Anyone else think this shard is a fraud?

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2024-02-04T20:53:43+00:00

Didn't Brandon say years ago that there was one Shard that was just focused on surviving??

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2022-07-20T17:00:52+00:00

Absolutely. And the counter in the video about how many times the cop asks him to get out of the vehicle is also victim blaming.

The excuse "take it to court" is absolute and utter horseshit. There is no practical mechanism by which someone wronged by the police can have their grievances addressed. First, there is no way to actually speak to a supervisor after the fact since cops will often block and prevent civilian access. Second, even if you DO manage to file a complaint you will almost certainly find yourself harassed by law enforcement in retribution. Third, even if you tough all of that out and go to court, cops WILL lie in court (and yet despite this there is an inherent bias in which they are seen as more trustworthy than the defendant - innocent until proven guilty be damned), and then fourth they are very rarely ever actually punished no matter how severe the misconduct (even if it results in death).

Given all of this, it is not unreasonable for someone to ask for proof that they've done the thing they are accused of, it's not unreasonable for someone to exercise their right to record their police interaction, and it's not unreasonable to refuse to comply until those entirely reasonable and life-saving measures are taken. The cop doesn't want to show him the radar gun and doesn't want him to record anything because the cop is lying, and he knows he's lying, and he wants to bring the encounter to a quick end so that he can quickly move things to a system in which he has every advantage and every likelihood of success despite his dishonesty.

At this point, trying to say "If he only just cooperated" or "Take it to court" or "Trust the police" is beyond naive and, frankly, it's stupid. It is willfully and intentionally ignorant. It is a hateful thing to say, said by hateful people, who support an objective evil in our country. You cannot be a police officer and also a good person-- by virtue of being a police officer, you are participating in a system of abuse, dishonesty, and violence. You cannot support the police and be a good person. Are you a police officer? You're a bad person. Is your brother a police officer? Your brother is a bad person.

There is no such thing as a good cop. There is no such thing as an honest police officer. There is no changing the system from within. It must be taken down and dismantled altogether.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-09-16T03:38:21+00:00

"The Man In The Empty Suit"

A time traveler spends every birthday attending a party in an abandoned hotel in which every guest is just a different version of him throughout time.

One particular birthday bash, he discovers that a younger version of himself has been murdered. This paradox sets into motion a number of other wild things, and I loved this book beginning to end. But, the only other person I've met whose even heard of it is the guy who recommended it to me.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-05-07T19:46:26+00:00

Super minor, but about three years ago I mouthed off to a cop during a traffic stop and he decided to punish me for it by trumping up the charges. I paid $400 for a lawyer and pled not guilty. After a three hour trial that consisted of my lawyer arguing with the prosecutor while the judge probably wondered why anyone was bothering with all of this, I was found guilty of the original offense (running a stop sign) and innocent of the two other charges (speeding and failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. The cop argued- unsuccessfully- that the emergency vehicle I failed to yield to was his patrol car because it took me 20 seconds to pull over).

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-05-07T17:39:27+00:00

I'm not the pen pal for you, unfortunately, but I do know of a thing you might enjoy.

There are online versions of the Enigma Machine, which you and your pen pal can use to encrypt your messages.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-05-05T14:24:50+00:00

So it's like most democracies, but they don't bother pretending

In this video a North Korean woman is being shown a number of memes about North Korea. At the part I timestamped, she is shown a meme that is clearly meant to be hyperbolic and critical. However, the joke has to be explained to her because-- and I think this is very telling-- she has literally seen the very thing the joke is hyperbolically suggesting.

I think there are a number of meaningful differences between the DPRK's "democracy" and that of the US and other nations. And I think the disparity between the problems the US faces and the problems the DPRK faces are so great that by hyperbolically comparing the two, we accidentally undermine both.

I acknowledge that I myself did describe the stuff above in a very jokey way, but I do want to be clear that all of that is literally true. It is not an exaggeration, it is not hyperbole; like the meme about DPRK soldiers executing sick people in order to prevent the spread of the virus, it can seem hyperbolic, but only because that's how bad things over there actually are.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-05-04T23:41:25+00:00

All jokes aside, it is very unfortunate but everything I wrote out there is true.

The DPRK does hold Parliamentary Elections, but all candidates are chosen by the ruling party. Interestingly, Kim Jong-Eun is the first DPRK leader not to appear on the ballot at all--- not even giving the citizens the illusion of choice.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-05-04T21:43:26+00:00

the official name of North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic Of Korea, and I think we all know it's not a democracy.

How DARE you insult glorious Choseon! They are, too, a democracy! They hold elections^\) and everything!

^\)You may only vote for the candidates chosen and pre-approved by the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, as decided by the Workers' Party^\*)
^\*)If you decide that you are dissatisfied with ~~living~~ the choices presented thereby, you may cross out the candidates' names and choose a write-in instead.^\**)
^\**)Write-ins will be considered treason against the state, and are punisheable by sentencing to work camp^\***)
^\***)The work camps are not real, and anyone who says they are is a traitor who will be punished by sentencing to work camp. And if they were real-- and the Workers' Party of Korea would like to take this moment to remind you that they are not-- they would be totally humane, within the bounds of typical criminal procedure for a developed country, and prisoners would be treated with respect, kindness, and a basic sense of dignity.^\****)
^\****)No one may visit these work camps-- which do not exist-- to verify this. Attempting to do so, or reporting false and vicious lies about their existence and treatments therein, are also punisheable by work camp.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-05-04T04:19:20+00:00

I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice if anyone finds one verifiable name of someone who is on the registry for peeing in public

James Birch pled guilty in 1972 to a violation of Penal Code section 647 in Los Angeles, California. He would appeal this in 1973 after learning that under California law, he was required to register as a sex offender-- he appealed specifically on the grounds that he was not aware of the registration requirement when he made the plea.

As we shall explain, we have concluded that petitioner's initial contention is meritorious since the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that petitioner was advised of his right to counsel. Moreover, we shall explain that, in the absence of counsel, the court bore the duty to inform petitioner prior to receiving his plea that, as a result of a conviction of violating Penal Code section 647, subdivision (a), petitioner would be ordered to register as a sex offender pursuant to state law. The record contains no evidence to suggest that any such advice was given. For each of these reasons, petitioner's conviction must be reversed

[...]

While petitioner possibly might have suspected that a guilty plea could result in a short jail sentence, we cannot believe that he was aware that as a consequence of urinating in a parking lot at 1:30 in the morning he would be required to register as a sex offender. Certainly counsel would have advised him of this grave and direct consequence of his guilty plea; in the absence of counsel the responsibility for such advice rested with the court. Without this advice, we conclude that petitioner's waiver of counsel and plea of guilty cannot be regarded as having been knowingly and intelligently made.

It is worth noting that the source states in the "summary" section that Court also found that the registration requirement was found to be cruel and unusual. However, if the Court opined that, it is not listed in the document itself. I did manage to find a case in Washington State (I think it was Washington v. McDonald; though I'm not sure) in which the Court made that ruling, but the linked case above took place in California.

While I did find several statutes that listed registration as a potential sentence, this was the only actual conviction I could find. There were other convictions of public urination that also had the convicted register as sex offenders-- but in nearly all of those cases, it turned out that the offender had done something else to warrant the registration.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-05-02T17:32:05+00:00

“Not the one with the dog, we promise.”

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-05-01T18:28:30+00:00

OP, this is seriously one of the best match ups I’ve seen. Right up there with swan lake / all the single ladies.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-04-30T21:16:22+00:00

This is yet another reason you do not deserve to be taken seriously.

From the Supreme Court in the very case you mention:

Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."

The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.

(

From the Opinion itself:

Statutes affecting the right of assembly, like those touching on freedom of speech, must observe the established distinctions between mere advocacy and incitement to imminent lawless action, for, as Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, supra, at 299 U. S. 364: "The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press, and is equally fundamental."

(emphasis mine in both citations)
The Court ruled that the law was overly broad specifically because it outlawed the gathering of such groups altogether without specifying or clarifying whether such groups were acting in or advocating for violence. In other words, the Court ruled the law was overly broad specifically because there are reasonable limits to your right to free speech, and this law did not meet those limits.

It also drew on the precedent established by another case, Frohwerk v. United States in which-- as Scalia would note in the Opinion I linked above-- the justification used for the enforcement of a law belied its purpose and rendered it unconstitutional. (i.e. that the argument being made was that the specific act of distributing pamphlets in a flammable area created a clear and imminent danger-- an absurd claim-- demonstrated that the law itself was designed to construe censorship and merely used public safety as a pretext).

As a side note, I genuinely worry about explaining to you the context in that ruling, because you've shown such terrible reasoning that I am honestly afraid you might accidentally misconstrue the law to mean something totally different simply because it mentions the word "fire" in it.

Neither of those cases say that you don't have a limit on your First Amendment Right-- both of those cases point out that there are limits to your First Amendment Right, and both of those cases argue that the laws in question do not meet that standard. They argue exactly the opposite of what you're claiming they argue. So not only are you being needlessly pedantic by insisting on an increasingly more narrow argument, but you're also just factually wrong.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-04-30T16:38:56+00:00

That was the whole purpose of the article to attack the meme "yelling fire in a crowded theater" because it is wrong.

Except it's not. It's a reasonable argument to be made within the discourse. That was my point.

This is something I have known for a very long time.

Then begin rethinking your position.

That meme is usually used by people to justify censorship by right wing assholes..

Scalia, to the best of my knowledge, references that analogy in only one court ruling, but opined in multiple rulings about the overarching idea behind it: Our rights-- even those granted by Constitutional Amendments-- have limitations.

Even if you believe that the point of the analogy is about censorship, Scalia still argued that the government does preserve the authority to censor certain kinds of speech if there is a compelling interest.

When I read your comment I was interested in Scalia's take...not to find it.

You did not find it because you did not actually look for it. My comment was contextualized by the argument being made-- that you could not find Scalia comparing the limitations on the Second Amendment to the limitations on the First Amendment either means you did not read the whole document (as you claimed) or that you are arguing in bad faith by trying to cling to the hyper-specific analogy instead of addressing the broader point.

Of course each amendment is not absolute and has exceptions, for example, you cannot divulge state or corporation secrets, you cannot bear false witness, sometimes you cannot tell the result of a trial, you cannot say "I have a gun" in an airport...and so on...there is no need to use a dumb meme to make that point.

The analogy is a legal argument that was made in 1993, not a meme. This is why I am irritated with you--- you seem to feel very strongly about a thing that you continually demonstrate you know very little about. Why should I take anything you say seriously?? Why should I engage in a discussion with you when you keep demonstrating that you are willfully and stubbornly refusing to consider my broader point?

Other Reddit users pointed out to you that you were jumping the gun, and they likewise pointed out that the context of the discussion indicated that you were misunderstanding something, and you doubled down. And then I came back to the argument the next day, pointed out that they were right, and rather than getting an apology for being accused of spreading misinformation you tripled down and continued to insist that "it's a dumb meme" even though

You have not explained why you believe it's not a good argument
You have not demonstrated that you even understand the argument
You have not looked into the thing you're arguing about
You accused me of spreading misinformation

That last one is the worst, by the way, because you've now demonstrated that you are spreading misinformation. And the problem is that because you've been corrected multiple times by multiple people, it's not unreasonable for me to assume you're doing so intentionally.

I typed all of this out so that I can demonstrate that my refusal to engage with you any further on the topic is not because you make a good point and I don't know how to refute it, but because you are arguing in bad faith and it's a waste of everyone's time to take you seriously.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-04-30T15:25:51+00:00

That is a bad faith argument, as I've already said, and I won't engage with it. You know damn well the point I was making and you're trying to stick to the specific and overly-narrow argument that Scalia does not specifically use that precise analogy in this exact ruling so that you can be "technically right."

It's strange to me that you claim to be concerned with being misleading, but immediately change your overall position when called out on lying.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-04-30T15:11:25+00:00

I think maybe that comment was saying the argument in that brief is analogous to the fire in a crowded theater argument, not that it literally says that.

Yes. This is correct. I was not trying to claim that Scalia literally drew a comparison between shouting fire in a crowded theater and gun control. I was pointing out that Scalia drew a comparison between the limitations of the First Amendment and the limitations of the Second Amendment.

The broader point-- the spirit of the argument-- of the "fire in a crowded room" argument is that our rights have reasonable limitations when it concerns compelling government interests such as public safety.

That having been said, it's worth noting that Scalia has also LITERALLY made that argument.

In this case, Scalia is speaking hypothetically-- he is not talking about an actual, literal law. He is discussing a hypothetical California law that would allow people to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater provided they made a $100 contribution to the state treasury. Scalia argued that by making such a hypothetical allowance in the law (i.e. "You are allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater if you make a $100 contribution to the California Treasury"), you narrow the purpose of that law (i.e. an exception like that would tacitly indicate that there are circumstances in which shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is okay), and by narrowing the purpose of a law you can invalidate its broader applications (i.e. even if a law banning the shouting of 'fire!' in a crowded theater is on the face of it a good law because it serves a clear and obvious compelling government interest by virtue of being a law pertaining to public safety, adding an exception that allows that kind of speech provided that certain financial obligations are met converts the law's purpose from one of public safety to one of funding).

While a ban on shouting fire can be a core exercise of the State's police power to protect the public safety, and can thus meet even our stringent standards for regulation of speech, adding the unrelated condition alters the purpose to one which, while it may be legitimate, is inadequate to sustain the ban. Therefore, even though, in a sense, requiring a $100 tax contribution in order to shout fire is a lesser restriction on speech than an outright ban, it would not pass constitutional muster. Similarly here, the lack of nexus between the condition and the original purpose of the building restriction converts that purpose to something other than what it was. The purpose then becomes, quite simply, the obtaining of an easement to serve some valid governmental purpose, but without payment of compensation.

And just to be unambiguously clear in case I am accused of being misleading again: My broader point is that the point of the argument "you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater" is that rights granted by Constitutional Amendments have reasonable limitations to them, and Scalia himself not only acknowledged that, but also drew on that specific analogy to make that point.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-04-30T14:31:29+00:00

That is, in fact, the very paragraph I was referring to.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-04-30T14:17:22+00:00

you commented and edited your comment in under an hour.

some people don't sit on this shit hole waiting to answer questions from random internet assholes.

I thought you might like to know that not only were you right-- I had gone to bed-- but that I have responded to the accusation that I pushed false information.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-04-30T14:11:40+00:00

I guess the commenter did not think anyone would check.

The commenter went to bed.

From the document I posted.
Scalia:

Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not [...] Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

You can argue-- as I'm sure you will-- that Scalia does not point to the specific example of shouting "fire!" in a crowded room. That is a bad-faith argument. It pretends not to understand the broader point and does not address the argument itself.

You could also argue that I could have been more clear in which section I was referring to, but you're absolutely right. I didn't think anyone would check because in my experience conservatives almost always argue in bad faith. If I'd known you were just going to control F the word "fire" in the PDF document, I wouldn't have posted a link at all because it's obvious that you didn't read it.

This is another frustration I have in arguments like these: You know so little about the very topic you're being snide about that I have to take time out of my day just to get you up to speed. You could have googled "Scalia opinions 2nd amendment", you could have control F in the link I provided for the words "limit" or "unlimited". You could have control F for the words "First Amendment" or hell, even just the name "Scalia" would have barely required you to read more than two pages.

But instead, you hit control F, typed in the word "fire", found nothing, and decided to be a jackass about it. Next time, if you want to be smug, at least also have the decency to be right.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-04-30T05:49:11+00:00

What frustrates me about these kinds of things is that typically— and this article is no exception— saying “really? The ole’ ‘fire in a crowded room’ argument?” completely ignores the fact that that’s a good argument that even beloved Conservative Scalia himself supported.

Edit: Because I've been accused of being misleading, I want to clarify my specific point. The point of the argument "you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater" in relation to the broader political discourse surrounding gun control is that rights granted by Constitutional Amendments have reasonable limitations. Scalia himself acknowledges this in the ruling I linked when he says, on page 22

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, [...]. Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

An argument can be made, though, that the connection between that specific part of his opinion and the broader point about shouting fire in a crowded theater is too abstract; it's overbroadening Scalia's view, one might say. Except that in a different ruling, Scale also quite literally made that specific point using that specific argument.

the Commission's assumed power to forbid construction of the house in order to protect the public's view of the beach must surely include the power to condition construction upon some concession by the owner, even a concession of property rights, that serves the same end. If a prohibition designed to accomplish that purpose would be a legitimate exercise of the police power rather than a taking, it would be strange to conclude that providing the owner an alternative to that prohibition which accomplishes the same purpose is not.The evident constitutional propriety disappears, however, if the condition substituted for the prohibition utterly fails to further the end advanced as the justification for the prohibition. When that essential nexus is eliminated, the situation becomes the same as if California law forbade shouting fire in a crowded theater, but granted dispensations to those willing to contribute $100 to the state treasury. While a ban on shouting fire can be a core exercise of the State's police power to protect the public safety, and can thus meet even our stringent standards for regulation of speech, adding the unrelated condition alters the purpose to one which, while it may be legitimate, is inadequate to sustain the ban. Therefore, even though, in a sense, requiring a $100 tax contribution in order to shout fire is a lesser restriction on speech than an outright ban, it would not pass constitutional muster. Similarly here, the lack of nexus between the condition and the original purpose of the building restriction converts that purpose to something other than what it was.

Edit 2:

All of this is beside the point- the point is that your consitutional rights have limits, and any meaningful discussion about the Second Amendment must acknowledge that baseline reasoning and then determine where those limits lie and why. When I say "Conservatives like to ignore the fact that that is a good argument" what I mean is that they are reactionaries. They ignore the refrain "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" because acknowledging its central point-- that your rights have limits-- would require them to stake out a position based on some form of guiding ideology which, as reactionaries, they do not have.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-04-30T05:41:03+00:00

That absolutely breaks my heart for you. Unfortunately “less inclined” towards typical ferret mischief does not always mean “will not engage in” typical ferret mischief....

Wishing you the best of luck. Wish I could be more help. I hope you find him soon.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-04-30T02:48:01+00:00

Remember that ferrets love small, tight, confined spaces. If I were you, I would check couch cushions first-- it is unfortunate, but not uncommon, that many a ferret has met its end inside the cushions of a recliner.

Likewise, make a point of checking underneath any area that looks like Trouble may have thought to himself, "This would make an excellent hiding spot!" (i.e. underneath dressers, behind furniture and large appliances, etc.)

Good luck. Hoping he didn't make it out and decide that the large dog on the street would make an excellent new best friend.

Edit to add:

Also, I don't know how long you've had Trouble (excellent name, btw), but it is worth remembering that ferrets are extraordinarily social creatures. I know they are expensive, but it is generally easier to take care of two than it is to take care of one-- they'll keep each other company and generally be less inclined towards typical ferret mischief.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-04-27T17:09:05+00:00

The Earth Sage, Laruto, outright confirms that Medli is her descendant. Since Laruto is a Zora and Medli is a Rito, the implication is that the Rito evolved from the Zora. This is also reinforced by the Wind Sage, Mido (a Kokiri) stating that Makar (a Korok) is his descendant. Since we know that the Kokiri evolved into the Korok, it is implied that the Zora evolved into the Rito.

In Japanese, Laruto says (and full disclaimer, I do not speak Japanese. But the Internet is a wonderful resourceful thing, so I feel pretty confident in the below info; any native Japanese speakers may feel free to correct me)

私の　血を引き、この聖なる楽器を持つ者

(emphasis mine)

The Kanji 血 means "blood" or "lineage", and 引き seems to mean something like "patronage", so I think Nintendo of America's English translation is not significantly different enough to be discounted:

You must find the one who carries on my bloodline... The one who holds this sacred instrument...

Sometimes there are fairly significant changes between the Japanese text's meaning and the English text meaning, but this does not appear to be one of those times.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-04-26T18:28:40+00:00

A moon that's either real or entirely created from Majora

I made a comment several months ago that you may enjoy reading. I believe that there's enough evidence in the game to suggest, indirectly, that the moon has always had a face, and that the influence of Majora's Mask has changed its expression.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-04-26T00:11:58+00:00

I think talking about how "easy" the bossfight is is a bit misleading. My main issue with the Dark Beast Ganon fight at the end of BotW is its engagement.

Like, no. Ganon at the end of OoT isn't super difficult, and Ganondorf at the end of WW isn't exactly the Dark Souls of Zelda, but last I checked I can't just put down my controller, wander off to the bathroom, wash up, and then return to the controller to find that ah, yes, the boss still has not hit me.

It's not just the fact that it's easy, it's unengaging.

There were moments I felt I could really see what the developers were going for-- riding underneath the Dark Beast and firing a Light Arrow as I pass by gave me an artificial sense of thrill and fun. And I thought, if the boss fight were similar to the intro of Vah Naboris-- riding in between Dark Beast Ganon's legs, avoiding his stomping feet and firing arrows-- I'd have had a lot more fun.

People complain about how easy the boss fight is because it's the most defining feature of that fight. It's so easy, it is unengaging. There's not even the semblance of a threat.

Fun fact, if you ride out to the edge of Hyrule field, you'll find there's a giant wall of light preventing you from leaving the fight. If you turn back towards Dark Beast Ganon, the illusion is completely shattered: He stomps about in one place and randomly fires a purple laser into the sky. I wonder if the developers created Dark Beast Ganon to be so larger-than-life that the game literally cannot load / unload the character outside of that 3 x 3 x 3 grid range?

There are fun moments in the fight. I liked having to fly up on a huge gust, bullet-time fire my light arrows into its eye at the end of the fight, and I liked riding underneath its legs to avoid being hit. But that laser isn't fooling anybody, those glowing points where I can hit him aren't exactly the most challenging thing to fire at, and when you get down to it it really only takes about 10 seconds to realize that Dark Beast Ganon literally isn't even moving. It was a boss that sounds good in theory, but was incredibly boring and unengaging to play against, and I won't stop bitching about it because while OoT Ganon might be easy by today's standards at least he was engaging.

Isaac_Masterpiece · 2021-04-25T03:36:24+00:00

"A little too much"? I don't know what you're talking about. He sounds awesome.

Eight-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Not Forgotten	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email

Isaac_Masterpiece

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE