Randomness thread, part two.

[boost]

Cops often use deceitful tactics to circumvent people's rights, when they get called on it they turn to bullying. It's true that if you haven't done anything wrong, there likely is nothing immediately at stake aside from a hit to your dignity, but when no one stands up to these bullies, the stakes for society are quite high.

Also I just want to point out that, while we can't read the cop's mind, this is a disturbingly standard practice to approach people filming to intimidate. There are so many laws on the books that they can almost always cite something, and you have there in front of you an armed agent of the state with the power to turn your life upside down with little risk of repercussion to themselves. On the surface it may look like two idiots being stubborn, but one person's actions are clearly a net + for society, while the other is behaving in a net - way.

[boost]

We certainly do have the right to remain silent here in the UK, at least in interrogation and in court. I believe if you're asked for your details by police you do have to provide them or could face arrest, but at the same time you don't have to tell them, you could simply show them ID.

A "Select Committee" can compel people to appear before them and give evidence, and if they don't they could be charged with contempt, but this would be very unusual for a normal criminal case, rather it's something that concerns the House of Lords. At least that's the impression I get by briefly researching this.

Every state is going to find it's own balance between the power of the police and the rights of the people. On one hand it's perfectly reasonable for law enforcement to have the ability to identify people at their discretion-- on the other hand, this can be and does get used as an intimidation and harassment tactic

[Poopadoop]

I think the right to remain silent is subtly different between the US and UK.

Here, you do have the option to remain silent, but if you do then choosing not to talk can be held as mitigating evidence against you in court. So choosing to remain silent is not a slam-dunk tactic to use here, whereas in the states, you can only ever incriminate yourself by speaking, so your best option by default is to keep schtum.


The other one that's interesting is the US fourth amendment right to "not be hassled unduly by cops" (paraphrasing here ldo). In the UK, I don't know if that's an inalienable right or not, though I imagine that there's some subjective line they're not allowed to cross here as well.

All that said, the cops here seem to be much better trained at de-escalation and just dealing with the public in general than in the US (or Canada for that matter). Cops here are generally much better mannered, and much less likely to start waving their dicks in your face just because they can than cops in N. America. Maybe it was something to do with not being armed, dunno.

[Poopadoop]

this is a disturbingly standard practice to approach people filming to intimidate.

Seems like an odd time to choose to misbehave, while someone's pointing a camera at you. If they're willing to act like that while being filmed, it makes me wonder what they do when they think there's no-one watching.

[Poopadoop]

A "Select Committee" can compel people to appear before them and give evidence, and if they don't they could be charged with contempt, but this would be very unusual for a normal criminal case, rather it's something that concerns the House of Lords. At least that's the impression I get by briefly researching this.

Sure, you can be asked to bear witness in a lot of contexts. You can be subpaeoned before a court as well to testify against someone (or at least someone who isn't your spouse), and you have no right to remain silent then.

But that's not what that rule is there for. It's to protect you from saying something that might be used against YOU. Even if you get forced to testify you can (in the US) refuse to answer certain questions on the ground that you can't be compelled to incriminate yourself. Not sure you have that right here.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The right to remain silent doesn't extend into a court room.

The Miranda rights are read to you when the police intend to ask you "guilt-seeking questions." You have the right to not talk to the police, and to get a lawyer.

Once you're under oath in a court of law, you can only remain silent if you "plead the 5th" - invoke your 5th amendment right to not be compelled to testify against yourself.

You can be compelled to answer almost all questions by the judge or be held in contempt of court.

[Poopadoop]

Don't know for sure but I think that only applies if you're a witness, not a defendant. The defendant in a (USA) trial can choose to either testify or not. If they do, they have to answer all questions. If they don't, well, they've basically invoked their right to remain silent.

A lot of defendants in murder trials, for example, choose not to testify because there's a good chance the prosecutor will find a way to trip them up.

Afaik, you can theoretically go all the way from being a suspect in a case, to being charged, to the end of your trial without ever saying a word about the matter to anyone besides your lawyer.

[Poopadoop]

A witness can "plead the fifth", OTOH, when a question is posed to them the answer to which could end them up in trouble.

Like if your mate Bugsy was on trial for murder, and you got called as a witness and asked: "Were you there when Bugsy knifed Fingers, and is so what were you doing?"

If the answer is "Yes I was there holding Fingers' while Bugsy knifed him," then you don't have to answer but can plead the fifth because your answer is admitting to taking to part in a murder. The only time you would be wise to answer truthfully is if you had been granted immunity in return for testifying against Bugsy.

But, if you're Bugsy, you have no obligation to testify at your own trial. If your lawyer calls you, then the prosecutor is free to cross-examine and you have to answer his questions as well. But if your lawyer doesn't call you, the prosecutor can't call you either. Afaik, at least for a criminal trial in the US, this is how it works.

[OngBonga]

Here, you do have the option to remain silent, but if you do then choosing not to talk can be held as mitigating evidence against you in court.

This is what the police say when reading your rights...

“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

So a failure to answer questions could be used against you in court, but not necessarily. It's hard to give examples because I'm obviously not an expert in law, I'm simply using google. But the impression I get is that guilt cannot be assumed as a result of silence.

So if they ask you "did you commit this offence" and you remain silent, that in isolation is not an admission of guilt.

But if they ask "where were you at this time and date" and you remain silent, then when it comes to defending yourself in court, it's going to be very difficult to rely on an alibi because you didn't give the police the opportunity to check your alibi.

For certain though, if what you're accused of is serious, you should definitely remain silent until you have taken legal advice. That will not harm your defence at all.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah that sounds about right.

What about if you're a defendant in UK criminal court? Can you forced to answer questions even if your lawyer would prefer you not to speak at all?

[OngBonga]

Yeah that sounds about right.

What about if you're a defendant in UK criminal court? Can you forced to answer questions even if your lawyer would prefer you not to speak at all?

I'm not sure but the lawyer should be telling me if I have to answer. I don't think a defendant who lies in court is committing perjury, unlike a witness. I'd be surprised if a defendant cannot remain silent in court but maybe he is compelled to answer questions.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think a defendant who lies in court is committing perjury

I doubt this is the case anywhere. It's not like it's up to the court to solve the riddle of your testimony as a defendant. It's on you to tell the truth.

Don't they make you "swear to tell the truth" here? If not on a Bible maybe a picture of the Queen or some shit?

[OngBonga]

Just taking a look at this.

As for being questioned by police, say you've been caught with cocaine. Refusing to answer where the cocaine came from can be used as an admission of guilt. And refusing to give details of an alibi, like I suggested, is harmful to your defence.

A defendant can remain silent in court, and this isn't harmful unless the judge warns you that failure to answer the question is harmful and you continue to refuse to answer. Also, if you say you a prepared to answer a question and then don't, that is also potentially harmful.

Another aspect of this is if you're facing a jury. A juror might, in his own discretion (unless the judge directs otherwise), consider your refusal to answer question as implying guilt. It might be the one thing that tips the balance in favour of a guilty verdict.

So you do have to be careful with regards remaining silent. You should definitely be taking your lawyer's advice rather than gambling that you'll get away with it.

[OngBonga]

I doubt this is the case anywhere. It's not like it's up to the court to solve the riddle of your testimony as a defendant. It's on you to tell the truth.

Don't they make you "swear to tell the truth" here? If not on a Bible maybe a picture of the Queen or some shit?

If lying in court as a defendant amounts to perjury, then literally everyone who pleads not guilty and is found guilty has lied to the court and has committed perjury. But that doesn't happen.

[OngBonga]

Jeffery Archer went to prison for perjury, he made false claims in a civil court against a newspaper that resulted in him being awarded damages.

I'm not aware of any defendant who lied to court so as to not incriminate himself being found guilty of perjury. I don't think that's what perjury is. I could be wrong though.

[Poopadoop]

A plea is not the same as testimony afaik. You can plead innocent and be wrong for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with lying: misinterpretation of the law, poor recollection, etc.. So pleading innocent and being found guilty is not tantamount to a finding of perjury.

But if you go up as a witness in your own defence and are proven to be lying, they can charge you with perjury even if you're still found to be innocent of the original charge. The perjury charge has to be dealt with in another trial.

[OngBonga]

Well yes you're right, a plea is not the same as lying in court. However, if you're guilty and plead not guilty, and then proceed to answer questions on that premise, you have no choice but to lie. You can't plead not guilty when guilty and then tell the truth, can you?

[OngBonga]

Basically, in the majority of cases where someone pleads not guilty and then is proven by the court to be guilty, the court has proven that you lied. The only way to avoid that is to remain silent in cross examination, which as we've discussed is not wise, especially if the judge insists you answer or if you're facing a jury.

[OngBonga]

Obviously I realise there are many cases where you can be guilty, plead not guilty, and not lie, such as if you're accused of murder are you're claiming mitigating circumstances, such as self defence. If the court decides your defence is not viable, that's not necessarily proving you lied to the court.

But I'm talking here about people who do lie to maintain their insistence they are not guilty. This happens all the time.

[Poopadoop]

But I'm talking here about people who do lie to maintain their insistence they are not guilty. This happens all the time.

Yes, and people do get found guilty of the original crime and then later convicted of perjury for their testimony. It's just not automatic, it involves setting up a whole other trial. That's probably why prosecutors usually don't pursue the post-conviction perjury charge unless it's a slam dunk.

[OngBonga]

From what I can tell, perjury in the context of criminal trials applies to witnesses (and interpreters). If you're taking the stand as the accused, you're not a witness.

It's a complicated law and it's not easy to interpret the legalese so I'm far from certain about this. All I can say for sure is ask your lawyer before lying in court in an attempt to avoid incriminating yourself!

[boost]

Seems like an odd time to choose to misbehave, while someone's pointing a camera at you. If they're willing to act like that while being filmed, it makes me wonder what they do when they think there's no-one watching.

Yeah, well, google Homan Square black site. The short of it is that the Chicago Police used one of their facilities as a black site detention center, "disappearing" suspects before booking, torturing them, etc.

I'm not sure what the answer is, police departments around the world seem to attract many of the people that should most be kept away from law enforcement-- I do think you're right that deemphasizing the armed tough guy part and putting the focus on deescalation, serving the community, etc is a good place to start. You often hear people saying that because of the prevalence of guns in America, cops need to be armed-- but people seem to completely miss that essentially no one is going to shoot a cop at a traffic stop when that cop isn't armed. Most people will take the ticket and be on their way. Someone with a warrant may try to flee, and ok, you've got their license plate, and you can call in an armed response team.

[OngBonga]

I think the point about armed cops in an armed country is that you need an armed response to armed incidents. It's not about the traffic stop, it's about the robberies, domestics, and street shootings. When people are facing a lengthy spell in jail, that's when they're more likely to shoot a cop rather than face arrest, and the cop needs to be able to defend himself.

Guns are not a major problem in the UK. Of course some criminals do possess them, and we do have armed response units in incidents where it's necessary, but there's no need for our street cops to be armed with guns. It's not so simple in USA.

That's not to say I approve of armed cops. I realise that comes with its own problems. But it seems preferable to regular cops not being able to act as any kind of effective deterrent to armed crime.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think there's a huge problem with the first responders being armed, though.
I'm not opposed to an armed police force.

I'm opposed to sending an armed person to deal with a situation that is non-violent.
I'm opposed to police shooting unarmed people because the police felt [whatever emotion] and had a gun in their hands.

I'm also opposed to the fact that when someone calls 911 to report a mental health issue, it's the police who are sent. The police have been complaining that this is not their job or their training to deal with, and I agree.
Calling to divert *some* resources to take this burden off their shoulders is listening to and supporting the police, but it got treated like some anarchists drivel with the whole "defund the police" meme.

IMO, we need to isolate emergency responses to non-violent situations and violent ones.

I'm not opposed to sending armed cops to any 911 call. I'd only ask that those armed cops are NOT the ones in command of the tactical situation. The situation should be initially handled by someone trained in conflict resolution and deescalation. That person should be the one "in charge" of the police response. The armed responders should be empowered to react, but only in exceptional circumstances. The unarmed commander should have the primary say, but not so much that the armed people cannot act on their training to make a gut decision in the moment.

There just has to be much more accountability.

[Poopadoop]

^^ Yup.

Here's a perfect example of a situation where you don't need a cop with a gun showing up. Not because the guy got shot (he didn't), but because he got arrested when he did nothing wrong.

[boost]

Double yup

Also thanks for sharing these vids poop-- he does a great job of analyzing the situations and feels even handed.

[boost]

I've watched a few more and I was just about to post saying: "maybe he's not so even handed, the cops always get an F." But then, idk, he really does seem even handed and maybe cops just all are F level cops

[boost]

ok, here's one that bucks the trend

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu8810MIowY

[Poopadoop]

^ yeah, he has a few like that where one cop is getting an F and another comes in and says 'hey wtf dude, that ain't right'.

[Poopadoop]

I can't believe a whole day's gone by since this happened, and Ong hasn't mentioned the Assange extradition ruling.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59608641

Ok, so what am I missing here? The guy commits espionage to embarrass the West and we're meant to believe it was some whistleblower thing about sticking it the man, right?

Also, some of the stuff he leaked related to outing men from certain countries where homosexuality is illegal. Not sure that's the kind of whistleblowing we should be defending.

[oskar]

How is it espionage though? If you can be convicted of espionage and sentenced to half a millenium in prison for publishing information that has been obtained through something that in itself could hardly be called espionage, what would that mean for freedom of the press?

[oskar]

So TIL Twitter informs you when your tweet gets viewed a lot. I replied to one of those stereotypical: girl imposes height restriction on tinder dates and gets called out by the teeming millions all going "I would totally suck off a bridge troll if he was nice to me" or whatever, and I just replied with: We all draw the line somewhere. Which apparently got viewed 436 times, but got exactly zero likes despite being an obviously true statement.

[OngBonga]

I've kind of avoided the Assange case because I actually feel quite passionate about that and will probably get angry if I think about it too much. It's dreadful and is evidence of a global fascist elite. Freedom of press is dead. If you take on the elite you will lose and lose badly.

Craig Murray has just spent time in prison, too. The former ambassador whose blog I read. They threw him in on a contempt of court charge for allegedly allowing "jigsaw identification" of an accuser in the Alex Salmond case (of which he was cleared).

Murray is a close ally of Assange. It's clear what's going on. They're trying to intimidate journalists who are more interested in truth than they are their career.

I don't want to be angry at politics, it's not a nice way to spend my time. That's largely why I'm so flippant, why Boris or even Trump don't bother me in the slightest. I choose not to get angry about it. For the most part, politics is theatre. Everyone is outraged about Christmas parties instead of Assange. That's not an accident. That's precisely what they want. They want the people being indignant about lockdown parties instead of noticing the creeping fascism.

And punishing dissidents like this is a hallmark of fascism, make no mistake.

This for me is why the Tories are unvoteable. Not because Boris is a clown, certainly not for economic reasons, but for foreign policy and human rights abuses. And Labour are no better. I doubt very much they'd have the backbone to stand up to USA on this matter. Blair certainly wouldn't. Corbyn probably would have, but Starmer won't.

If only Corbyn was a free market capitalist. Then he might have been voteable.

[Poopadoop]

I replied to one of those stereotypical: girl imposes height restriction on tinder dates and gets called out by the teeming millions all going "I would totally suck off a bridge troll if he was nice to me" or whatever, and I just replied with: We all draw the line somewhere.

It's funny because height is obviously important to most women, but it gets weaponised by shorter-than-average men into a preference that reflects some kind of character flaw, as if women are supposed to be above the laws of physical attraction.

Which apparently got viewed 436 times, but got exactly zero likes despite being an obviously true statement.

I can only assume, based on my experiences, that the point of the conversation was for short men to make women feel guilty for not fucking them. 'Cause you know, nothing is more sexy than someone whining about how no-one will fuck them.

[Poopadoop]

How is it espionage though? If you can be convicted of espionage and sentenced to half a millenium in prison for publishing information that has been obtained through something that in itself could hardly be called espionage, what would that mean for freedom of the press?

So anyone should be allowed to hack into gov't computers? How about your computer? What if someone started a website called OskarLeaks that published the fact you're PC browser history was full of sites showing auto-asphyxiation group masturbation with trans midgets?

Still don't see anyone sticking up for him leaking the homosexual orientation of those guys who are probably dead now thanks to him.

[Poopadoop]

This for me is why the Tories are unvoteable. Not because Boris is a clown, certainly not for economic reasons, but for foreign policy and human rights abuses. And Labour are no better.

Can't remember the last time Labour brought a law before parliament that allows the gov't to remove the citizenship of anyone they felt like with no justification. Or a law making it illegal to rescue drowning refugees. Or a law making peaceful protest a jail-able offence. Must have missed those. Meanwhile Tories have done that all in the past year.

[OngBonga]

No, that's because Labour haven't been anywhere near power since the Blair/Brown days, and they weren't exactly your regular Labour party, they were self declared "New Labour", which basically meant Blue Tory. And this is the type of Labour that Keir Starmer represents. He's no Corbyn.

I say Labour are no better because I don't hear Keir Starmer speaking out about Assange. Do you?

[Jack Sawyer]

Just dropping by to say hi!

I hope everyone is having/will have a happy holiday period. Just randomly wanted to send some good spirits and well wishes your way.

Carry on.

[Poopadoop]

Hey Jack, back at you buddy!

[Poopadoop]

I say Labour are no better because I don't hear Keir Starmer speaking out about Assange. Do you?

I don't hear him sticking up for other criminals either.

[Poopadoop]

I don't hear Keir Starmer speaking out about Assange.

Yeah Starmer sounds like he'd be awful on human rights. Better to have a party in charge that wants to dismantle human rights bit by bit.

was named as QC of the Year in the field of human rights and public law in 2007

Working pro bono, Starmer is instrumental in overturning the mandatory death penalty in Uganda and saving the lives of 417 people.

in 2005 he acts for the pair of environmentalists who took fast food chain McDonald’s to court in the ‘McLibel’ trial, sensationally winning an appeal in the European Court of Human Rights against the British government

[OngBonga]

If you're going down the "Assange is a criminal" line then this isn't going to be a productive discussion. For one, his "crime" is journalism. Secondly, even if an American court decides he committed a crime, he didn't do so in USA, which then begs the question... is the entire world USA's legal jurisdiction?

I can't honestly believe you think he should be facing the fate he faces. I can't believe that a left leaning person, someone who claims to care about human rights, thinks what's happening to Assange is right.

He's not a criminal, no more than you are if USA say you are.

[OngBonga]

Hi Jack, bit early for season's greetings but have a good one all the same!

[oskar]

So anyone should be allowed to hack into gov't computers? How about your computer? What if someone started a website called OskarLeaks that published the fact you're PC browser history was full of sites showing auto-asphyxiation group masturbation with trans midgets?

Still don't see anyone sticking up for him leaking the homosexual orientation of those guys who are probably dead now thanks to him.

Journalists publishing leaked documents happens all the time. They have a duty to redact, which is where I see a possible charge, but this gets bungled all the time. Just very recently Paul Manafort ratted on himself by improperly redacting court documents; in the Gislayne Maxwell trial they blurted out the victims name, etc.
The hacking charges if appropriate at all would only apply to Chelsea Manning... but of course they need to somehow distort this into an espionage charge to get an extradition.
I don't think it's at all hyperbolic to say an extradition is a likely death sentence for Assange. They either put him in solitary until he kills himself, or he gets advanced interrogated.

[OngBonga]

Poop is missing another important point... a nobody watching midget porn is not in the public interest.

If I hacked into Boris Johnson's computer and found evidence of paedophilia, should a journalist be imprisoned for publishing the story? Poop would, quite rightly, argue that it's in the public interest to publish, that the journalist is doing his job and not committing a crime, while the hacker might have committed a crime but would be treated with sympathy.

Poop needs to free himself of bias and imagine Assange published something about Trump or Boris.

[Poopadoop]

Poop is missing another important point... a nobody watching midget porn is not in the public interest.

If I hacked into Boris Johnson's computer and found evidence of paedophilia, should a journalist be imprisoned for publishing the story? Poop would, quite rightly, argue that it's in the public interest to publish, that the journalist is doing his job and not committing a crime, while the hacker might have committed a crime but would be treated with sympathy.

Poop needs to free himself of bias and imagine Assange published something about Trump or Boris.

You're off your rocker. You can't break the law and then claim you did so in the public interest. Maybe you can tell that story to your cellmate, but not in the real world. The law is there because it's in the common interest. Breaking one law to expose another is not a valid defense.

wrt Assange, who do you think was pulling his strings? Who had something to gain by making the West look bad? Could it be someone whose name starts with Vladimir and ends in Putin?

[OngBonga]

You can't break the law and then claim you did so in the public interest.

Well first of all, yes you can. Every revolution that ever happened is evidence of that.

Secondly, Assange hasn't committed a crime that warrants extradition, which is why they're charging him with espionage. That does warrant extradition, but if you think a journalist who publishes information is committing espionage, then you don't know what espionage is.

At worst he's guilty of publishing names that shouldn't have been named. That is not an extradition offence. So the UK are breaking the law by allowing extraidtion.

wrt Assange, who do you think was pulling his strings? Who had something to gain by making the West look bad? Could it be someone whose name starts with Vladimir and ends in Putin?

If I said something like this, you'd start talking about tin hats. Assange is not Putin's puppet. Putin might approve of Assange's publications, certainly I expect he'll have a grin when western powers are proven to be corrupt, but at the same time he knows he's corrupt so it's not like it's a moral victory.

Assange, in my opinion, is motivated by truth, at any cost.

btw, it should be obvious Assange has no links to Putin. If he did, he'd have gone to a Russian-friendly embassy. Who did go to Russia after doing dodgy shit? Edward Snowden. If you accused him of being a Putin puppet I'd be more inclined to accept it as plausible. Not Assange though.

[OngBonga]

Chortle.

[Poopadoop]

Don't think I'll be getting me a self-driving car anytime soon.

https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/statu...04579439824899

[OngBonga]

There's a story here and I'm not sure if it's a happy ending or a sad ending.

[The Bean Counter]

There's a story here and I'm not sure if it's a happy ending or a sad ending.

That's got to be a "fuck this and these shitty crutches, I'm ready to walk again".

[Poopadoop]

I reckon that bus just smoked them and their crutches went flying into the bin.

[oskar]

I reckon that bus just smoked them and their crutches went flying into the bin.

a happy ending then

[Poopadoop]

Free crutches for somebody.

[Poopadoop]

Dunno, that plant seemed pretty real to me.

https://twitter.com/Summer_Sal/statu...08003887464453

[Poopadoop]

Ok, so what's the over-under on number of weeks until Ghislaine Maxwell has an "accident" in prison? She knows too much, right?

[Poopadoop]

Seems she might get a re-trial instead.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-inquiry-juror

Q: What kind of dipshit lies to get on a jury, then later tells everyone he lied? Or (tinfoil hat on here), is he a plant who is lying now to help her get a mistrial?

[OngBonga]

Definitely seems fishy to me. She'll probably die in a helicopter crash, Epsteining here by suicide might be taking the piss a little too much.

[OngBonga]

Anyone like sudoku? I haven't bothered with them for years, now suddenly I'm wasting hours, literally, taking on world class standard puzzles. I just solved this beast in something like 5 hours, though that includes plenty of breaks, like tea, dinner, washing up, etc. Still, if you think they're easy, have a go...

https://app.crackingthecryptic.com/sudoku/tqq9HTQB9M

[OngBonga]

^ btw if you try it, read the text in the green box first, that explains the rules. Presumably you know how to sudoku, but these monsters have special rules.

[oskar]

Sudoku doesn't click with me. The most boomer games I play are Wordle and the NYT Spelling Bee.
https://www.nytimes.com/puzzles/spelling-bee
https://www.powerlanguage.co.uk/wordle/

[OngBonga]

I never used to like them, I found them too easy and too boring. But discovering puzzles of this standard has perked my interest.

Top solvers can do these monsters in under ten minutes, while I'm taking several hours, but it's hugely satisfying to unlock the logic.

I do like word games like Boggle.

[Poopadoop]

Looks like another juror in the Maxwell trial suddenly remembers being perved on as a kid. Wtf is going on here?

Also, all word games suck because I'm no good at them. I did just try a wordle though and got it on my fifth try. Better post it on twitter so everyone can see.

Sudoku is ok. Not sure I'm up for a five hour puzzle tbh.

In other news, I broke the nail on the middle finger of my plucking hand clean off without even realising it, and now when I play guitar every note I use m on is about 1/3 the volume of the notes i use p,i, or a on. So practice is going to be fun till it grows back. fml.

[OngBonga]

How the fuck do you lose an entire nail without noticing? That seems like it should be ludicrously painful and tender. You must be falling apart.

[oskar]

In other news, I broke the nail on the middle finger of my plucking hand clean off without even realising it, and now when I play guitar every note I use m on is about 1/3 the volume of the notes i use p,i, or a on. So practice is going to be fun till it grows back. fml.

Limitations drive creativity. Have you ever tried acrylic nails? I don't understand how you guys do it with real fingernails anyway. I sometimes chip my fingernail on a string when it just barely grows out.

[Poopadoop]

How the fuck do you lose an entire nail without noticing? That seems like it should be ludicrously painful and tender. You must be falling apart.

It didn't entirely fall off. I'm not a leper lol.

It just broke at the end. So there's about 1mm of white now where there should be 3 or 4mm.

You must be falling apart.

Have you ever seen a person >50 with good nails? They start to get brittle as you age.

[Poopadoop]

Have you ever tried acrylic nails? I don't understand how you guys do it with real fingernails anyway. I sometimes chip my fingernail on a string when it just barely grows out.

I tore a nail on my index finger when I was about 25 and it never grew back properly. I used to use acrylic to coat it and keep it from splitting down the middle, but then I figured out if I just stopped chewing the cuticle it would actually grow ok.

The acrylic nails are too thick and give you a muffled sound. Might not matter on metal strings but on nylon you need a thinner nail to get a good sound. The other option is to cut off all your nails and play with flesh against string, but it's hard to get decent volume that way. I wish not because looking after nails, with the filing and the shaping and the sanding, is a pain. It took me about two years to figure out how to get them just right and then one breaks on me and I'm screwed now for a couple of weeks.

[OngBonga]

I'm in my 40s and I have great nails, possibly me best feature. Maybe it's all those years of not playing guitar.

[oskar]

I play bass first and I can't have nails on bass so I play electric guitar like that as well, but it wasn't a conscious decision. It's just that most of the time I can't find a pick and I already have calluses on my picking fingers.
I just looked it up and apparently there's a raging debate among classical players about which is better: nails or no nails. I take the centrist position.

[Poopadoop]

I just looked it up and apparently there's a raging debate among classical players about which is better: nails or no nails. I take the centrist position.

It depends on what kind of sound you're trying to put out really. Nails will give a sharper attack with a brighter sound overall, and can deliver more volume, whereas using the finger pads will give a softer, more mellow sound. If you're using a modern classical guitar they are built to give a brighter and louder sound to begin with so I can see why someone would prefer to use their pads on that. Mine is a traditional guitar with a deeper sound so for me nails work better. There's also different songs that sound better with brighter or more mellow sounds, thus it also depends on what kind of songs you're playing.

I suspect also that some of the people who don't like using nails haven't ever managed to craft them properly. Badly manicured nails are definitely worse than no nails. The string has to slide off the nail at a good angle to get the best sound. The section of the nail tip that slides over the string has to be free of any little notches or other imperfections. They have to be long enough to hit the strings but not so long that they catch on them. So it's a real pain to get them just right; like I said it took me about two years of trial and error. I use a nail file and then move thru three different grits of sandpaper from rough to very fine, about every 3-4 days to get mine sounding the way I want them.

[Poopadoop]

Always keep your guard up.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1479770905085718530

[OngBonga]

It took me over two hours just to find my first number. Six hours to solve. The problem is, once you've started, you don't want to give up.

[OngBonga]

There's no trial and error. It's pure logic.

Thing is, as you unlock the logic, you really appreciate the composition. It's art. Solving it isn't art, but creating it is. Solving it is appreciating art, like going to a gallery. That's why I'm wasting so much time on it. I'm enjoying art.

Plus, can't lie, it's an ego boost to solve such difficult problems.

[Poopadoop]

Oh man, this looks brutal.

https://twitter.com/KyleTWN/status/1479877526864293890

[Poopadoop]

Its eyes are nearly as big as its brain.

https://twitter.com/AndrewIwaniuk/st...31010969096193