John BS @johnabs@social.cleverlibre.org

@mk @freemo I do the same, but I had someone say to me, literally today, "your argument has many holes".... And didn't explain at all, despite my 3 point syllogism with clear definitions.... *sigh*

@freemo Tell me about it. I hate getting in discussions with people who don't understand logic well. It's necessary to try to make society a more reasonable place , but arguing with people who reason backwards (from conclusion first) or from emotion is incredibly frustrating.

@jmw150 Meth? 😂

@freemo I would seriously not suggest eating anything that may contain (or transmit through its excretions) rat lung worm. It's one of those things that while rare will make you wish you were dead, if you manage to survive, but is so easily avoidable by not eating slugs/snails and washing your produce.

However, I'm much more risk averse in situations like these, considering the severity of the infection, despite the low odds of encountering the pathogen.

So to answer succinctly: you can **technically** eat nearly anything, but you should ask yourself if you think it's worth the possible risk XD

Bandsaw is coming in soon, and I got my reverse osmosis system installed finally! This week has been pretty decent :D

@freemo Hey, thanks for sharing this; I'm going to have to set up my own soon!

Rant time. Today's topic: pineapple on pizza.

I've never felt more at risk of being doxxed for posting something 😂

<rant>

I'm convinced people who HATE pineapple on pizza have never tried it (or tried one where the pineapple wasn't roasted enough). In other words, I think most people just hate the concept like pedants who hate new slang developing in a language: they just hate it on principle.

Not to say these "pineapple inquisitors" would like it, but I think they're imagining something much worse than it actually is. It's not a watery, sour mess, but a roasted fruit with a very different experience to canned or fresh pineapple.

I quite enjoy it with a combination ingredients (chicken, bacon, mushroom, olive, extra red sauce), which are all very umami and can taste "heavy".

The light acidity, gentle caramelized sweetness, and hint of remaining moisture from a pineapple roasted in high-temp oven is great by itself. On top a pizza, it helps smooth over rough edges by taking what may be an otherwise dry pie with too rich a flavor, and balances the texture and helps cut that overwhelming richness.

Michelin star chefs are starting to use bloody Cheetos in their cooking and nobody bats an eye. Why is this one innocuous, quite reasonable combination seen as the most unforgivable food sin?

I think everyone needs to collectively release their grips on their pearls, and maybe try something new occasionally. Variety is the spice of life after all. If you don't like it, that's okay, just don't treat people who do like heretics.

</rant>

@lucifargundam @olamundo @freemo

I would suggest scite.ai, which is very useful.

Also, if you have journals you like to search regularly, I have some scripts you can use to search for and download papers in your command line, and some RSS scripts that will let you subscribe to different feeds and automatically grab pdfs, if you're interested :)

@freemo Yes, precisely, but I suppose I was disagreeing with the last point about the law not serving true justice.

I think it did serve it to the best of its own ability in light of the facts of the case, and this just happened to be an unfortunate series of circumstances that prevented justice from being applied in a just way.

@freemo Sorry, had to take a break from shoulder pain.

Again, I agree he should be in prison (or worse honestly), but he shouldn't be if the legal system violated his rights to put him there, regardless of his innocence or guilt.

In theory at least, our legal system is based on Blackstone's ratio: "It's better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent to suffer". And the adversarial nature and rights guaranteed by our legal system are in place to hopefully make sure innocents aren't forced to suffer for crimes they didn't commit. Unfortunately, that may lead to guilty individuals being freed, but I'd make the case that maximizing type 1 errors to mitigate type 2 errors is the way we prevent the most innocent people from losing their rights and freedom.

Does this work perfectly in practice, especially since it has become much more difficult for individuals to exercise their rights? Absolutely not, but since the legal system failed to do its due diligence, Cosby has the right to be free, despite of his moral and legal failures. Hence, a clear example of a type 1 error appearing directly due to our system's fear of making type 2 errors.

To conclude, I'd make the following point that I think wraps this up nicely: justice is not just unless administered justly.

@freemo I wouldn't necessarily call it a technicality. He wouldn't have testified in either case if not compelled to do so (as is his right), thus the deal seemed to be a good way to insure at least one of the cases panned out for the victim, rather than both falling through.

Consequently, the proof that was relied upon to both claim a settlement and convict him was his own testimony. That proof wouldn't have been available unless he intentionally incriminated himself on the promise he would be given immunity from the criminal charges.

The real crux was "Cosby and his legal team reasonably believed that his testimony would not be used against him". I agree the DA went beyond his authority in the deal, and should have sought a judicial hearing to confirm the deal was valid, but since he didn't here we are. And as much as we don't think justice was appropriately carried out, the court has to consider the rights of the accused and the promises of the government for "innocent until proven guilty" to mean anything.

@freemo I believe Cosby is in the wrong, but the reason he was freed is actually more nuanced, and was caused by a prosecutorial error and a lack of judicial oversight years ago.

The DA, during Cosby's initial testimony, offered him criminal immunity in exchange for a "forced" testimony during the simultaneous civil proceeding (i.e. he wouldn't be charged criminally but was forced to testify in the lawsuit that was going on at the time).

This deal was made by the prosecutor as he wasn't confident in the burden of proof being held up in criminal court but thought he could get justice for the plaintiff in civil proceedings instead (in criminal cases, the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas in civil cases, it's "the preponderance of evidence"). Ultimately this deal led to a settlement of (I think) $3.4 million dollars for the victim during the initial cases, but in exchange for criminal immunity. While not perfect, it's certainly better than nothing for the plaintiff if a jury decided there wasn't enough evidence to convict, which was especially likely if he didn't testify by exercising his 5th amendment rights.

The new case that was opened leveraged transcripts of his initial confession, which he as promised by the initial DA would never be used to prosecute him. Thus, they violated his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination to obtain the evidence, and he was let go. This was all determined completely irrespective of whether or not he was actually guilty, but due to this error the Supreme Court determined his rights were violated so badly that he couldn't be tried again (in a 5-4 or 6-3 decision). The dissent was only caused by the decision of upholding double Jeopardy in this case, not whether his rights were violated.

While I think he should have been put away, this was ultimately a compromise by the initial DA, and a further mistake by current prosecutors to leverage evidence that was "fruit from the poisonous tree".

P.S. IDC about weed, people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't hurt other people.

Does anyone here want to listen to a very talented korean man play the sax so smoothly you slide out of your chair?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avzaRIJDVlI

@freemo @icedquinn @zpartacoos

Here's a link. Main page as in profile, or a toot not in this thread:

https://blob.cat/objects/ca19e9dd-6ff2-4eb2-9291-114482cd1702

@freemo @icedquinn @zpartacoos Just got sub-tooted on his main page lmao

@freemo @icedquinn @zpartacoos I will if necessary: [relevant XKCD](https://xkcd.com/386/).

@icedquinn @freemo @zpartacoos That's a few words for "I didn't understand your argument so I'm going to assume I won" lmao

Your conclusion, if I must spell it out for you, is nonsense. You're making generalizations about human beings based on a rudimentary simulation that considers nothing about how people actually behave, how the world is, and more. So don't erroneously extrapolate between your stupid little bugs, and people, without sufficient evidence.

@freemo @zpartacoos No, my point was it's possible to construct a strong, shared ethos that is independent of group uniformity by actively choosing to include other groups and selecting the crème de la crème of their ideas as a basis set.

Thus, you can have a strong ethos that doesn't include discrimination, precisely due to the lack of insulation which is now available.

@icedquinn @freemo @zpartacoos I will concede the fact that communities tend to crop up in large scale networks due to the efficiency of scale-free behavior; however, rationalizing your position based on the simplified objective function of bugs in a toy simulation, and the term "spooky" isn't sufficient.

I work on simulating these sorts of networks and there's a lot of literature you may want to look into before making snap judgements like that.