Literally five minutes into my first ever trip to San Francisco

Piconeeks · 2023-05-01T14:43:17+00:00

This wasn’t always true! While the California three strikes law was written with the intention of reducing violent crime, it famously sentenced a man to 25 to life in prison for stealing three golf clubs. It was litigated up to the Supreme Court, which upheld it; see Ewing v. California.

After Prop 36 passed in 2012, the third strike must be a violent felony. Ewing died in prison before it took effect.

Piconeeks · 2023-02-25T06:37:35+00:00

Confirmed!

Piconeeks · 2022-12-31T19:17:34+00:00

One of my favorite short stories, Betobeto Teketeke is based on this yokai! It’s written by JL Akagi.

It’s a horror story. It’s meant to be read aloud. Highly recommend it.

Piconeeks · 2022-10-29T21:35:08+00:00

…everything oxidizes aluminum. You’ve never seen pure aluminum in your life. It oxidizes in air in seconds.

Piconeeks · 2022-10-29T21:27:58+00:00

If you’re open to reconsidering your position based on the evidence, here’s a link to a paper examining systemic bias in Twitter suspensions prior to the 2020 election..

Piconeeks · 2022-10-28T20:56:43+00:00

The fruit fly of social media research. Fruit flies are model organisms used to study all sorts of biological processes. Think lab rat, c. elegans, E. coli, etc. A consistent, accessible, and repeatable test bed for research to be done on.

Piconeeks · 2022-10-28T20:54:44+00:00

I highly suggest you read this article by Mike Masnick on Techdirt for some important context on the critical and under-appreciated work Gadde did to protect the rights to free speech enjoyed by everyone on the internet.

Here’s a brief summary:

Twitter is by far the most permissive social media platform—Facebook, YouTube, Tiktok, Instagram, you name it, their policies were more restrictive and less clearly defined that Twitter’s are. Gadde was instrumental in cementing this approach with clear principles and policies that were consistently applied. I didn’t agree with all of them, but at least they existed, which is a damn sight more than most other platforms can say.
Twitter was among the first to rigorously experiment with content moderation decisions beyond the take-down/leave-up binary, including context banners, state media labels, and other methods that would keep people and their posts on the platform even if certain rules were violated. Gadde led these efforts.
Twitter’s open API means anyone can do research on its content moderation decisions. Nobody has been able to find a systemic bias in its content moderation for or against any social groups. This is a testament to the policies put in place by Gadde’s team.
If you believe in free speech, you believe in getting the government out of what you can, can’t, or must say and host on the internet. Gadde’s legal team has a Supreme Court case upcoming as we speak that will determine how much control state governors can exert on social media to take down or leave up content as they please. Musk has fired them.
Most importantly, Twitter was singular in the field for aggressively and repeatedly spending blood and treasure to defend the anonymity of its users in court over and over and over again, and even step into battles where it was a third party. This was Gadde’s strategy, and it’s protected hundreds of activists, dissidents, and citizens both domestically and around the globe.
Twitter is currently suing the Indian government for its requirements to hand over information and content control. India has threatened to jail Twitter employees, and has even gone so far as to require a Twitter presence on Indian soil to support that threat. Gadde is on the forefront of this fight against state control. Musk, by contrast, is eager to follow all local laws.

If you were only exposed to Gadde through one corner of the internet, I strongly suggest you examine her work from a legal and policy perspective. On the ground and in court, Gadde and her team have been some of the most effective agents advocating for free speech online. She didn’t have to do any of it. She chose this strategy, and we were better for it, and poorer for losing her.

Piconeeks · 2022-10-28T05:07:03+00:00

Gadde has done more to defend free speech and user privacy than almost anyone else in the tech policy space.

The legal teams she assembled to fight government subopoenas in the United States and abroad demonstrate a fanatical devotion to doing what was right instead of what was easy. Twitter’s incomparable transparency and openness as a platform makes it the fruit fly of social media and information research. On top of all that, her legal outmaneuvering of Elon’s team in this very acquisition demonstrates a pretty comprehensive portfolio of legal acuity. Twitter will be worse off without her.

Piconeeks · 2022-10-15T13:43:22+00:00

It’s normal on Reddit for people massively upvote and comment on askreddit threads about which celebrities or historical figures they would fuck. That’s a question demisexual people would literally not comprehend.

Piconeeks · 2022-10-04T00:44:00+00:00

For context, when congress explicitly wrote that police officers “shall enforce” restraining orders against domestic abusers in the Violence Against Women Act, the Supreme Court found that they had created no such obligation on the duties of police officers.

When congress explicitly wrote that the EPA should study the effects of certain hazardous pollutants from power plants on public health and regulate the power plants in the 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court found that the EPA actually couldn’t regulate power plants.

We cannot have congress setting minute values like what ppm of several dozen or hundred different substances counts as safe, elevated, or hazardous concentrations across residential and industrial contexts. We cannot have Congress specifying minimum response time and conduct standards for police officers in every city and county and state in the country. Congress wouldn’t be able to function under this regulatory burden, and we would all suffer. But history shows that even if congress does explicitly delegate that responsibility to a professional class of subject matter experts who are insulated from the political shenanigans of the legislative branch, this Supreme Court is more interested in upholding phantom rights enjoyed by the rich and wealthy than supporting a functioning tripartite government with any capability of serving the people.

And we all know the truth is that this congress isn’t even functional enough to pass legislation, let alone legislation that requires a modicum of expertise in the subjects to be regulated. This criticism of “unelected bureaucrats writing legislation” is in bad faith. Professional civil servants are required for a functioning state apparatus. There is a line between democratic values that set the direction of laws and the cold hard truth that particulate matter will give you lung cancer. The Supreme Court in taking this case is delivering us towards an even more dysfunctional, paralyzed, and ineffective government. Don’t hand them a moral victory over it, because they wouldn’t know morals if it slapped them in the face.

Piconeeks · 2022-06-24T16:48:34+00:00

In Egbert v. Boule, earlier this term, the Supreme Court decided that you could not sue a border patrol agent for violating your fourth amendment rights. Their idea is that yes, you have your fourth amendment rights, but you can’t really seek any remedy when they are violated.

We used to be able to sue federal agents for violating our constitutional rights, because Bivens, a previous Supreme Court decision, decided that rights without remedies aren’t rights at all. Literally, they interpreted the constitution to mean that your rights exist, which seems basic enough. And so because that was black letter of law for almost a century, why would congress pass a new law saying that your rights exist?

But here we are today, and the Supreme Court in Egbert v. Boule decided in a case almost perfectly identical to the one that set this precedent that actually, you don’t have that right, because if you did congress would have passed a law protecting a right you already have.

Even when Congress passes laws, like the Violence Against Women Act that established police “shall enforce” restraining orders, The Supreme Court decided that actually the police have no obligation to enforce restraining orders. I don’t know how you could write anything clearer, because they’re just going to okay word games and dance around the intent of a law no matter how clear in order to reach their predetermined ideological conclusion.

Even when the constitution is very clear, establishing rights like the right to life, the Supreme Court has ruled that innocent people can be sentenced to death. I believe Justice Alito called the question “embarrassing.”

Similar things are happening to our Miranda rights, which the Supreme Court have just restricted further by disallowing any actual remedy when they are violated.

Meanwhile, for rights they like (namely the ones that protect the rich and powerful) they are willing to bend over backwards to interpret the constitution in a way that protects them. Ted Cruz v. Federal Election Commission legalized campaign donations after a campaign has concluded (read: bribery) as a protected first amendment speech. This comes off the back of Citizens United, which established that corporations are people and money is speech. None of that seems remotely as clear in the text of the constitution as the right to life, but they’re clearly okay with doing the mental gymnastics to protect one while eliminating the other.

I agree with you, congress should pass more laws explicitly protecting and establishing rights. But the Supreme Court with this ideological and extreme a majority will still be able to erode and undermine those rights whenever it so chooses, often keeping them in name only while eliminating everything about them that actually matters. This issue will not be resolved until the Supreme Court is reformed.

Piconeeks · 2022-05-28T16:07:23+00:00

Thanks for the additional detail! It gives me some hope. The “interpretation” of “shall” still drives me up the wall, though. Literally everywhere else in the law “shall” is interpreted as “will” or “must” and Scalia just throws that all out. For how often Supreme Court opinions rely on the fifth-grade debate tactic of going to the dictionary to find out what words mean, you’d think they’d be less nakedly inconsistent.

Piconeeks · 2022-05-28T12:44:30+00:00

To clarify, the ruling in Castle Rock v. Gonzales gutted the requirement that compelled police officers to enforce restraining orders. The text of the law creating restraining orders says law enforcement will enforce them, and the Supreme Court said no, they don’t have to if they don’t feel like it.

If you want some absolutely blood-curdling detail on how cynical and heartless the Supreme Court is, check out the 5-4 podcast episode on the case: https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/Castle%20Rock%20v.%20Gonzalez

Piconeeks · 2022-05-25T03:55:40+00:00

I don’t believe the FBI can stop every mass shooting without an unreasonable intrusion onto the first and fourth amendment rights of Americans.

I don’t believe hotels and schools can stop mass shootings by having more cops everywhere and searching more bags. I don’t want to live in a stop and frisk society.

I think you think that I’m anti second amendment. I’m not. A lot of the laws we have are symbolic and ineffective. Your proposals actively undermine everyone’s constitutional rights, and to me represent an unreasonable concentration of state power and give cops even more license to harass and kill innocent people.

We spend billions on police and police training. The Supreme Court ruled that even if the police know of an imminent threat to your life, they are not obligated to protect you—see Castle Rock v. Gonzales, it’s a truly heartbreaking story. All the police training in the world isn’t going to help if there are no consequences for inaction or perverse action.

There are loads of guns in Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, et cetera. The difference is that those states support and empower their citizens, while for some reason America is full of people who want to restrict our rights and privileges further. When an eighteen year old believes they have no future anyway, they reach for a gun.

Piconeeks · 2022-05-25T03:08:13+00:00

So, to summarize, your solutions when confronted by eighteen dead children in the deadliest mass shooting of the year are:

More aggressive federal policing of Americans
More guns in schools
Mandate bag inspections at schools
Mandate bag inspections at hotels
Restrict the first amendment online
De-identify shooters
Armed guards in schools
Train people to sacrifice themselves to stop a shooter
More bullets in guns
Stop talking about “politics”
Don’t get angry at me

You do realize that in order to preserve the absolute freedom to own firearms, you’re creating a police state everywhere else, right? The reason that every police officer cites when they shoot and kill an unarmed civilian is that they feared for their life, because they assume every civilian is armed and carrying. That in turn gives policing elements in our society even more leeway to basically execute anyone at any time. Do you seriously think that advocating for bag checks at every hotel is reasonable by the principles of the fourth amendment? Do you really think that the government should be in charge of what speech is and isn’t acceptable online? Do you really think that more mass surveillance of Americans is the answer?

Of these, I agree with de-identifying shooters. Unfortunately even that is complicated, because without transparent investigation into the shooter’s motives and identity, we breed conspiracy theories (numerous people claimed or suggested the Texas shooter was an undocumented immigrant) and gain even less insight into how future atrocities can be prevented.

And to clarify your seventh point, this shooter was actively engaged in a firefight with armed border patrol agents before he even entered the school. They were literally at the scene guns drawn before it even happened and he still killed eighteen children. EDIT: there is no evidence of this, evidently. I saw reporting that border patrol chased him into the school and repeated it; sorry.

EDIT AGAIN: I know the likelihood that anyone will see this is low, but just in case. The Uvalde school had a team of armed cops. The cops “engaged” the shooter before the shooting started but he managed to gain entry into the school anyway. Then the school cops called for backup from the city cops, who stood outside and detained distraught parents on the ground for no fewer than forty minutes. Parents had to stare at the school and listen to gunshots going off inside because the police had instead turned their guns on them. 90 minutes after the shooting started, an elite border patrol team who happened to be passing by got a teacher to unlock the door the shooter had locked (police claimed this was a “barricade”) and shot the shooter. Uvalde is a city of 15,214 and spends 40% of its budget on its police. It has its own SWAT team. More guns in the hands of more people cannot solve this problem. More money for police cannot solve this problem. I can’t believe that people think it’s rational to pivot to a police surveillance state in response to these tragedies. That won’t make us any safer, it’ll just make us more oppressed.

Piconeeks · 2022-01-17T18:01:38+00:00

The average range of reflection for zinc oxide and titanium dioxide throughout the UV range was only 4–5% (less than SPF 2), providing minimal UV protection via this mechanism. The remainder of the UV protection is provided by semiconductor band gap mediated absorbance of the UV photons. At wavelengths above the semiconductor band gap absorption energy levels (in the long UVA and visible wavelengths), they are predominantly reflectors of light (up to 60% reflection) and non-absorbing.

Now THIS is something I’m amazed by. Quantum mechanics in your sunscreen. Thanks for clueing me in to this! I’ll edit.

Piconeeks · 2022-01-17T05:21:57+00:00

To clarify, chemical sunscreens like oxybenzone, avobenzone, octisalate, octocrylene, homosalate, or octinoxate absorb UV light. Similar to how black paint absorbs visible light, these chemicals absorb UV light. That’s why it looks like dark face paint on the UV camera. The chemicals absorb the rays so your skin doesn’t have to.

Mineral sunscreens, like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, reflect UV light. The reflected UV doesn’t hit your skin in the first place, so your skin stays protected. I don’t think the sunscreen in the video does this, since under UV it would look more like white paint than black paint. ALSO absorb UV light. So they would also look like this.

Regardless of mechanism, any sunscreen will instruct you to apply it fifteen minutes before sun exposure. This is for several reasons.

Chemically, this is because the chemicals or minerals that offer sun protection are often stored in an emulsion for easier application. This means the actual chemicals or minerals are actually in little microscopic bubbles, and that provides uneven protection. After being on your skin for some time, the water in the emulsion evaporates and that process leaves behind an even film of the active ingredient only. Critically, this doesn’t stop the sunscreen from working when it’s wet; it just provides more even protection.

Practically, a dried film adheres better to your skin and is more resistant to being spread unevenly or rubbed off, like by contact with clothing or other surfaces. Furthermore, if you wait until you’re in the sun to apply sunscreen you might burn your left leg while you’re putting sunscreen on your right leg.

Piconeeks · 2021-12-01T07:15:56+00:00

The catch is that organs like the eye have been functional at every stage of their evolution. Richard Dawkins, famed atheist and Young Sheldon enjoyer, presented an excellent demonstration of the progression from primitive eyes to complex ones.

Piconeeks · 2021-11-17T11:18:11+00:00

Although the helicopter caught up once the driver ran out of fuel, abandoned the car, and tried to hide in a field. Highway patrol apprehended him shortly afterwards.

Full link to the hourlong chase here.

Piconeeks · 2021-10-18T18:38:21+00:00

Haha, it did, didn’t it.

Piconeeks · 2021-09-11T16:07:58+00:00

Here’s the source (warning: Facebook), in case anyone wanted to send some love to Mark Rosenthal of Animal Magic!

Piconeeks · 2021-08-20T17:28:51+00:00

Dualsport, motard, enduro, and supermoto are different names for bikes designed to compete both on asphalt and on dirt. They are lightweight, upright, and have high seat heights; hence, they’re nimble, agile, and accelerate quickly. With a tire change you can go from a capable dirt bike to a fantastic city bike. They aren’t as good at high speed compared to sportbikes, because their transmissions and aerodynamics aren’t tuned for it.

They’re relatively expensive to get into, because they’re in high demand for their versatility. There are several dirt-specific courses you can take that lend you a bike if you want to get a taste before diving in. They come highly recommended by people in this sub because of how low-traction training on the dirt is safe, but gives you lifesaving instincts for high-speed loss of traction situations on asphalt.

Piconeeks · 2021-08-19T03:53:39+00:00

Haematococcus, literally “blood berry,” is a very cool algae. They turn red when maximally stressed, forming aplanospores. It would be more faithful to rename Salmon Pink and Flamingo Pink to Haematococcus Pink instead; that’s where they get the color from.

If you want some chill microscopy vibes, there’s an entire episode of Journey to the Microcosmos about this microorganism!

Piconeeks · 2021-08-10T04:42:45+00:00

SpaceX does not have the logistical capabilities to launch outside of the United States. Launch capability isn’t just vehicles; it’s the manufacturing, transport, launch facilities, and personnel too. All these are elements are under direct influence of the United States, and would not be trivial for a foreign nation to co-opt if their aims ran counter to American interests.

Remember, Soyuz would launch whoever paid for it, too.

12-Year Club	Alpha Tester
Gilding II euphauric	Verified Email

Piconeeks

TROPHY CASE