burntbacon

@burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Honestly Bizarre⁩ ⁨⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  Your mom’s nuts. Oranges and bananas? green faced emoji

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Honestly Bizarre⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Whoah, calm down, killer. I am in the same camp as you with smoothies. I just think fruit salads are worse. Smoothies (not made at home) at least usually take into account how flavors should blend together.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Honestly Bizarre⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  I think the only winning move was not to play. Excuse me while I go throw out a salad and try to keep my lunch down.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hey Lois, remember the time when it all came tumbling down? That was sweet.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Huh, weird. I was really feeling someone had switch the expected positions ‘my darling in the franz’ or whatever it was, and lois couldn’t take peter’s manner about it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Honestly Bizarre⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Tell you what, you bring your worst salad, and I’ll bring mine. I think I have some chicken salad that’s been in the fridge for a few months that the partner forgot about.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Honestly Bizarre⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Salads with eggs are the worst though, can we agree?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Honestly Bizarre⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Fruit salads are an abomination anyway. It’s like someone was going to make smoothies and their blender broke. A tomato in a fruit salad doesn’t seem any crazier than some of the other things in those anyway.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨World would be a better place⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  At least for the mormons and jehovah’s witnesses, the point of them going door-to-door isn’t to convert you. It’s to solidify in their minds that the ‘other’ is hateful and vile. Your shenanigans are funny, but just building another wall for another pair of fools for their little prison designed by the people at the top.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How are these ICE agents allowed to fire on protestors like this⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  Sorry to throw salt on the wound.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  She needs to contact the police, like others have said, and she needs to get a restraining order. The police can, depending on the local laws, build a harassment and possibly a stalking case. The restraining order isn’t going to get him in ‘trouble,’ but it will let the criminal case have more evidence and weight, and gives your relative a place to start putting emphasis behind her reports.

  Unfortunately, she’ll also have to give up social media. It’s a route to her, and it’s not one that will be closed down. Creeps like that dude will come back again and again, because it’s relatively easy to avoid real bans, if he even gets one. She needs to not respond to anything from him after sending one message, “I do not wish to speak with you. Do not contact me again.” Whichever route he’s going through at the time, use that one, making sure it’s one that you can keep a record of. Then, anytime any contact is attempted again, note the time, date, a brief summary of whatever was said (from him, neither she nor anyone else should respond to anything) and contact the police again. Even if the cops are lazy and often useless in online harassment, they want you off their backs, and especially the higher ups don’t want a disgruntled citizen with an actual ignored crime complaining about them, because the winds of public opinion can turn on things like that. The records of contact are what gives the cops a kick in the ass. It’s evidence that they don’t have to do anything to get, and it’s also what a judge likes to see when it comes to a harassment case. It’s also critical that she (and anyone else) never responds. Tit-for-tat may not make his acts ‘legal,’ but it makes it easy for a defense attorney to poke holes in the prosecution’s case that he was harassing her. DARVO doesn’t work if the only communication is from him. If she’s responding to him, it sets up a scenario where there is a ‘conversation’ going, and if she isn’t ending it that doesn’t sell a harassment case to a jury very well.

  Keep records of what he posted, where posted it, and when his site you mentioned is updated as well. If the harassment is mostly taking place online,

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fucking idiots⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Don’t… don’t make me cry, man. Not this late at night.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fucking idiots⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I just like building my initial crawler with like eight of every sensor to go around the space complex. I always thought that was a great bit of game planning on their part.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fucking idiots⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, but I don’t think I’ve ever gotten past the 90 research cost mark, so I was always a little gimped in my approaches. One day I’ll buckle down and really get into it. I’ll need to find that research mod that makes it not so painful though.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Nintendon't⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  More power, basically. Nintendo isn’t the only one that’s done this. Apple and dell both have laptops with them. superuser.com/…/why-do-some-docking-stations-have… has some other answers, such as video disabling certain functions.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fucking idiots⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Well, see, that’s the thing! I put enough parachutes on, AND made sure I could hit the atmo enough to slowly drag my velocity down to an entry arc, AND had enough fuel to keep my velocity low enough at that point, that I never lost any parts, landed them all and recovered!

  I was a horrible designer.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fucking idiots⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Ugh. I fought stages so hard in kerbal, that everyone I showed my rockets to recoiled in disgust. It’s not my fault, guys! I have a pathological repulsion of ‘wasting’ items!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How are these ICE agents allowed to fire on protestors like this⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Likely. They’re considered law enforcement, and just like the state/county/city police you commonly hear about it with, they have policies/procedures they’re supposed to follow.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨one bright second⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I’d delete them at the end of session, like any lemming would.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How are these ICE agents allowed to fire on protestors like this⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  So I’ve had a bit of experience with the law in a state I don’t keep up with anymore, but let me see if I can paint you the picture of the way the laws intersect.

  In texas, there is a specific chapter of the penal code that deals with use of force. The first thing to take note of is that line about “justification” under the chapter being a defense to prosecution. You’ll need to go read a portion of chapter 2 to understand that in full, but suffice it to say a prosecutor could still charge you, and a peace officer could still arrest you, even if the terms for ‘defense’ are met.

  Returning to the penal code, 9.51 talks about law enforcement (which is defined in the code of criminal procedure, which we’ll get to in a moment, and which federal law enforcement is also defined) and their authority. If you read it carefully, it basically says they can use whatever force they want to. The qualifier, in 9.51(a), about the actor needing reasonable belief that the force is warranted, lets law enforcement get away with just about everything. There is further clarification on deadly force at 9.51©, which again talks about ‘reasonable belief,’ and on “less-lethal” weaponry at 9.55. The two qualifiers on 9.55 are reasonable belief (it’ll come up again and again in laws relating to use of force) and using it per ‘training.’

  Now, if you recall from your internet awareness (which I hope you have), you’ll probably have heard about controversies concerning law enforcement training. ‘Killology’ is the famous one, but every department will have some form of training for all of their tools on the belt, and most of it boils down to “use if if you think you need it” which translates to ‘if they resist and you don’t want to wrestle.’ Every department will have a policy regarding their use, and usually there will be some form of restriction (like don’t use the taser as a cattle prod, which is often ignored) and judicious use of the term ‘reasonable belief.’ Yes, that means that basically departments just throw everything on an officer’s judgement in the moment, because the two requirements in the law simply become one.

  Let’s switch gears for just a moment to put some context on officer behavior. Arrests are laid out in the code of criminal procedure, chapters 14 and 15. Fourteen is pretty basic, saying that an officer can arrest for things he witnesses (14.01), and is authorized all measures that could be taken if the arrest was for a warrant (14.05). The rest adds to it, but isn’t important in this case. Fifteen gives us more information (15.24), where it says all reasonable means and force are permitted. It also says you can’t use greater force than necessary, but don’t worry about that, cops don’t worry about it either. I’ll have some comments after the main points.

  There are two more bits to hash out. We’ve talked (very briefly) about use of force in arrests, and those statutes touched on searches (which is mildly more difficult, mostly because we’d have to go into case law where searches really get hammered out), but we haven’t talked about ‘defense’ of person or property. Law enforcement has their own rules for arrests and certain actions like traffic stops, but they have the same laws for defending against assault/damage (except where courts have let things proceed differently, which you’ll have to understand is a weird thing where laws are shaped in court as much as in the legislature), so that brings us to 9.31 and 9.41 of the penal code. I’m sort of getting weary of quoting, so I’m going to paraphrase these sections quickly. You can stop someone from hurting someone else, and kill them to prevent them killing someone else, if you have a reasonable belief about it. You can stop someone from taking stuff, or damaging stuff, if you have a reasonable belief about it. You can also kill to prevent certain crimes against property, if you have a reasonable belief.

  So now we can answer your main question: how are they allowed to, or how are they skirting the laws? It’s because they’re not skirting the laws. Almost every department policy can be summarized as throwing things back to having a ‘reasonable belief.’ Reasonable belief is the great wall of china that every complaint and investigation about law enforcement must crest… and it’s a difficult barrier to overcome. This is because reasonable belief is going to be, one, in the mind of any law enforcement member who is thinking about whether another member’s actions were criminal. If the investigating member can put themselves in the shoes of the other and even for a split second imagine doing the same thing, that investigation is going to die. Reasonable belief, two, is then going to be argued about in the prosecutor’s office, where they generally want a decent working relationship with police agencies, and, three, in court, where we’ve seen plenty of actions die in the grand jury and jury box. Ice isn’t ‘getting away’ with their outrages so much as simply doing what every other law enforcement agency does. The only difference is that they are blatantly violating the one area where the courts (typically, before now) have been willing to ensure law enforcement follows the law: having probable cause to arrest (so, more than ‘just’ being darker skinned), and thus not violating civil rights. Seeing as we’ve just had the supreme court throw out that shit, we’re fucked in that regard.

  To return to a few things that I mentioned and wanted to talk about more (mostly because they’re not directly relevant to your question of ‘how?’ but are things to know in the general sense, and a big warning besides): justification/defense, and using force against peace officers. If you remember, I was paraphrasing the second chapter of the penal code where it says a prosecutor doesn’t have to deny the defense in their charging statement. However, in practice it is almost always done. There’s a giant book out there for prosecutors that has example charging statements for just about every crime ever, and the majority of them are simple recitations of a crime’s major points, and typically refute any possible defense claims. This means prosecutors, and the officers who use the very helpful example statements, will very, very rarely make an arrest and press charges if the defense can’t be refuted in the charging statement. Note that recent case in texas where someone shot a kid for ding-dong-ditching, and he wasn’t arrested immediately (I might be misremembering this case and another one where any normal person would be screaming "Why didn’t they arrest him?! Texas seems to have a lot of those). This is a ‘privilege’ that is extended much more often to other law enforcement fucks.

  Now we come to where most of us need to be very careful. 9.31© of the penal code talks about resisting peace officers. America has had some famous examples of that, such as the military member who shot back when a no-knock warrant was executed on the wrong house. The issue is that each officer gets judged by their reasonable belief. Remember, everything comes back to reasonable belief. If an officer tells you that you are under arrest, and you are completely compliant, if the officer suddenly pulled out their taser and begins using it on you, I (and hopefully a jury) would say you are completely justified in resisting. But what happens if you knock the taser out of the officer’s hand? Do you then get to run away from said officer? What if another officer pulls up and sees you swinging your fists/feet/body at the other officer who has already deployed a taser? Most departments preach about having a lethal weapon covering a situation if a taser is being deployed. That means this second officer is going to be primed to shoot (and their lawyers can write up that 'reasonable belief) faster than I could find the statutes website for this post). Now what if the second officer was two or three officers down in the little police red-rover line they like to pull, and didn’t see whether you did something to make a taser reasonable? What if it wasn’t a taser, but a gun, and you responded with your own? It’s all bullshit, but it’s shit that will get you killed and the police a pat on the back from their asshole colleagues.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How are these ICE agents allowed to fire on protestors like this⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Mostly celebrating, and some are telling themselves it isn’t time yet.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How are these ICE agents allowed to fire on protestors like this⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I mean, the local police do have jurisdiction, they just aren’t going to do anything. Federal property is still within a state, and the state has every right to enforce their laws. Go shoot up a federal property, and watch as the local prosecutor and the federal prosecutor fight over who gets to put their name next to your conviction. The other closest analogue to look at is how crimes in an indian reservation can be charged by the reservation authorities, the state, or the feds.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨On January 1st of 2026, Texas will be required to give ID to download apps from the app stores. It doesn't matter if it's NSFW or not.⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  That text is impossible damn hard to read. Everyone who wants to read the actual wording, go to the link.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨hows keto working out for you⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  To add to what carnelian replied, there are actually more than 20 amino acids. Archaea and bacteria domains use a couple different ones, making 23 or so known amino acids used. There are also tons of possible and some (like 700+, that I remember being taught, lol) documented examples of different amino acids, because all that it takes to be an amino acid is the basic carbon structure with the carboxylic acid and the nitrate group in their correct positions, with an R group that defines which amino acid you’re dealing with.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Quick! the thinking meat is distracted!⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Your body has to sneak them in? Inefficient.

  My entire system teams up to track down the days when sonic offers 50 cent corn dogs, meticulously enact the battle strategy, and route the aftermath.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I would give my life savings for something that eradicates them from my apartment 😌⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I ascii what you did there… Well 0x20 you, then!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨negativity⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Sugar is a poison, and I must froth for it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I would give my life savings for something that eradicates them from my apartment 😌⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, and they probably would have died eventually, if I had let them survive to that point. Also, 0x20 is still 0.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I would give my life savings for something that eradicates them from my apartment 😌⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Bologna. There was never a flying insect in my cabin, and yet two assholes decided to build giant webs in the middle. Spiders aren’t intelligent enough to track insect movement patterns and then build their webs.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I would give my life savings for something that eradicates them from my apartment 😌⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I still have pictures of the asshole orb weaver that decided to bar me from leaving my house at freaking five o’clock in the morning. That was a very, very unpleasant realization. Then there was another one that decided to make my entire cabin (it was a one roomer, so very wide for the kitchen/living room) it’s webspace. Like, I’m okay if they build a web across my window, or in a corner, but not in my areas. They aren’t paying enough of the rent to get that privilege.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨negativity⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  They’re great. Branding designs on your waffles, or drawing beautiful art with your pancake batter, is like dressing a beauty in the finest attire.