fritztastic

I can't speak to everyone's experience or abilities, but I can say that one of the hardest things about overcoming abuse is identifying what reality is and distinguishing the difference between what is true about who/what you are and something you are gping through as a result of the experiences you had.

Between the inflexible authoritarian way my parents were, and the coping mechanisms I used to make it through the years I lived with them, it was a many-years-long journey later on in my adult life (and still ongoing) to work back through the layers and shift the foundations from where they were involuntarily built to where I wanted them to be.

I have a particular grief, for the time in my life I could have been more like who I may have been had it not been for abuse and trauma. The years of lost experiences and mistakes that may have been much less arduous had it not been for the coping mechanisms I adopted for survival. When you say you don't know how to complain- I think it may be more accurate that you may have trouble with communicating with/relating to other people, or you can't find the proper way to articulate how big of an impact or determine at what point something is really part of you or a mindspace you find yourself in.

I spent a long time trying to deal with it on my own, but where I really started to make traction was talking to a professional and actually being honest, painfully so when it came to my dysfunctional way of dealing with intimacy. After some years I was able to begin admitting where I was the source of my own anguish and forgiving myself but also taking accountability of putting in the work to change what I could so I could live life more functionally and really be able to experience things without that weight I hadn't realized I had been carrying all along. To an extent I had become attached to it and it became an extension of me, a part of my identity.

My family in general was (in some ways still is) incredibly problematic, and I've come to realize a lot of the problems started with a desire to be validated and/or accepted by the parental figures. Not saying this is the case for everyone, but it is possible to forgive people (and still love them, if you wish) who caused a lot of harm, and work to heal. You deserved better, and future you can find what you yearn- it's not an easy road working through all that but there is hope to be found in the process which may not have felt feasible otherwise.

Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the US Constitution, both at federal and state levels. [1]

At least, at this time, with current interpretation- "the Supreme Court has explained that people must have notice of the possible criminal penalties for their actions at the time they act" [2] (See also Weaver v Graham[3])

This might be subject to change.

[1]https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-...

[2]https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-...

[3]http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep450/usrep450024/usr...

Privatized incarceration facilities with incentives to keep people locked up, and influencing the CJ system to maintain profits is also an issue. There are numerous cases of businesses doing shady things to pocket more money.

It is possible to be outraged by all these things at the same time. No one has to pick between different types of exploitation and only be mad at one thing.

Amazing work! Thanks for sharing!

Not a musician, so I don't really have the proper vocabulary, but- as a fan of industrial specifically (and electronic music in general) and as a writer, this has a really nice balance of texture and atmosphere. I could see it being incorporated with visuals and other elements of design/sensory experience for a cerebrally lush creative project. It was nice to listen to, thanks for sharing.

There is an excellent book on birds called The Birds of Pandemonium, by Michele Raffin. I read it some years ago, and recall it being fascinating and beautifully written. Really gave me a great sense of appreciation and wonderment for birds. Corvids are clever and very intelligent, it's such a treat to see it on video- thanks for sharing this.

I don't have a suitable answer to your question but I wanted to mention that I also wonder how come there isn't more discussion about implementing/improving tidal or wave power. There are numerous innovations that might be possible in the horizon, including possibly using fusion, but other alternate approaches such as decentralization and energy storage are also interesting yet seldom discussed.

I remember reading about this as a child in the 90s, it seemed like there was a lot of hype (and hope) that this would be possible in a few decades. This was also accompanied by some skepticism and fear, similar to how people talked about cloning and genetic modification. Then there was the legend that Walt Disney was cryogenically frozen (he wasn't).

Interesting read. I was hoping they'd mention suspended animation and studying how some people managed to survive or be resuscitated after accidentally being frozen for lengths of time thought to be impossible to come back from.

Personally, I think if there is a way to bring about immortality it would look more like transferring/uploading consciousness than reanimating a whole human body. Besides which, wouldn't people want new bodies anyway, especially depending on what caused their deaths. (which reminds me of the head transplant that was supposed to happen) There are a lot of different issues also involved with this, besides the ability to succeed, which I find fascinating to think about and discuss.

Perhaps both these options will become possible... maybe neither.

Wow, the criticism of his "Faces of Affiction" work is spot on.

From his Istanbul post:

Because being an addict here is an ugly and gross rebellion against a town that feels like a single massive mosque. A place that is welcoming, humble, peaceful, and sublimely beautiful. It is like pissing on an alter. A gross, ugly, and rebellious act that will bring scorn and shame. Both in the physical and spiritual world. US cities by comparison have all the ethos of an office park. Drab, soulless, and endlessly competitive, where selfishness is rewarded. Being an addict there is like pissing on the drab shrub at the edge of a massive parking lot. It doesn’t feel that wrong. It even feels a little right. Especially if your a tad depressed. A tad isolated. A tad lonely. And many people are."

There is an issue here with this attempt at documenting people but without taking the time to learn and understand how to do it respectfully, ethically, and with consideration to the people he's observing. I want to believe his motivation comes from a good place, that he wants to bring attention to people's lives... but the way his writing reads sounds more like the fetishization of the marginalized and elitism over exceptionalism. It sounds like "yes I'm privileged but unlike those other privileged people I talk to the poors", because rather than centering the voices of the people he claims to "inhabit their tiny slice of the world"(while claiming his goal is "to better understand how they see the universe and their place in it") he dishes out his value judgements. The hubris that all you need to get an idea of how people live is to... show up. He does write that he sees traveling as fiction with the plot written in real time- evidently with him as the MC. He seems to want to change for the better though, and I hope he learns to invest a little more time into figuring out how to look at people's lives more respectfully than as entertainment.

people who refuse to understand how the greenhouse effect works despite encountering it on a regular basis

Astounding.

Something about this just seems very odd to me.

As someone who grew up in the global South, this reads to me like a person from a privileged background trying to relate to the everyday people in other places and the marginalized- but it comes off sounding like a lot of projectionand assumptions- it would read much better if the conclusions were accompanied with dialogue from people, maybe explanations of where those statements are coming from.

I don’t travel like most people do I would think most travel is done by a wealthy few, but most travelers aren't wealthy- if that makes sense? It sounds like the "travel" being referred to here is "flying somewhere and being a tourist" but in fact to many people "travel" means taking the train/bus to another city, staying in a hostel, wandering around. Most people who go to see a wonder of the world do it because this might be the one time in their life they can afford to visit NYC, a place many people dream of seeing, and so they want to experience those things that are iconic there. I guess it really stands out to me, this writing sounds like "I'm not like those other stereotypical tourists" and the stereotypes are those behaviors associated with privileged westerners- which isn't really an accurate representation of most travelers.

From the Istanbul post:

Most Turks are not secular though, and neither are they religious nuts like them Arabs

He considers education by traveling as sufficient, which I believe is not the best approach. Might be a good idea to read up a little about the history and cultures of a region before going.

There is a lot going on with his writing that comes off ethnocentric, uninformed, insensitive. I'm not going to dissect it, but I'll just say I recommend familiarization with cultural geography, anthropology, and ethnography if the topic of understanding people in different places interests you- because this blog is rife with problematic bias and some really broad generalizations that are prejudice at best, racism at worst.

There's something about underground infrastructure that really intrigues me, despite how claustrophobic it can feel if I start thinking about what lies above.

I find it really interesting in this tunnel there are lifts for cars, because the entrance/exit points are vertical drops to the tunnel.

It's not just about temp change and ocean levels- it's the shifts in climate affecting ecosystems (for example, speeding up desertification in some places and bringing extreme weather to others). Sure, people can move inland, but moving inland isn't going to help the ecosystems. Humans are very adaptable, we have technology and skills to handle rapidly changing parameters- other organisms can't. Changes of salinity in water, drier soil, excessive rain, first/last frost, etc. are happening too fast and causing widespread destruction to and collapse of ecosystems worldwide- the affected flora/fauna aren't like us- they simply won't survive.

Bleak, but also hilarious the lengths the fossil fuel industry will be defended and coddled- almost as astounding as the people who refuse to understand how the greenhouse effect works despite encountering it on a regular basis. Scientists have been warning about the potential climate impacts since more than a century ago:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a144161...

As someone from one of those countries, I'm well aware.

I'm not saying the US, and/or proxies of the agendas of the powerful who stand to gain from exploitation and meddling, aren't involved. I would expect they are very much involved, and I would be very skeptical of any claim they aren't.

What I'm saying is simply that despite this, people in those places could conceivably be independently fed up- and their dissatisfaction with their regimes stands on its own and is valid. There is a lot of nuance and a lot of different intersecting motivations and interests at play.

I just think, in my personal opinion, that those things people fight and risk dying for (freedom from persecution, personal safety, to be able to put food on the table, to care for family, etc) aren't only happening because of outside factors and political reasons, these are human concerns. People in Iran, Saudi Arabia, anywhere else, aren't just pawns susceptible to propagands- they understand there are all sorts of players trying to gain dominance over their lives. A lot of people in the US have these broad ideas about people in entire regions, as though they're monoliths- like people in Iran/Saudi Arabia were content and would have been obedient if not for foreign involvement, which I think is simplistic and I disagree with this assumption.

People in an uprising and nations in upheaval are especially vulnerable to external groups swooping in to manipulate the situation to their interests- this much is true, and it can also be true that people would have been rising up regardless. How this plays out over time is yet to be seen but unfortunately the most likely scenario is some other despot will step in to further their personal agenda at the expense of the people, whether they align with US interests or otherwise... like anywhere else, those in power will fight to maintain and gain power and control, no matter the human cost and devastation- this is true everywhere.

This is a very simplistic view of the tensions in the region, which have been ongoing for decades. Just as the US has reason to retaliate against Saudi Arabia, many other places could also have reasons to push the ruling family out of power and gain influence.

It also fails to account for the autonomy of the people there. Is it really so hard to believe that they are rebelling against authoritarianism?

Even if there is an interest to empower the people to oust the regime, wouldn't it be fomenting on already existing unhappiness?

Interestingly, the same can be said of unrest anywhere- undoubtedly the agendas of several states will always align with weakening their competitors/adversaries.

When you consider the things everyday people care about and strive for, it can be argued that any party interested in destabilizing another nation would play to those aspirations in such a way as to further their control- this is true of almost everywhere, it is not exclusive to any one people or any one institution, and it can be seen in every region. In any given place, if you take a close look, there are varying levels of influence from foreign powers- often with the goal to secure economic goals or obtain natural resources.

the intent was to make sure people instantly understand without context

This goes without saying, but this isn't exclusive to AlQaeda. Using video editing to convey a strong message isn't enough reason to conclude there is a link to foreign intelligence. Most likely they were just trying to be direct and convey a message (a statement to the regime that the people are tired of and angry about the oppression/violence)- none of what you mentioned to explain your association to AlQaeda makes any sense- "musical tribal message"? Are you inplying AlQaeda is controlled by a foreign agency? Which agency?

Really makes it sound like you have a very vague understanding of the region, alongside a very strong bias.

If they were against ethnic groups, as the current western propaganda wants us to believe, they would have applied that policy so they'd have less of that "problematic ethnic group"

They didn't, which mean they are fine having ethnic groups

Or, they just didn't deem the issue relevant enough to spend the resources to deal with it. China is a large country, some of those ethnic groups exist in remote locations, some very difficult to reach- it has been the case numerous times when a natural disaster occurred and aid was slow to reach those regions because of logistical difficulties.

Perhaps it wasn't that they are fine with the ethnic groups, but that they were indifferent and/or deemed them unimportant unless they had sufficient reason to think they warranted the attention/involvement.

Mind that just because they didn't want to lower their numbers, doesn't mean they have no issue with those groups, or that they wouldn't have issues with them if the situation and their perception of them changed.

None of what you mention presents plausible evidence of your statement implying that CIA/MI6 have monolithic control over information regarding the camps. Not to say they aren't manipulating information or have no involvement, but none of the evidence you present backs up your claim.

Enforcing the birth of children and sending people to camps are two very different issues.

The content not being HD could be explained by them using less detectable drones. I would imagine that flying a military or HD drone over sovereign territory would be dangerous and an act of aggression, so it's within the realm of belief that someone, perhaps covertly, used a drone less likely to draw suspicion, not easily detectable or traceable to foreign interests.

Moreover if you watch the Frontline (the same source you cited above) documentaries about Iraq, you'll find they present people working in intelligence at the time explicitly told officials Zarqawi was sketchy and that the information he presented was not supported by the intel they had.

I'm not saying it's a certainty without doubt that the camps are everything what some sources allege them to be, but it's also not certain without a doubt that they aren't.

Really sounds to me like all those flimsy excuses are just fabrications to obfuscate an ulterior motive behind the sensors. It's very sinister and dishonest, like the person authorizing their usage and answering questions about that decision either doesn't fully understand why they're doing what they're doing, has no regard for the ethical issues involved with invasive surveillance as well as no concern for misuse of resources, or hiding something. Perhaps all of the above.

If you do decide to partake, make sure you have someone with you, not only in case things go awry but just to help guide you along. It can be very disorienting and scary, when you start realizing the shop has sailed, so to speak. Hard to put it to words, and I'm sure people experience it differently, but if you start to panic things can take a turn. I had a friend once call me, terrified and barely coherent, when I showed up they were not even sure how much time had passed or what they'd done. Luckily I was able to calm them down, and things went smoothly from there.

Most importantly do research and be very very careful with doses or combinations, as (depending on what you have and where you got it) it's possible to overdo it when you think you didn't take enough. Better to err on the side of caution than to be overwhelmed, and because people react differently don't just think because someone else's dose worked for them that it will work for you.

Even without knowing the letter of the law to a T I'm aware that in a criminal case evidence is confiscated, assets are frozen, etc. during prosecution. It's standard procedure. I don't see how holding bitcoin from a money laundering case is evidence of government corruption. Sure, the CJ system is broken and awful... but your ideas of why are just incorrect.

The active threat of someone intentionally driving through a security checkpoint at a military base is an entirely different context. At the point they're crossing the threshold they've already disregarded very obvious markings, signs, obstacles, and undobtedly commands from the sentries on post. There are a number of scenarios for which there are pre planned responses- deviating from those leaves you facing the UCMJ and you're expected to have a very solid justification for using deadly force.

Shooting at a vehicle not actively causing harm due to a perceived threat because it looks like the vehicle of someone you reasonably expect to be a threat is... well, that's a stretch.

Anecdotally I can say from personal experience there is a lot more restraint being used when guarding people/places relating to national security in place where you can reasonably expect to encounter threats and terrorism than the amount of restraint police here use at civilians domestically.

The regulations on the use of deadly force in the military are much more stringent and the escalation has to occur in a specific way to justify the use of deadly force, even when a person is being hostile. In an active war zone, the situation is different but it is a war zone (which is the exception, not the norm)- in most situations for most people trained in the military, the standard way to respond is much more reserved in terms of violence than how a lot of police behave domestically (maybe because of the context of preventing an international incident) and there are very strict rules and serious consequences to using a firearm- at least in most places/situations when servicemembers are issued a firearm.

Gage claims that Tipping wound up with three broken ribs, a lacerated liver, head injuries, and a broken neck. "His heart eventually stopped working because of his injuries" and "he was paralyzed….He had subdural hematomas at three places on the left side and three places on the right side. There is no way that grappling would have caused those injuries the way the LAPD portrayed it."

Sure sounds less like a simulation and more like an actual event.

It's really not easy to have someone die during an exercise with this many injuries caused by physical contact. Things like drownings, falls, and collisions can occur in a hugh risk training event- but this extent of injuries from falling on the ground seems real tough to spin as accidental or unintentional. At best you'd have to be extremely negligent, at worst this was a deliberate choice.

You'd really think someone would notice the person they're training with is actually hurt and stop to check in on them, presumably there are measures in place to pause the exercise which people are aware of before starting- were these ignored? I guess we'd have to have a discussion on the intent of the exercise and the extent to which force is used with no regard for safety during training, which is a whole other issue.

The Maigret database contains not only the original websites, but also mirrors, archives, and aggregators.

Deeply unsettling. Having had my share of encounteres with people online taking personal interest in an unfriendly context, this is worrying. I don't need to run a search of my info to know to use different usernames, but an automated feature that allows just about anybody determined enough to easily find not only linked accounts but archived data. I'm glad I no longer use social media, at least infrequently and not the major ones- but the fact someone can find archived information? Time to make some adjustments.

Definitely nobodies online. I don't think anything I've ever done or will do would put me in the interest radius of big agencies, government or private (outside of perhaps advertising and a few exceptions).

I have however, encountered death threats or obsessive/hostile behavior from people online who decided they have a beef with me for one reason or another. I'm much more inclined to be wary of some unstable individual having the means to find my identity (and therefore my location)- potentially using this to act on their emotions IRL.

Most people were unaware/indifferent, and a nonnegligible number thought it was cool/alright, and tens of thousands openly showed up for it, untold numbers directly/indirectly supported it- undoubtedly some never stopped.

https://anightatthegarden.com/

This event was mentioned in this video about the Bogdanoff twins who, arguably, did the same thing- but to physics.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=2O1QA1VoRMM

Going by the definition in the referenced link,

“a statement of your experience with or knowledge of inclusion, diversity, equity, and belonging efforts and your plans for incorporating them into your teaching, research, mentoring, and service.”

it doesn't seem outrageous- it does force the writer to think about their past experiences and observations in regards to inclusion, diversity, and equity... which makes the author of this opinion piece feel this way, and this seems the reaction has more to do with their perception and personal view of (and disagreement with) the prioritization of these concepts than it has to do with the requirement itself.