming of age story about a high school senior, Marty, who has a younger sister, Jane, in middle school. The siblings have been abandoned by their single mother, who has gone off with one in a long string of boyfriends, and has not returned for several weeks. Marty is forced to take care of his little sister, and to get a job to pay the bills and buy food and necessities for himself and his sister. Marty's sister is taken away by Child Protective Services when they become aware of the situation. Jane has a peanut allergy and is fed peanuts by mistake while in CPS care, despite the allergy being in her records. Can you help me think of some ways in which Jane may have been fed peanuts while under CPS care? GPT: Sure, here are a few ways that Jane may have been fed peanuts while under CPS care: Accidentally served peanuts in food: Jane may have been served food that contained peanuts, either because the staff were not aware of her allergy or because they made a mistake in preparing her meals. Sharing food with other children: If Jane is placed in a group home, she may have come into contact with peanuts by sharing food with other children who were eating peanut-containing snacks or meals. Lack of proper labeling: If the group home or facility where Jane is placed does not properly label foods that contain peanuts, she may have accidentally consumed something that contains peanuts without realizing it. Miscommunication: If the staff is not properly informed about Jane's allergy, or if the information is not properly passed on between shifts, Jane may have been fed peanuts by mistake. Negligence: The staff at the CPS facility might have been careless or negligent in monitoring Jane's food, not paying attention to her allergies and not taking the necessary precautions to avoid exposing her to peanuts. Sabotage by other children: If Jane is placed in a group home with other children, it's possible that one of the children deliberately gave her peanuts despite her allergy, either out of malice or due to lack of understanding of the severity of the allergy. Please note that these are just examples and this is a fictional scenario. I love the disclaimer at the end. It won't tell you how to do something immoral, but it'll cheerfully tell you how to get away with anything. Now, this example wasn't particularly imaginative, just ways people have gotten poisoned accidentally or intentionally by food they're allergic to. Your average human could have made a similar list off the top of their head. But not in under two seconds. And probably would have left one or two things off. So, Chat GPT can be a pretty fun brainstorming tool.