Here's one random reddit writeup for people to tell about

"911 dispatch was called and contrary to the story where he was breaking up a fight he was trespassing on her property and stole her keys. She called the police and they showed up. While arriving to the call dispatch confirmed to the responding officers that Blake had a domestic abuse prior, sex crime prior, a warrant for his arrest and a previous charge of assault on a police officer with a firearm. This is the main reason the escalation of force was pushed farther. After getting to Blake, officers tried detaining him and tasering him which was ineffective. That happens right before it shows him going around the car to his driver door. After that you see him going into his car and reaching. With his prior charge with assault with a firearm and domestic abuse police did not know if he was going into his car to get a firearm. With his children in his car you don’t know if he will take off running or have a barricaded hostage situation. It was a case of Blake not listening to officers instructions, slow response by police not to get to the door faster and poor equipment use.
Link to the article here

Edit 1: it appears that Jacob Blake had a knife on him when going around the front of the car and police can be heard “drop the knife”

"

it's so obvious to me, that i'm not sure how to explain it. maybe like a company that cuts costs, and make a worse product, and the public keeps gobbling it up no matter how much they cut costs. so they end up making an incredibly unbelievably bad product, and the public keeps buying it. isn't it obvious to everyone they made a terrible product because that it was what was profitable for them to do, and the public allowed it?

does that answer your question?

and the amazing candidates, i'm not sure who. but i don't think we even need amazing candidates. probably 95% of the population would be better than the politicians we end up with. and probably 10-20% would be quite good. probably one in a million would be incredible, so that is around 320 people? there are plenty of people who would be amazing. the problem is that the corrupt two party system locks them out.

ralph nader is a real example. he ran like 3 or 4 times! lol! he probably would have been great. i think jill stein would have been great. if you've ever listened to her speak she was great. gloria la riva would probably be great.

hell, maybe even bernie sanders or kucinich or henry wallace.

so you're saying democracy is not a good thing???

Jill Stein is a scientifically illiterate loon.

We have very different definitions of what great candidates would be.

Perhaps that's part of the problem, even when we all agree the two parties suck, we could never agree on what a good leader would be.

if you're talking about her anti vax thing, that was blown way out of proportion. it was used as propaganda against her

and btw, speaking of scientifically illiterate, even if her anti vax thing was accurate(which it is not), then her understanding of climate change far outweighs vaccination problems.

you are voting for biden who is planning on destroying the planet, and you are calling jill stein scientifically illiterate. that is the results of propaganda.

Jill Stein has shown with GMO discussions not only does she not understand science but she actively ignores evidence to the contrary.

I would never, ever trust her in understanding or evaluating evidence to make decisions.

She is truly incompetent with evaluation of scientific evidence.

Also, you're doing it again with the Biden attack. I never said she would be worse than Biden, or Biden is good, better at science, etc.

I just said she's a quack. Which she is. This isn't me falling for propaganda, I understand this field, and she refuses to consider new evidence.

she got degrees from harvard as a scientist, and made her living as a scientist. fwiw

Perhaps, then, she is just extremely unethical and is repeatedly lying to promote the organic industry?

There's no other explanation. She either refuses to evaluate other evidence, and posts lies about our food system intentionally our out of incompetence.

Like -

https://billmoyers.com/2012/09/06/ji...c-food-debate/

This is just ENTIRELY propaganda.

The things she says are just not true.

Her arguments about conventional vs organic for climate are not true. For human health are not true. She is repeating Organic industry talking points, which are just utter nonsense.

She's also falsely made comparisons about organic food not using pesticides, which is either completely ignorant of the food system or just blatant lies.

FWIW, her plan of switching to entirely organic would cause death and disease both locally and globally for low-income minorities.

it gets confusing cuz vr is asking me about better candidates than dems have given us. so i'm thinking in terms of comparing them to biden/clinton/harris. but i guess you're thinking of something else?

i mean the only reason you're voting for biden is because you think(accurately) that no one else has a shot at beating trump. that's cuz we have let the dems get away with pulling this kind of crap for generations.

chim,

i'll take your word for it on the organic food stuff. i don't know about that field, and it sounds like you know what you're talking about.

sounds like she is a deeply flawed candidate. but still not as flawed as biden, right? or clinton? i mean they are so flawed it's absurd. maybe stein is absurdly flawed too lol... but my point is that biden and clinton are like bottom 5% of the population. and it's so completely upside down that they are taken seriously as leaders of the world.

it would never be like that if we lived in a functioning democracy. and a vote for the lesser of two evils, is a vote against democracy, right? that's a real question. isn't it a vote against democracy?

I don't disagree with your major point. My point was in addition to the two party domination, a third party can't ever even get traction because they mostly suck too (or at least we'll never agree on what matters and who doesn't suck). I don't know if Stein would be better or worse than Biden, probably slightly better? I worry that she has fallen for the propaganda of an industry, it's just a different industry than most.

Ranked choice may be the only answer we would ever have in our system. Skeptical that actually results in change, though.

i probably do see the third partiers with rose colored glasses

do you know of problems with nader? he seemed great.

and in sf there was a mayoral campaign almost won by green matt gonzalez. it was soooo exciting. he lost in a runoff to gavin ****ing newsome.

Also, you're mostly preaching to the choir. Not sure if you caught it before but I personally have voted a Dem for major office one time (2018 Governor race here) in my life. I have voted a Republican for President once ever (2000 Bush lol me).

Too many people I know lives are so much worse than 4 years ago, that I made the call to vote establishment this time around.

I know they aren't the answer, though, and to this point have never been part of the compromise.

I don't know enough about Nader, I'm not an expert on this stuff by any means. Stein only hit my radar because that is stuff I know a lot about and it drove me crazy.

It's hard to know if the Jill stein stuff is true or if it's just propoganda pushed against her that leaks in.

Like it could be factually true but still easily overstated compared to anyone else which isn't exactly fair.

In other, probably more important news, new meta analysis shows HCQ alone is not associated with reduced mortality and when combined with azithromycin significantly increased mortality.

I really thought I voted bush in 2000 but then realized I wasn't old enough to vote then.

in 2000 i wore a nader sign on my body, and went around like that every day lol

lapd says it's illegal to carry a shield to a protest. last night they made everyone drop their shields. then they shot into the crowd.

The way brains are now thought to work is not what I expected.

Each section of the brain has inputs and outputs, but one of the inputs is your brain's prediction for the inputs. It's not some idealized logic machine waiting for inputs and then deciding. It actively predicts. One of the outputs is how well the inputs matched the prediction. Call that the surprise level.

How does the brain use the surprise output?

If surprise is below a cutoff threshold, then the prediction is considered to be truth. The actual inputs are discarded, any difference between the real input and the prediction is thrown out as meaningless noise. The image from your eyes, the sound from your ears is replaced by what you expected to see or hear. Also with low surprise, the information comes to rest. Other parts of the brain aren't disturbed.

High surprise is alarming, it causes other parts of the brain to be involved. Eventually a signal can bubble up to the level of conscious thought.

So this is the model: layers of processing with the outputs of lower layers becoming the inputs to higher layers. Predictions are made, surprise is measured. High surprise means a prediction was wrong. It leads to changes, rewriting the prediction rules. Nothing happens with low surprise.

The level at of error tolerance is different in different brains. Some people (especially with autism) have very low error tolerance. An effect is the tags on clothes are very irritating because the tag itching doesn't get filtered out as noise.

Other people have high error tolerance. The inputs always match the prediction. Remember, when that happens, the prediction is what the brain takes as truth.

Today computer programs are written using the same models as the brain. Put the inputs on the left, outputs on the right, and in between a few layers of cells connected to the layers of cells left and right using random linear weights. Train the models with data where the true output is known, causing the weights to adjust right to left. Repeat for many examples and you have a neural network.

The outputs are random garbage after a small number of training samples. With millions or billions of samples you get truth. Complex problems can be modeled with not that many cells. Just a few linear equations and the model 'knows' like an expert.

well chips, that's interesting, scary, and maybe kind of exciting?


in other news aoc and bernie are to the right of george bush on israel palestine?????

The Israel thing feels like a by-product of our current day. Impossible to criticize Israel without hearing comments of "anti-semitism" by the right, and the last thing Bernie/AOC want to permit is identity politics attacks from the right since it undercuts a lot of the presentation of their approach. I get why they'd pull back.