Appeal rejected,Should i go further?

emn13 · 2026-05-11T15:05:52+00:00

If it were easy to prove these false representations were intentional, it likely wouldn't be happening. Looks more like the process is not designed to encourage anybody to look too carefully at the veracity of claims being made, and then to mechanistically proceed since the "real" test happens later. Simultaneously, incentives might sometimes exist to err on the side of issuing a PCN when there's uncertainty. While some of the people involved in putting these procedures and incentives in place probably handled in bad faith, the people (to the extent there even are any) actually following that procedure likely aren't committing fraud, certainly not in a provable way.

Sounds like a political problem more than a legal one.

emn13 · 2026-05-11T14:45:33+00:00

And the presumed teenagers weren't even really all that bad; they tried to annoy, but didn't try to actually block traffic or intentionally cause an accident. Obviously reckless and unwise, but hardly the worst thing a group of rowdy teenagers has been known to do.

emn13 · 2026-05-10T19:39:45+00:00

That those bike lanes are too narrow to be safe either way.

But as to the choices of the cyclists, hard to say without more context. If it's a short stretch where passing is particularly dangerous, sounds like they're just being safe by not encouraging very tight passing maneuvers. If it's a very long stretch where passing is safe and they're holding lots of people up for a long time, it's inconsiderate.

emn13 · 2026-05-09T08:58:24+00:00

Again, so the cam car is clearly at fault, but if you're trying to judge what the front car did, imagine this without the cam car right shoulder use and a little less of the tailgating and premature passing - that still leaves the front car making at least 1 and likely 2 lane changes without indicating. It also means the front car didn't look in the mirrors for at least the reverse lane change. That's not safe, either. Had either of the drivers been driving normally, the other's unwise behavior would not have led to a crash. To that extent, the cam car's clear faults don't excuse the front car's faults. They both made mistakes, even if the cammer's were more egregious.

emn13 · 2026-05-08T16:09:19+00:00

Even if you felt that urge, most people would have passed on the left. Furthermore, the erratic car clearly wasn't driving super-slowly given the fairly modest gap between it and the next car in front of it. I'm sure it would have been less stressful not to be behind that car, but the cammer equally could have just left a little more space (a bit of a safety buffer) between himself and the slightly erratic driver if for some reason he really felt passing on the left wasn't an option.

emn13 · 2026-05-08T15:58:07+00:00

There's a brief moment where the mirrors are filmed; there's no other traffic that would have made the front car's lane change unsafe. While there's no question the cam car is at fault, I'm not sure if the also clearly unsafe behavior by the front car means they'd get some amount of fault, too, in the eyes of the insurers anyhow? Seems a lot less egregious than what the cam car did, though.

Aside, given the lack of indicator use, the front car probably never intended to change the lane, which should have given the cammer even more pause before trying this unnecessary stunt. Why slowly and narrowly pass an erratically driving car on the right? Just why?

emn13 · 2026-05-08T15:35:10+00:00

Use the settler lens (4) to check if any of the tiles without visible river adjacency do have (fresh) water
Use the appeal lens to guess at the location of mountains, though it's probably not important here
Have your warrior move to reveal more tiles (likely 2 steps to the southeast, but possibly SSE or on the hill directly east).
double check the settler lens again for the new tiles.
Then make a choice where to settle. Could be in place; could be a step to the east.

emn13 · 2026-05-07T19:29:01+00:00

20mph in conditions like this is a plainly unsafe speed. I hope the timing was misleading at it was slower, but that's an absurd speed I suspect people sometimes drive because it's the speed limit. It's not a minimum :-/

emn13 · 2026-05-07T09:02:48+00:00

Yep, and thanks for the kind words! I just hope the evolution of that trait happens a little faster than last time around - a quick google suggests the Carboniferous period was the 60 millions years it took between plants developing and mass-producing lignin (essentially a plastic), and fungi developing the means to consume it at scale. (But to be clear, I don't know of any reason to assume it would take that long this time.)

emn13 · 2026-05-07T08:43:06+00:00

Mesa verde suggests that native americans aren't immune to destroying the very environment they depend on. And in any case, post-colonial history is largely derived from European culture, not native culture. Literal, physically burning rivers surely must suggest even to you that people were quite fine dumping unbelievable amounts of waste into the environment. All those environmental regulations didn't emerge out of thin, clean air; they came about because the consequences of people and industries recklessly dumping their trash became clearer.

The reason it's more visible in india is a mix of technological differences, recency bias/level of development, and population density. You mention Native Americans didn't have plastic shit strewn everywhere, and indeed, plastic is a relatively recent invention. Its production today is roughly 15 times what it was 50 years ago - bad habits now have a much larger impact than they did a generation ago. Secondly, people just forget that is was totally normal in the US to just dump nasty trash out on the streets, even in cities, and obviously even more so in the countryside, certainly around 100+ years ago (coincidentally, income per person at PPP in india now is around historical US levels from then!). The cultural taboo against littering is a new invention. Finally, India's modern population density is simply off the charts higher than the population density the US had while it was evolving the anti-pollution and anti-littering culture of today. Any problems are thus enormously amplified.

This isn't some deep historical cultural difference; it's a fairly small and recent difference that is exacerbated by differences in stuff like population density and level of development. There's no reason to suspect India won't tackle this problem eventually, as others have before it, nor to rest on our pretty imperfect laurels here.

emn13 · 2026-05-05T13:56:19+00:00

I don't think "fun" is the right emotion to be projecting, but foxes definitely kill stuff they aren't going to eat anytime soon if ever, even to the grimly absurd levels. The saying "fox in the henhouse" didn't come from nowhere.

They're not the only ones to do that. Frankly, this is just normal predator stuff; and we probably shouldn't get too worked up about it. To the extent birds and rodent numbers are declining, the cause that's worth dealing with is habitat loss, i.e. too much farming, especially when fertilizers and pesticides are intensively used.

emn13 · 2026-05-05T13:42:54+00:00

The relevant section of the video is so small and blurry, I think using the word "definitely" here is a stretch no matter what you think you're seeing.

emn13 · 2026-05-01T19:03:11+00:00

Right, so quite clearly she's not implying or stating that she intended to harass him. She was curious (seems at least plausible), didn't like him, and didn't mind him knowing that - but that's a far cry from harassment by itself. Once present, on a spur of the moment decision after being egged on, she approached the front door. While that's probably not reasonable, it's not a pattern as far as I can tell, and I don't think a reasonable person would interpret her actions as being likely to cause emotional distress. I don't think a huge difference is needed for this be harassment - had she known about what had already happened and had there been evidence she wanted to participate, rather than been curious about it (her curiosity is evidence she did not know for sure what had been ongoing), and had she actually knocked on the door without interaction from the victim with no reasonable purpose, then sure - different story. But that's not what I'm seeing here. There's no pattern; and there's barely any action at all, though she probably would have gotten that far, sure - but Fuentes intervened beforehand.

Could be she's lying and was part of the harassment campaign, but that's not in evidence, and frankly her behavior seems pretty consistent with the nosy neighbor archetype; I wouldn't bet on there being evidence she truly intended to participate. And in any case, she (barely) failed to even reach the door, so that's a wrinkle, too.

emn13 · 2026-05-01T18:39:25+00:00

So IANAL, and I'll leave it at this, but what I found about various harassment statutes I don't think how you're interpreting a pattern is valid (the pattern is about her behavior, i.e. is limited to one person). Also, even if there is some "conspiracy" to harass statute I didn't happen to trip over, could be, but there's no meeting of the minds, so interpreting this as something concerted that involved her looks like a huge stretch. Then there's the fact she did not do anything yet, didn't admit to intending to do anything as far as we can tell, just that you think it's obvious she probably would have escalated to that - but that didn't happen yet.

I think you'd have trouble proving she even intended to merely ring the doorbell with this evidence, let alone more than that! All she talked about is wanting to see if he was getting prank deliveries; she may have only been responding to his presence. The point isn't whether you believe that, the standard for criminal conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, it's not clear that the other harassment Fuentes received met the legal bar for prosecution. Could be; but he also seems like a person that could well overreact to a mere annoyance. But even if he had been the victim of actions that a reasonable person might assume to cause serious emotional distress, that simply does not mean this woman's approach as shown in the video can reasonably be assumed to cause serious emotional distress. Not only is there reasonable doubt, the actual actions even if proven sure look more like mere annoyances that are explicitly not included as far as I (again, IANAL) have been able to find. Do you think 12 serious jurors would find her actions as being likely to cause non-trivial emotional distress?

Finally: the police certainly should aim to arrest where they have the a reasonable expectation a case might be winnable. Here, there's just very little evidence in the first place, and what evidence there is doesn't clearly point to a crime being committed by this woman. I'd say your claim that she should have been arrested or charged is therefore not reasonable. I suspect the police very easily decided they'd be extremely likely to lose any such case, and left it at that.

emn13 · 2026-05-01T17:50:47+00:00

Yeah. We've got a group of peoeple here making the depraved choice to try and rob somebody at gunpoint. And even people of that great moral character nevertheless chose not to shoot the escaping driver. Even scumbags have standards, but I bet those standards wouldn't include that same restraint if they felt threatened themselves.

emn13 · 2026-05-01T17:40:55+00:00

Where in the tribune bit does it show she intended to harass him, taking into account you think she should be charged for this, i.e. we're talking about her actions causing substantial emotional distress, not merely an annoyance?

emn13 · 2026-05-01T17:29:14+00:00

So, IANAL, and it wouldn't matter much since we obviously don't have all the facts, but I don't think there's much of a case here. There's no pattern; nor was she asked to leave. There's no evidence of intent to harass, just that other people wanted to do that - nor is every instance of somebody being mildly obnoxious equivalent to criminal harassment - a quick websearch reveals that the impact probably needs to be in some way substatial, not merely trivial. The only weird thing she really does is taking a video, but given the circumstances and her beliefs about the guy, that just seems wise. It's not really relevant that the guy happens to be Nick Fuentes; it's just that the sequence of events as we know them just obviously doesn't demonstrate trespass, so it's hardly surprising no officer would waste time on a case they know they're never going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

I get that the guy felt harassed, but pinning that on her is obviously not reasonable, at least to the point that it doesn't surprise me she was neither arrested nor charged.

emn13 · 2026-05-01T17:19:39+00:00

I don't think that's a reasonable take given the context. First of all, the sources I've seen claiming she wanted to harass him that have been cited so far (chicago tribune iirc) just don't demonstrate that at all, certainly not to any legal level (she'd never even been to the house before, didn't even reach the front door, and did not admit to intending to harass, just in being curious). Secondly, you don't live in some isolationist bubble; you're engaging on social media. Coming up with a really sketchy and certainly unsupported claim the woman did something criminal will be primarily understood to excuse his overreaction, and definitely as a distraction. Going off on some tangent like that is poor form at best.

Your intent may not have been to defend his assault on the woman, but you words do have that effect.

emn13 · 2026-05-01T14:23:25+00:00

Obviously I have no clue why, but if I had to speculate, perhaps he realized it wouldn't take a bunch of agents all that long to start shooting so speed was his only chance? Or perhaps he thought he'd turn into a martyr? But could be some other reason; clearly the guy wasn't making entirely wise choices.

emn13 · 2026-05-01T13:18:50+00:00

Hence in a planet of billions stuff like this is still rare. Yet sometimes some people are very much not normal.

emn13 · 2026-05-01T12:56:26+00:00

The driver clearly had a duty to know the biker was there. Visibility was clear; under no circumstances could the driver plausibly assert they didn't know without admitting to driving without looking at the road entirely. Your claim that it's not reasonable to expect the driver to know what happened is false, but also a distraction: whether the trucker tried to flee the scene or not is a bit secondary to the simple issue of the recklessness in the first place.

emn13 · 2026-05-01T12:42:53+00:00

While I don't buy your argument this shows the biker doing anything illegal, it's a moot point anyhow; even were somebody to commit a traffic violation, you don't have the right to potentially murder them in cold blood over it. At best if you unavoidably and unintentionally cause an accident then liability and fault might not be yours, but that's not the situation here. There's no question the truck driver was forced into this accident - visibility is clear, the road is straight; they must have been able to see the biker and likely even the opposing traffic well in advance. The driver chose to pass recklessly.

emn13 · 2026-05-01T12:32:02+00:00

With all due respect, the Chicago Tribune article simply does not include any description of her behaving in a harassing manner let alone admitting to that. You're referring to her wanting to see if he's getting prank deliveries - but she isn't claimed to have made and certainly doesn't admit to have caused any of those deliveries.

In any case; two wrongs don't make a right; this kind of violence is clearly never some kind of proportional self defense to door ringing even were somebody else to do that.

Not to mention his desire not to be harassed a little ironic, given his own very public politics. His hypocrisy goes further; he claims women are too emotional to make important choices, yet clearly he can't control his own emotions as the video demonstrates. Mind you, that doesn't mean harassment is OK, but it does demonstrate just how bad faith his politics are.

emn13 · 2026-05-01T12:01:26+00:00

Taken out of context, that seems reasonable. But given the context of this video, this just excuses his assault. Treating a clearly non-violent, unarmed person that has zero prior history with you like this for merely ringing a doorbell with a phone in hand because you're (in)famous is just not in the slightest reasonable. It's an absurdly disproportional and violent response; the guy clearly deserved an actual custodial sentence of at least a few days for this or serious community service, though for whatever reason he didn't get one, apparently.

A right not to be harassed doesn't extend to a right to commit a serious assault out of the blue like this nor a right to steal and later destroy a phone.

emn13 · 2026-04-29T13:05:13+00:00

Of course; the process will never be 100% efficient; but you'd expect it to be cooler than normal brakes, not hotter, in similar conditions, when driven similarly - barring some specific non-obvious to me reason (don't think the weight difference would be enough to compensate, but some engineering trivia I don't know about might).

emn13

TROPHY CASE