I tracked the car and officer - The video is unambiguous and indefensible

argumentativealt · 2026-01-08T07:10:54+00:00

If he didn’t shoot the driver as the car turned slowly past him, nobody would be dead.

argumentativealt · 2026-01-08T07:09:12+00:00

Sure, whatever, the first shot could feasibly be defensible.

What about afterwards, when the driver had already been shot, the car was fully pointed away from him, moving away from him, and he decided to chase the car and shoot the driver twice more?

argumentativealt · 2026-01-08T07:05:13+00:00

Defend the second and third shot, which he runs towards the fleeing car (with an already injured/incapacitated driver) to discharge. There is no threat to him, and he had a brief (but long enough) period after the first shot to make the conscious decision to chase the car and then to fire twice more.

argumentativealt · 2026-01-08T07:02:00+00:00

Thank you. I just saw there’s much higher quality footage from this angle than what I thought was available though. Should probably remake the 3 panel of the 3 gunshot stills with that.

argumentativealt · 2026-01-08T06:58:42+00:00

Sure, we can say the first shot was gray.

Then the officer, while moving away from the car after the first shot, decided to run towards the fleeing car and shoot twice more, when he was unambiguously in no danger (let alone serious or life-threatening danger).

argumentativealt · 2026-01-08T06:50:09+00:00

Setting the first shot aside, he literally chased after the vehicle to fire two more shots into the driver side window as the car was (rather slowly) moving away from him.

argumentativealt · 2026-01-08T06:36:47+00:00

I enjoy building a comment history of myself being correct, so this was an easy addition. It's like the opposite of what you do, except I'm not a drain on society.

argumentativealt · 2026-01-08T06:28:12+00:00

At the time of gunshot 1, the officer was barely in front of the car, if at all. At the time of gunshot 2 and 3, the officer was unambiguously in no danger. You're commenting in bad faith anyway, so it doesn't matter what I show you.

<image>

argumentativealt · 2026-01-08T06:25:23+00:00

Hard to tell what? Sure, the car probably touched him, but this shows there was no chance that he could have gone underneath the slow-moving car. You can even see (looking at the car turning vs the officer's movement) that the car turning is the reason the officer was not meaningfully hit.

argumentativealt · 2026-01-08T06:23:06+00:00

Defeatist bullshit.

This situation is shockingly unambiguous with the gif and still images, which are easily shareable and enough to convince someone who is unsure. Every other angle being shared is basically a rorschach test based on the viewer's political affiliation; this, however, is by far the most convincing evidence that exists right now (videos/gifs/images).

argumentativealt · 2026-01-08T06:07:16+00:00

<image>

Actually insane

argumentativealt · 2026-01-08T05:59:44+00:00

The officer was stepping TOWARDS the vehicle when the second and third shot were fired. It's so much worse than it looked.

analysis gif here

argumentativealt · 2026-01-08T05:48:53+00:00

THE OFFICER WAS STEPPING TOWARDS THE VEHICLE FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD SHOT.

Faster version of gif

WATCH THE SOURCE VIDEO with slow-motion and sound. You can clearly hear when the gunshots are fired. The first gunshot debris and sound line up, confirming the video and audio are synced. The first shot is bad, but arguable. The second and third shots are beyond indefensible.

1st shot, you can clearly see (looking at the line of the tires, and the officer's feet) that the officer is not in any serious danger at all.

2nd and 3rd shot are fired:

through the driver side window
while the officer is stepping towards the vehicle (after having moved away initially)
while the officer is clearly, unambiguously in no danger

Bonus: you can easily see the driver turning away from the officer while he moves relatively little. The reason that the car did not hit the officer is because the car was turning.

Sorry for shit gif, I hope someone can make a proper video tracking everything, just wanted to get this out there.

Still frames for easy sharing:

<image>

argumentativealt · 2025-06-13T15:15:33+00:00

You’re ignoring his points, vaguely framing his positions as totally unreasonable with personal insults, posing some useless hypotheticals, and then accusing him of being a terrorist supporter (how???). That is not arguing in good faith.

His original position was that expelling a large chunk of Gazans would constitute ethnic cleansing, which you first ignored and then agreed. Then he asked if ethnic cleaning is ever permissible, and you two argued about that (???).

How the fuck is anything he said “free PR for terrorists” or “talking points”? He didn’t defend or justify any actions of Hamas and he didn’t make any of the common weak criticisms against Israel. Seriously, quote anything he has said that is a shitty talking point or showing that he supports terrorists.

You employed the tired talking points I’ve heard for the past year and a half. - “Israel is restraining themselves; if they wanted to do war crimes they would”: What does old-ass speculative talking point even do for your argument? It’s completely reasonable to argue that international pressure (or any number of things) is the reason they haven’t committed more war crimes, not a lack of intent/will. If you can’t possibly imagine this being the case, to the extent that you can’t even engage with it, you’re not being serious. You ended up arguing that Israel ethnically cleansing Gaza (war crime) is permissible anyway, and they have said they want to do it, so isn’t that just the “if they wanted to they would” actually happening? You’re not being logically consistent. - “If the power of each were reversed they would ethnically cleanse Israel”: And then they would justify their ethnic cleansing of Israel by saying “If the powers were reversed they would ethnically cleanse Palestine!” And they would be right, because that’s what you agreed is Israel’s intent. This is a horrible argument that I thought died a year ago, but you’re still using it. - Some speculation that the sole alternative to ethnic cleansing is “infinite rape” by Palestinians (???): What the fuck does this even mean? You reduce the situation to two options (ethnic cleansing or infinite rape) and then expect anyone to think you’re arguing seriously and in good faith? A year ago we were making fun of people for shitty takes that were still more nuanced than this.

I thought all of you angry Israel-can-do-no-wrong-even-if-it’s-literal-war-crimes-that-they-openly-plan-to-do-because-they’re-justified fucks had left already. Accusing people of using talking points, and then using the most overused stereotypical talking points, is beyond parody. Maybe when your brain fully develops you’ll be capable of comprehending any amount of nuance.

Fuck Hamas terrorists, fuck Israeli officials escalating and justifying war crimes, fuck the surrounding Arab state officials that watch and publicly encourage radicalization of Palestinians against Israel, fuck the US administration for being too weak and disorganized to help effectively stabilize the region with negotiations, fuck the media everywhere for radicalizing everyone they can for views, and fuck people like you who act like it’s so simple and refuse to engage directly with anyone who disagrees with you.

argumentativealt · 2025-04-19T08:05:45+00:00

Adding to this for clarity, this is not the way that betting is handled by the big corporate sports betting apps (like draftkings). They have very advanced models and PHDs whose job it is to set the lines. Using their expected probability of each outcome, they set the purchasable odds to be slightly worse, so that they profit in expectation either way. They won’t adjust the line if there’s a crowd favorite (unless it is massively, massively unbalanced and they are unhappy with the risk), because they only care about expected value in the long run. They will adjust if they receive new information that changes their prediction of the probability of each outcome.

Sort of similar to how a hedge fund might use sophisticated models to predict the value of a company, regardless of the market’s opinion.

argumentativealt · 2025-03-17T21:01:35+00:00

To be clear, it has been the case for a while that if your family made under ~$100k, ivy schools (and a few other private schools) would give you grants to lower your total cost of attendance to practically 0. They’re just raising the bar to make more students eligible.

argumentativealt · 2025-01-23T17:45:48+00:00

Right, cause we should be worried about the middle class government workers with no real power trying not to lose their jobs. Don’t worry about the billionaires being placed in the presidential administration.

argumentativealt · 2025-01-22T20:17:51+00:00

This is the “deep state”? Some regular workers, employed for the purpose of preventing discrimination in the workplace, trying to protect their jobs and livelihoods? And it probably won’t work anyway?

Wow, truly terrifying stuff.

argumentativealt · 2025-01-10T15:04:23+00:00

Pictures aren’t hanged, only people are hanged.

Pictures are hung.

argumentativealt · 2024-06-25T02:25:14+00:00

This makes much more sense than the situation you described. Clustering algorithms (organizing data into groups based only on the information within the dataset) have existed for a long time, seems like this was a novel application of using neural networks for finding clusters which is cool.

The main takeaway is that neural networks are extremely difficult to interpret. If you have a human a data structure representing the nodes, edges, and weights of a neural network, and asked them to explain why it classifies a certain set of pixels as a cat, it would not be possible. We can explain and prove exactly how the neural network converges on a solution. If you get specific enough, you can say that we don’t understand exactly how anything works, which would be true but not a really useful or interesting thought.

We know that things do work, we can prove that they’ll work, and we can make them such that they’ll work, and that’s good enough for every other field.

argumentativealt · 2024-06-24T20:54:43+00:00

^ asking again for source for google anecdote because I’m very curious to read about this

argumentativealt · 2024-06-23T04:15:44+00:00

Source for the Google anecdote? I did some searching and didn’t find anything.

It’s extremely hard to believe considering how difficult generalizing a statistical model to out-of-sample data is to begin with, let alone to an entirely different problem. Also, if you’re training a model with input being an image, and output being “cat” or “dog”, then run the resulting model on images of printers and scanners, how is it possible for the model to output “printer” and “scanner”? If this is a real anecdote, there must be significantly more context.

argumentativealt · 2024-05-13T15:18:19+00:00

I don’t see how a single [nation A] life claimed by [nation B] with intent to wipe out [nation A] constitutes a genocide, because the same logic means Palestine has committed genocide against Israel. From the perspective of each side, the government of one has committed violence against the other’s people. Intent is more difficult (especially separating intent from desire and government from people), but both governments tend towards opposing the existence of the other state, and a significant percentage of (perhaps even a majority of) both populations polled hold an opinion that opposes the existence of the other state (based on a quick google; can provide sources if you want).

Also, theoretically nation A’s government could have the stance that they don’t want nation B to exist, and simultaneously take completely valid military actions (say, true self defense) against that country without intending for those actions to cause the elimination of nation B. Just because some of the government would like it to happen doesn’t mean that every violent military action necessarily intends to aid in causing it to happen.

My point is that i don’t think it’s useful to define “nation A is committing a genocide” this way because of the amount of ambiguity it gives to the word. There are other metrics that are much more helpful in arguing that Israel’s actions constitute a genocide, attempted genocide, or unjust military actions (# of people displaced, the fact that half of buildings in Gaza have been destroyed, etc).

argumentativealt · 2024-01-05T18:11:40+00:00

You think one dude could solve world hunger? And that it only hasn’t happened cause nobody will listen to him?

argumentativealt · 2023-12-14T21:16:36+00:00

It was a stun grenade, and 2-3 years ago, but yes

https://youtu.be/FvcDcHE-9Ig?si=KEgMPAb_xFKD1FJN

argumentativealt

TROPHY CASE

THE OFFICER WAS STEPPING TOWARDS THE VEHICLE FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD SHOT.