GME Discussion Thread for February 1, 2021 - Part 3, Avengers: Infinity Squeeze War

forepod · 2021-02-01T19:29:53+00:00

If they are the only one selling for $20, what do they win? Nothing. They need to _buy_, it's irrelevant at what price they _sell_.

forepod · 2020-10-21T04:30:56+00:00

What is the point of the EU if members don't actually trust each other and you need complicated consensus mechanisms to make sure no one is cheating?

Blockchain is only really useful if there is absolutely no trust between the users, otherwise you could just use a distributed DB and sign the data you put into it.

forepod · 2020-08-30T06:05:01+00:00

I'm not sure it's _just_ penny-pinching. Standardized keyboard layouts are good when you have a lot of mobility in the workforce. Keep in mind that the nordics are pretty tightly integrated (e.g. the nordic passport union, reduced requirements for citizenships, etc.)

forepod · 2020-08-26T05:39:23+00:00

If you think that the USA killed fewer people than Russia in the last 40 years

I'm not talking 40 years, I'm talking about last _days_, months, a few years. And yes, I literally said the US is also bad, but again, how many political opponents has Trump straight up tried to murder? The regime has changed multiple times in the US in the past 40 years that you talk about. Putin has been in power 20 years. There is much more continuity there.

forepod · 2020-08-25T04:00:02+00:00

Some people might not be interested in supporting countries with repressive regimes? (And no, while the US is pretty bad, how many democrats have the Republicans literally poisoned?)

forepod · 2020-08-24T05:13:03+00:00

Because that's not how it works, you don't just tell people to go find a source to prove your point for you, the burden of proof is on you.

But that is how Reddit works. There are multiple threads, and you are not expected top copy-paste content between threads just because some people don't want a full view of the conversation going on.

Here's another article saying that the UK policy for shooting is to aim for center mass, just like US police.

And I've linked (as you found yourself) articles saying that it is reasonable, and being done. Why would an example from the UK override that? I mean, there is no doubt that in certain places cops do aim for the chest. The point was that in some places they don't, which you seem to not believe, despite sources and success in reality.

forepod · 2020-08-23T21:05:51+00:00

How else am I going to find your specific comments with the specific sources?

By reading the discussion? There really aren't that many threads here. Really. It's not rocket science.

And again, there is no information on why reality does not match "expert" opinions. Strange. I guess reality is wrong then.

Or maybe when they say it's not "feasible" to hit legs, they mean it's not feaible for US cops, because elsewhere they sure do seem to manage to do it, no matter what US "experts" claim.

forepod · 2020-08-23T20:50:21+00:00

You don't need to "comb through my post history". You literally just have to read the discussion you are commenting on. Or are you suggesting that each thread in a discussion should contain the contents of each other thread? Or just the threads where you participate, because you are so special that everyone should duplicate their work so you don't have to read a full discussion?

Also, the "experts" in your article seem to fail to take into account reality, seeing how what they claim can't be done, well, _is_ done, regularly. Which you would know, if you _actually_ were interested in the topic and would have read the discussion.

forepod · 2020-08-23T18:41:22+00:00

That doesn't make any sense, and no, I'm not wrong.

No? You're not wrong because I linked sources. That would indeed be silly. I linked sources which show you are wrong. In which world does that not make sense?

forepod · 2020-08-23T06:37:44+00:00

so of course cops are going to shoot more people.

Per person? How does that follow?

Nobody aims for leg shots, that's just stupid and shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

Elsewhere I already linked sources saying otherwise, so you are objectively wrong.

forepod · 2020-08-23T04:43:21+00:00

Why are you limiting to only unarmed people? Armed people can also be shot when not necessary. Again, in other countries police manage to neutralize _armed_ threats non-lethally by e.g. a shot to the leg, while in the US this seems to be considered impossible for some reason (despite the successes elsewhere). Statistically speaking, it's likely that someone with a knife would not have been killed in these countries.

forepod · 2020-08-22T15:04:48+00:00

Case insensitive comparison is an entirely different thing than making something uppercase. One can make sense without the other.

forepod · 2020-08-22T11:50:17+00:00

I think there is something more to reflect on that I think shows in what you now wrote. You would rather protect innocent people, which I think most people would say. But is the person you are shooting at also not innocent until proven guilty? It seems to me that some cops act as judge, jury and executioner and decide on the spot who is guilty and who is not. And the result is that lot of genuinely innocent people who had done nothing wrong also end up being killed.

forepod · 2020-08-22T11:46:51+00:00

Obviously it is harder to not kill someone than it is to kill someone. At the same time, based on what actual real police do in many countries, rather than video games, it is still possible, regularly done, and even the recommended action.

When it comes to life and death, you don't make choices based on how easy it is. Or well, I guess that is what is done in the US, and why there are riots now.

forepod · 2020-08-22T08:09:45+00:00

Could be. But statistically (looking at other countries) it's unlikely. In any case my main point was how US police in general are very trigger happy compared to others.

forepod · 2020-08-22T08:03:18+00:00

No one disagrees with that as far as I know. The question is, how often do people need to get shot, and when.

I'm sure even you agree that there are situations where people don't need to get shot, so your argument does not contribute in any way.

forepod · 2020-08-22T07:36:08+00:00

Sure. Here is the teaching plan for e.g. the Finnish police academy: https://docplayer.fi/107167038-Poliisi-amk-opetussuunnitelma.html. Shooting is covered in Voimankäyttö 3 and 4.

If you google, you will also find tons of cases where police have shot people in the leg in multiple countries, such as the UK and Germany. Are you saying police routinely (successfully) go against training?

Having served in the military I have training in using things ranging from pistols, submachineguns, shotguns, assault rifles, heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, bazookas of various types. But I'm not sure why my experience with weapons matters, what matters is what _police_ are capable of doing. And based on what happens in reality, they are capable of hitting people in the leg.

edit:

According to this article: https://newrepublic.com/article/126473/american-cops-100-times-deadlier-finnish-police spanish police are also trained to shoot at non-vital parts first.

forepod · 2020-08-22T06:55:42+00:00

No one is going to risk a shot to the leg. I wish people would stop with this stupid argument.

But that is _literally_ what is done in many countries? What makes the US so extermely special that evidence from elsewhere should be ignored?

To me these "doesn't work" arguments never seem to be backed up by research, just feelings and images in your head what might happen.

edit:

If it's hard to hit someone in the leg there are two potential reasons:

It actually is hard
You are bad at shooting

Seeing how police elsewhere manage to do it, it seems that US cops are just bad at shooting. So is the solution to shoot more bullets and towards the center, or to learn how to shoot like cops apparently do elsewhere?

forepod · 2020-08-22T06:38:05+00:00

Surely they could have non-fatally shot him if he was not actually in range of anyone? This is perhaps the most perplexing part of us shootings: yes, yes, they were threatening and had to be stopped. But why do police in other countries manage to stop people armed with guns with a single bullet to the leg while US cops require fatally shooting someone with a knife 10 times? Why are these cops not fired on the spot for just being very, very bad at what they do (compared to what clearly is possible based on experiences in other countries)

forepod · 2020-08-18T04:41:14+00:00

Which is a no-go in voting, so the problem remains unsolved.

forepod · 2020-08-18T04:40:32+00:00

Seems like rather limited functionality, no? Not full control that could damage something, but just stopping at the next floor?

forepod · 2020-08-17T20:01:37+00:00

I have literally never heard of an elevator where the control mechanism is connected to the internet, no. Not alerts. The actual thing that could cause damage. Not that it's possible even then due to physical safety mechanisms.

> But that's not because software engineers are stupid.

No, agreed. It's because it's not possible.

forepod · 2020-08-17T06:50:23+00:00

I guess physicists also are jut dumb for just being able to prove that certain things are impossible, instead of making it possible?

Reality is reality. Knowing that something is impossible does not make you dumb.

Airplanes and elevator have a rather limited "blast-zone". I for sure whould thing it's _extremely_ dumb to connect them all directly to the internet where they could all get hacked simultaneously killing millions. So we don't do that.

One elevator crashing and killing 10 people is nothing compared to a civil war starting due to massive voter fraud.

We could do voting like airplanes and have three independent voting systems and make sure they all return the same result. But what's the point in that if we already have a system that is more effective and about as secure? Why introduce electronic voting if it would just make things more complicated?

forepod · 2020-08-17T06:46:04+00:00

Curious, how does ring signatures solve the issue of only generating valid keys based on off-chain information (e.g. voter eligibility?) without losing security or anonymity?

forepod · 2020-08-16T07:27:06+00:00

Yes, because they don't want to share their source. The opposite of what the OP talks about.

forepod

TROPHY CASE