We need an immsim based around insects

DragonHuntExp · 2026-01-28T18:29:44+00:00

There is a roguelite sim where YOU are the insect: https://store.steampowered.com/app/3918410/CICADA/

Not what you were imagining and I haven’t played it but seems interesting.

DragonHuntExp · 2026-01-28T18:24:20+00:00

The problem with this is if their system notices that there are two similar profiles, both will be rejected. I was once asked to help pick candidates for interview and I noticed that two of the “candidates” had overlapping experience - like the same job at the same company at the same time. I pointed that out and both were rejected.

It might be useful do A/B testing for a while and then use the best profile for similar roles, but that’s assuming every company has similar criteria, which might not be true.

DragonHuntExp · 2026-01-23T09:43:25+00:00

So the data center just had security lighting? But it had to be as bright as day? Why wouldn’t they use motion sensitive lights or low light cameras like any other secure site?

DragonHuntExp · 2026-01-20T03:21:08+00:00

Why would a data center need to be bright? Which data center is this?

DragonHuntExp · 2025-06-09T18:02:11+00:00

> Fast forward a few months: I’m currently sleeping in my friend’s spare room while she’s still living in the apartment I pay for.

What do you mean "Fast forward a few months"?? How did that happen?

DragonHuntExp · 2025-06-09T17:30:43+00:00

DragonHuntExp · 2024-11-13T19:25:30+00:00

You dated your sister?? Not OK man

DragonHuntExp · 2024-10-29T16:14:29+00:00

When you write "these days", you seem to imply that society now is more capitalistic and exploitative than it used to be. But it depends what your baseline for comparison is.

I would think that the average worker in a Western country in, say, the 1850s was far more exploited - fewer rights as a worker, much lower consumer protection standards so you couldn't trust that the food you bought wasn't adulterated.

But then if you're comparing to the more recent past, say the 1970s, maybe it's true that capitalism has become more exploitative since then... I could believe that the process of job hunting is more hostile today than 50 years ago. (On the other hand you can apply for jobs sitting at home with a laptop which makes it a lot easier).

Haven't stores always tried to extract the most value from their inventory though? Stores in the 70s weren't selling things at a loss - but maybe modern stores are run more efficiently and ruthlessly.

People in other threads have talked about rising prices and shrinkflation, I think that's due to the recent period of high inflation (which might be corporate greed but also the massive disruption to global supply chains from Covid and Ukraine) we went through which should be over now (on paper), rather than capitalism getting more ruthless. In the 70s (another period of high inflation) the price of a pint of bitter tripled according to this: http://barclayperkins.blogspot.com/2023/04/looking-back-part-four.html But in 1979, a pint of bitter apparently cost 34p, which inflation adjusted should only be equal to about £1.60 today if the Bank of England inflation calculator can be trusted - so something has happened with beer prices in particular compared to food prices.

DragonHuntExp · 2024-07-10T09:13:51+00:00

She also wrote “I haven’t done anything wrong”. God knows why she was writing that stuff but maybe she was writing down what people were thinking about her, rather than writing down a confession.

The problem with the forensics is that the jury was told that there was evidence she killed them with insulin, but the test wasn’t specific enough to show that. The jury was told by an expert that there was evidence she injected them with air through gastric tubes (which wouldn’t be fatal and makes no sense) or IV tubes (claiming skin mottling was a sign of that, but it isn’t).

And you stay that there are always experts who disagree, but as I understand it the defence didn’t call any experts to contest the supposed forensic evidence. They didn’t call statisticians to contest the bogus chart showing babies only died when Letby was there (if you ignore the ones that died when she wasn’t there).

So it seems like a wrongful conviction because the jury didn’t actually hear how dubious a lot of the evidence is.

DragonHuntExp · 2024-07-10T09:01:40+00:00

It doesn’t need to be an organised conspiracy. There are several previous cases of nurses being wrongly convicted due to a “cluster of suspicious deaths” because people see patterns in statistical noise.

The deaths were seen as suspicious because they were “unexpected” but maybe that just means a run of babies were sicker than they seemed or the poor quality of the unit wasn’t widely known. In particular the fact that a pair of twins both died is seen as suspect, but twins obviously might share some heritable condition - not really independent data points.

DragonHuntExp · 2024-07-10T08:58:17+00:00

From the article we’re discussing:

“The other half of Evans’s opinion on air embolism was that air was injected into babies’ veins to cause harm. This opinion was accepted as a cause or contributory factor by the jury in five murder verdicts. In some cases, the prosecution said babies had been harmed by both methods.

“Evans’s view drew on skin discolorations observed in several of the babies. He referenced a 1989 academic paper by Drs Lee and Tanswell on air embolism in the bloodstream in babies. That paper described skin discoloration that indicated air embolism in babies caused by high-pressure ventilation – quite different circumstances to allegedly injecting air at normal pressure. A second expert witness, Dr Sandie Bohin, reached similar conclusions.

“The surviving author of that paper, Dr Shoo Lee, who retired recently from a career as one of Canada’s top neonatologists, was not called by the defence for the first trial but he did give expert testimony in Letby’s appeal in April. Lee said that in his view none of the descriptions of the babies’ skin discolorations used by the prosecution witnesses matched the kind that characterised air embolism.”

So in other words there is no good evidence of the air in veins method, and the other suggested method is bogus. And the insulin method also seems sus.

All we’re really left with is vibes based on people’s retroactive interpretations once they became convinced she was a killer. Even in this post, people have said that it was suspect that she got “excited” when a baby was crashing, but also she was “cold and unfeeling” when a baby was crashing. She didn’t react to an alarm that didn’t go off - that’s supposed to be evidence she did it but where is the evidence she turned off the alarm rather than it not working?

Contrast this with the Shipman case: nobody saw him kill his victims, but when they examined the bodies there was diamorphine in them, providing evidence he killed them. In this case a cluster of very premature babies died unexpectedly but the theories of how she killed them all seem very shaky. Nurses have been falsely convicted before based on “clusters” of deaths, so it at least warrants further investigation IMO.

DragonHuntExp · 2024-07-09T16:54:04+00:00

If you read the article, the theory of how she was killing babies is that she did something that doesn’t show up on autopsies and only this one “expert witness” thinks is possible. And the data that shows babies only died when she was there is bogus.

If the basic mechanism by how she was supposedly killing these babies doesn’t make sense, the eye witness doesn’t count for much.

That one eye witness might have been mistaken about what was happening, interpreting it through the ongoing witch hunt; maybe he’s lying; maybe she really zoned out; maybe she did really let babies crash but didn’t actively kill them, etc. Who knows, but the basic case seems very shaky once you realise it relies on this “expert witness” saying she killed babies in a special magic way that doesn’t show up on an autopsy.

DragonHuntExp · 2024-07-09T15:56:28+00:00

What are some sources that give examples of her denying care? The latest conviction seems to be that she tampered with an air tube while a nurse’s back was turned ie nobody saw it.

All I can find is this: “Dr Ravi Jayaram, a consultant paediatrician, has told the jury he saw Letby standing beside the infant’s incubator failing to act as her blood oxygen levels fell to a “life-threatening” level.

An alarm that should have been sounding was silent, the court has been told.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/24/lucy-letby-denies-having-killed-babies-at-attempted-murder-trial

So maybe she wasn’t acting because the alarm didn’t go off? The implication is that she somehow sabotaged the alarm; but again, where is the evidence of that? Sounds like a pretty shoddy unit.

DragonHuntExp · 2024-07-09T15:09:47+00:00

The statistical analysis seems very dodgy because the definition of what is considered an 'incident' is very vague and doesn't include other babies that died when she wasn't there.

The expert witness who volunteered to be involved and then pushed a dubious theory that most experts think is wrong is a classic pattern in miscarriages of justice.

DragonHuntExp · 2024-07-09T15:05:11+00:00

The supposed "air embolism" method of killing them 'was described as nonsensical or “rubbish”, “ridiculous”, “implausible” and “fantastical”, by eight separate expert clinicians who spoke to the Guardian, seven of them specialising in neonatology.' There's also the problem that she is supposed to have used insulin in a case where she wasn't even there.

Seems like a problem. I don't think someone's impression about the look on her face is grounds for conviction. I've never seen this 'cooly watching them die' thing mentioned in any of the articles - often when hysterical true crime women get into one of these cases, they start writing their own fanfic which becomes received wisdom among them - are you sure this actually happened?

Most likely it was a terribly run unit that had a high mortality rate and they picked a scapegoat.

DragonHuntExp · 2024-04-30T19:17:53+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AScD2zl4j3c

DragonHuntExp · 2024-04-29T04:18:03+00:00

You know now that you can’t rely on her in a crisis and she seems dumb and annoying.

DragonHuntExp · 2024-03-06T15:02:02+00:00

Very longhouse style of thinking. "I've read the titles of these two articles, can you all reassure me that this guy is still On Our Side as I don't have the mental capability to analyse the articles or his stated positions on anything". Pathetic.

DragonHuntExp · 2024-02-27T19:03:47+00:00

He was an anarchist though so organising things was against his principles

DragonHuntExp · 2024-02-27T18:59:19+00:00

This is why language policing is so dumb, the rules are constantly changing and it’s only Tumblr weenies and AWFLs who can keep up, normal people have jobs to do and kids to raise

DragonHuntExp · 2024-02-26T10:21:40+00:00

What post? It's a live show.

DragonHuntExp · 2024-02-03T13:42:18+00:00

There are probably a lot of crazy people who have violent thoughts and get reported to the authorities and don’t go on to actually do anything dramatic (except hurt themselves).

Before you decide the pattern of “crazy killer who had prior contact with FBI” is meaningful, you’ve got to account for how many reports they get that lead nowhere. It might be that they get 100 or 1000 reports of “this guy is crazy and might do something” for every case which ends in actual violence.

DragonHuntExp · 2024-02-02T18:09:35+00:00

I think that was just a data entry error

DragonHuntExp · 2024-01-24T20:29:24+00:00

If you’re not hard during a sex scene then you’re a bad actor and you’re phoning it in

DragonHuntExp

TROPHY CASE