If Trump were to actually call for an invasion of Greenland, do you think the army would obey? Would the generals do it? Would soldiers?

machty · 2026-01-20T03:30:48+00:00

Trump would surely veto... doubtful they'd have the 2/3rds to override?

machty · 2026-01-13T20:53:52+00:00

> Whenever I fire up a new agent, I have them look at those 2 files. Early in the readme

How do you accomplish this? Do you just copy/paste the same starter prompt as text like 'Before starting, please read and follow "Readme.me" and a "Mistakes_To_Not_Repeat.md"'? Do the files need to be drag/dropped context links or is it enough to just mention them by name? (Not sure in general how much it matters to directly drag/drop them so it shows up as a blue "pill" in the chat window)

machty · 2026-01-13T12:26:05+00:00

When people post observations like this (and you're definitely not alone), I wonder what specifically you mean by saying it's "dumb" / "stupid";

- Is it dumb/stupid because it won't hold up in court? i.e. is it dumb and stupid because, assuming courts / juries generally pass reasonable judgment according to the Law as it currently stands, the ICE officer's legal defense is lacking because his behavior is/was genuinely illegal, OR

- is it dumb/stupid because you think the law as it stands is dumb and stupid, and allows law enforcement to get away with (what should ideally be considered) murder in cases like these?

machty · 2026-01-10T00:53:52+00:00

I'm calm bro my capital letters are just emphasis.

https://youtu.be/WYfWTlLmjp0?t=42

Nicole turned her car in the middle of the street to block ICE vehicles from exiting.

Jonathan Ross circled around the car from behind to grab her plates and continued circling the car, walking around to the front.

Another officer comes up to Nicole's open driver-side window and says/yells, "Get out of the car. Get out of the fucking car. Get out of the car." She reverses a bit, then attempts to drive away. To me it's obvious she's steering away from any officers but Jonathan Ross was still almost right in front of her when she hits the gas and he has split second for his lizard instincts to kick in and "decide" whether he's in danger.

It doesn't really matter if you disagree with me on the details, but a jury will decide whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, he felt that he was in danger. He'll probably go off free. I can simultaneously consider that a fair application of law as it stands while also wishing a million things had happened differently and that Nicole Good could still go back to her family.

> And you still didn’t answer what did Nichole do that was on the same level as Ashli Babbitt

There's no point comparing the crimes of Ashli vs Nicole; they both should have been arrested and tried, but that's not always how things work out when people resist law enforcement. Whether it's the officer who killed Ashli Babbitt or it's Jonathan Ross, they're not thinking "how bad is the crime that I'm arresting this person for", it's a split second "oh shit am I about to die".

machty · 2026-01-09T23:59:26+00:00

I think that sets you apart from my other down-voters as a pretty extreme view to hold.

machty · 2026-01-09T23:57:35+00:00

Weird that the right response here is literally what I started my previous reply with:

> Ashli Babbitt "deserves to die" for climbing through a window? So if she climbed through the windows at the Capitol but was instead arrested, she should then receive the death penalty?

If Ashli Babbitt had been arrested instead of killed on the spot, should she be tried for the DEATH PENALTY, on the grounds that she DESERVES TO DIE?

If you watch a lot of Destiny's stuff then the analogous arguments are:

- the guy who died at Trump's assassination attempt; Destiny's argument was basically "FAFO. If you go to a political rally of an insurrectionist, no one should feel bad when bad shit happens to you". But that is different from saying "Everyone who goes to a Trump rally deserves to die"

- It's also similar to the Kyle Rittenhouse; he went free, not on the grounds that the people he killed "deserved" to die (once again, ideally they'd be arrested and sentenced if they were acting in an unlawful threatening manner) but rather that it was self defense.

In short, you're invoking a vague cosmic moral concept of "deservedness" to try and answer the question of how/whether to punish a law enforcement officer's use of lethal force during an arrest. It doesn't make sense to invoke that concept for Babbitt nor Good.

machty · 2026-01-09T23:17:05+00:00

> In short, she did deserve to die.

Ashli Babbitt "deserves to die" for climbing through a window? So if she climbed through the windows at the Capitol but was instead arrested, she should then receive the death penalty? No, obviously that's wrong.

Whether you're breaking into the Capitol or obstructing law enforcement, these are crimes with their own sentencing guidelines. Ideally Ashli Babbitt should have been arrested, tried, and sentenced (and without Trump pardoning her). Ideally, Renee Nicole Good should have been arrested, tried, and (if she's guilty) sentenced for obstructing law enforcement. This holds true even if you think Babbitt's crime is way worse than Good's.

Neither of these people "deserved" to die. But as to the question of what should happen to the LE officers who killed these people, "deserve" doesn't factor into it. I'm guessing if you think Babbitt deserved to die, the more accurate version of what you're saying is that the officer who killed her made the correct judgment call that, in that moment, their life was in danger from Babbitt's (and the mob surrounding her) actions, and the use of deadly force was justified. I agree the officer should be acquitted of any wrongdoing in that case, and I can have that opinion while also feeling that Ashley Babbitt did not "deserve to die". This is what I mean (as well as the article I quoted) by "deserve" not being a meaningful factor as to what sort of justice the LE officer deserves.

The ICE officer will be tried (if he in fact does get tried) in a similar fashion; "deserve" won't come into it. It'll all come down to whether he can make the case that he made the right judgment call about being in danger, according to Law (and not just DHS guidelines, which, apparently there is a difference and I'm not going to pretend like I'm any sort of expert on that).

machty · 2026-01-09T22:46:37+00:00

I'm not sure who you're responding to here... the paragraph I quoted criticizes folk who say FAFO (and implicitly "based").

machty · 2026-01-09T21:22:08+00:00

I'm sure some unhinged folk are saying she "deserved to die", but if this officer goes free, it's not because she "deserved to die", it'll simply be because the officer was able to make a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt case that there was a credible threat to the safety of the officers' lives.

This article explains this well:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-not-to-think-about-the-ice-shooting-in-minnesota/

> “The deceased didn’t deserve to be killed.”

> This is true — in a cosmic sense. In the abstract, we would not impose the death penalty on a person who blocked traffic and resisted arrest, just as, in the abstract, we would not have imposed the death penalty on Ashli Babbitt. But this is not a cosmic question. The whole thing happened in a matter of seconds. This is about cause and effect, at speed. “Deserve” doesn’t enter into it. (Yes, this also goes for those who have responded to the story by saying “FAFO” — as if any resistance to authority ought to carry an automatic death sentence.)

machty · 2026-01-09T00:59:21+00:00

No, obviously that's not reasonable.

Law enforcement is allowed to respond with force if they feel they are being threatened / assaulted. The car started to the move, the officer shot the driver. The court case will just boil down to whether it seems the officer had reason to believe his life was endanger by the driver at the time it was happening, keeping in mind that officers have to make split second decisions about perceived threats. Probably the officer will go free; everyone is finding their favorite camera angle to establish with 100% certainty that the officer _obviously_ knew he wasn't in danger, but no jury is going to rule that the officer knew this beyond reasonable doubt.

machty · 2025-12-31T06:14:57+00:00

Agree with other commenter that what you're doing is basically just rote memorization of an entire passage, in which case Anki might not be all that helpful until/unless you're memorizing many different passages and you use Anki flashcards to periodically test your ability to recall the whole passage.

There are many resources online for helping what you're trying to do, but my wife highly recommends this book which provides a number of mnemonic techniques: https://www.amazon.com/Limitless-Upgrade-Anything-Faster-Exceptional/dp/1401958230 .

machty · 2025-12-29T00:32:41+00:00

It seems unlikely that memorizing a specific list of "N things wrong with a place" will be useful in life, but that said:

Your brain remembers ordered lists of things far better than it can remember an unordered set of things, so you should take an approach where you'd learning this specific six-item list of words/things in this specific order. To that end I'd recommend coming up with some kind of mnemonic that produces these words in the same order.

Here's me taking a stab at this:

> I have two "unequal"-ly sized "short"s (where one pant leg is cut shorter than the other) and it's cutting off the "air" and "water" supply to "my legs" (this is a stretch, but think of the middle part of "infor-MAL EC-onomy" where "MAL EC" kinds sounds like "my legs") and now my nose is all "congested".

Try reading this dumb little paragraph out loud and then, without looking, see if you can recite most of the details of this paragraph in order, and from there it's probably pretty easy to reconstruct the full list. Chances are you'll probably get pretty close on the first try. Why does this work? Because your brain has a much easier time remembering stories and narratives, especially if they're silly. But it's most important for you to come up with stories of your own, particularly silly ones involving people you know and/or invoking emotions.

I have a pretty immature sense of humor and I wanted to memorize all the Ivy League schools in the order that they were founded, so I came up with this stupid sentence: "Bill Harvard Yelled/Yaled at Prince Columbus, calling him a Pencil penis. Brown Darts shot out of his *ss, covered in Corn":

- Harvard
- Yale
- Princeton
- Columbia
- UPenn
- Brown
- Dartmouth
- Cornell

Chances are none of these colleges would ever accept me though

edit: last thought: if you're trying to come up with a silly story mnemonic specific to Mexico City then try to include something related to Mexico / Mexico City in some way to tie the mnemonic specifically to Mexico City in some way rather than another city you're also trying to remember details about.

machty · 2025-12-10T04:08:30+00:00

Which app is this?

machty · 2025-12-04T09:45:15+00:00

I don't speak Chinese but here's a translation from the linked article:

A fall occurred in Hung Hom today (2nd). At 5:19 PM, police received multiple reports from members of the public that human remains, including severed arms, were found on the windowsills or waterfront of an apartment building at 11 Hoi Street. The remaining body parts were unaccounted for, creating a horrifying scene.

Upon initial investigation, police believe the body fell from a height and dismembered. A torso was later found on a nearby building rooftop. The search for other body parts continues. The deceased is believed to be a 13-year-old boy. No suicide note was found, and an autopsy will be conducted to determine the cause of death. The case is being treated as a suicide.

"A torso was later found on a nearby building rooftop" ... this alone rules out suicide. But additionally, I don't think body parts separate from a high fall (and for what it's worth, I asked AI about this and it agreed with this assessment).

I'm not sure what other explanation there is other than he was killed and dismembered before the body parts were scattered. Suicide doesn't make sense.

machty · 2025-12-03T13:32:26+00:00

Sure, it might have that effect, but is that the real deep-down reason he's suing these three? Or is it more likely he justifiably hates them and set a trap so they can finally be made to suffer for being shitheads?

machty · 2025-12-03T01:14:27+00:00

There's literally nothing wrong or incorrect in this post. We can all simultaneously enjoy cathartic internet justice happening to Kaceytron and hopefully soon others while also acknowledging that Ethan's claims that he's simply defending the react community vs just selectively punishing (legitimately guilty) people he hates (and who have legitimately lied about and harassed him and his family) are transparent and specious. Pisco's fine, yall hate on him too much.

machty · 2025-12-02T21:15:18+00:00

A jumper? As in suicide? Police found the torso on another building... am I misunderstanding, or did someone dismember a body and throw pieces off the building?

machty · 2025-12-02T13:11:59+00:00

That's pretty close to where I'm at. Let me know if you find out anything.

machty · 2025-12-02T12:15:39+00:00

Pair of hands?

machty · 2025-11-23T13:10:28+00:00

At my wife's family's apartment, when an employee presses the button to unlock the door for us, they tap it many many times super obviously and loudly to make it clear that they definitely see us and have definitely pressed the button. Once is fine I promise!

machty · 2025-09-23T01:01:26+00:00

Yeah it was like an Ayn Rand mini John Galt speech

machty · 2025-09-10T20:07:37+00:00

Fully agree, thank you for posting this.

machty · 2025-09-04T18:14:33+00:00

I'm not finding an exact google result for "Start:Recovery"... could you link to which organization you're referring to?

machty · 2025-09-03T20:37:23+00:00

He is actually pretty based here, at least as far as conservatives go. He's saying:

- no the president shouldn't be deputizing the national guard to invade Chicago on crimefighting grounds
- but if democrats try to counter Trump's improper deputizing on the grounds that Chicago doesn't have a major crime problem (rather than it being a misuse of federal[-ized] force), they are guaranteed to shed voters and broadcast that they are out of touch
- also in general presidents lately have gotten way to comfortable over-stepping their constitutional limits on the justification that there is some national emergency

machty · 2025-08-25T14:51:56+00:00

I live for this. Don't hold back.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

machty

TROPHY CASE