Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page
• 05-21-2019, 08:20 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
These events aren't "more random", they are "more unlikely". Something would be "more random" in the context you're using that term if it is harder to predict. Both the coin and the die are easy to predict, in a statistical sense, assuming they are fair.

The dieroll in this case has six possible outcomes, the coinflip only two. Thus one has more randomness than the other. I don't think that's controversial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
An unbalanced dice is "more random" than a balanced one, despite both having the same number of potential outcomes.

Au contraire, the unbalanced coin is less random. That's what makes it unfair mon frere.
• 05-21-2019, 11:30 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
Are you familiar with the "one electron" theory of the universe? Something along the lines of... every electron in the universe is the same electron, travelling through time. As crazy as it sounds, I'm under the impression it makes mathematical sense.

I've heard of it, but I don't think anyone really thinks that's what's happening.
• 05-21-2019, 11:39 PM
Quote:

So, don't electrons have identities then? Can you not theoretically freeze a moment in time and say ' here is electron A at x,y,z coordinates such and such, and here is a different electron B at these different coordinates?'

An electron's identity is the collection of physical properties which define it. All electrons are identical. In physics we say electrons are indistinguishable. (All fundamental particles are indistinguishable, in fact.)

If we freeze time, we can say, those are 2 electrons are "far" apart, so we're justified to consider them "isolated" wave functions (this is an approximation, if not obvious). For that frozen moment in time, we can tell which is which. However, since we know their positions to arbitrary precision, we know nothing about their momenta. So if we allow time to advance any iota of a second, and we look again, we still see a universe with exactly 2 electrons, but we have no idea which one we originally labeled as A and which was originally labeled as B. We only know there are 2.

EDIT: it's not about what "we" know. That's misleading. It's about what "can be" known. Since the freezing of time rigorously defines positions in your opening statement, it means all momentum information is destroyed.
• 05-22-2019, 12:01 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
To accept randomness is to accept our intellectual limitations.

That's what Einstein thought, too. So... I guess you're in good company by holding this skepticism.

However, the data is clear. There is randomness within rigorously defined bounds. The wave model of particle physics is ridiculously powerful. The wave is simply a postulate, a guess, but works real good. Then we apply probability theory to the wave, literally calculate the EV of its position, momentum, energy, spin, etc. with the exact same math we use to calculate EV in poker (well, poker's discrete and some of those are continuous properties, but otherwise the same).

QM is built on a lot of lucky guesses. One of them is that electrons in atoms can be described as waves of discreet (quantized) allowed energies. Simply do that, calculate the EV of position for the different energies, and you can solve for the Hydrogen atom and all those pretty electron orbital flowers.
You literally just guess that A) wave equation will work if you B) quantize the allowed energy states, then C) apply probability theory treating this wave as a probability distribution of a random variable. Then you can calculate the EV of whatever property you like. Note: C was a bit tricky until we figured out all the operators to use, but that was all done decades ago.

...

Or whatever underlies the randomness, manifests as perfect mathematical randomness, so ... uhh... that's it's role? It can't affect anything if it's whole purpose results in what looks perfectly random, unless that underlying mechanism is some kind of white noise filter preventing or obscuring any underlying motives.

Lol.

Like in some past world, Gods were able to affect the universe, but then this shield got there somehow and it wipes away all external influence.

I'd play that video game, if nothing else.
• 05-22-2019, 12:02 AM
Quote:

The dieroll in this case has six possible outcomes, the coinflip only two. Thus one has more randomness than the other. I don't think that's controversial.

Au contraire, the unbalanced coin is less random. That's what makes it unfair mon frere.

I agree with this.
• 05-22-2019, 01:29 AM
OngBonga
I don't know how you can agree with it, it's self contradictory. On the one hand, he says that something is "more random" if it simply has more outcomes, while on the other he's saying something is less random if it's unbalanced, despite having the same number of outcomes. Surely if randomness is the number of potential outcomes, an unbalanced coin and a balanced coin are equally random.
• 05-22-2019, 01:54 AM
OngBonga
This exposes the problem with such a loose definition of "random". When it's ill defined, it can mean different things,

Randomness can't be both a measure of potential outcomes, and a measure of the probability of those outcomes. It's one or the other.
• 05-22-2019, 07:26 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't know how you can agree with it, it's self contradictory. On the one hand, he says that something is "more random" if it simply has more outcomes, while on the other he's saying something is less random if it's unbalanced, despite having the same number of outcomes. Surely if randomness is the number of potential outcomes, an unbalanced coin and a balanced coin are equally random.

It's perfectly consistent, you're just thinking about it wrongly.

More outcomes = more disorder = more randomness.

From the pov of probability theory:

A fair coin has exactly two outcomes.

The biased coin has two possible outcomes, BUT

A biased coin is closer to having a single outcome than a fair coin. To take an extreme example, if there were a coin that was so biased that if you flipped it 100 million times, it only came up heads once, you would accept I think that such a coin is mathematically closer to a nonrandom outcome (1 outcome) than it is to a random outcome (2 outcomes).

Similarly, you could make a die that was so biased as to be less random than a (fair) coin. If p(direoll 6) = .9999999, this die is mathematically closer to having one outcome than having six outcomes and also less random than the fair coin.

Another way to think of it: if you wanted to generate randomness, would you prefer to use a fair die or the one where you're almost certain to roll a six?
• 05-22-2019, 07:35 AM
More probability theory: pure randomness is unbiased, which is what makes it self-correcting. This eventually leads to fun things like the bell curve.
• 05-22-2019, 07:38 AM
• 05-22-2019, 09:49 AM
OngBonga
That vid is a fantastic example of something we call random that isn't random.

If you recreated all initial conditions precisely, you would get the same outcome. Maybe there's a clearer definition of random. An event that doesn't necessarily have the same outcome when all initial conditions are identical and the experiment is repeated.

And I still insist a fair dice and a fair coin are equally as random... ie, 100% random. Both are equally predictable over a large enough sample.
• 05-22-2019, 10:23 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
That vid is a fantastic example of something we call random that isn't random.

If you recreated all initial conditions precisely, you would get the same outcome. Maybe there's a clearer definition of random. An event that doesn't necessarily have the same outcome when all initial conditions are identical and the experiment is repeated.

You're talking about hard vs. soft determinism. I'm talking about statistical randomness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
And I still insist a fair dice and a fair coin are equally as random... ie, 100% random. Both are equally predictable over a large enough sample.

Nope.
• 05-22-2019, 10:29 AM
Far a coin with 2 outcomes, we can show that the "most random" case is when the probability of flipping heads is the same as the probability of flipping tails, and that any imbalance makes the coin flip less random, to the limit where one side flips 100% of the time and the other flips 0% and we've lost all randomness.

Shannon Entropy for this system is
- ( p_0 * ln_2( p_0 ) + p_1 * ln_2( p_1 ) )

where p_0 is the probability of flipping heads, p_1 is the probability of flipping tails.
ln_2(x) is the logarithm function in base 2.

Obviously, p_0 + p_1 = 100%
so p_1 = 1 - p_0.

LET
p_0 = p and p_1 = 1 - p

Now we have a function of a single variable.
Rewrite the Shannon entropy equation with this substitution

-p * ln_2(p) - (1 - p) * ln_2(1 - p)

A graph of this function is concave down, with maximum at p = 0.5. The Entropy approaches 0 as p goes to either 0 or 1.
• 05-22-2019, 10:37 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
This exposes the problem with such a loose definition of "random". When it's ill defined, it can mean different things,

Randomness can't be both a measure of potential outcomes, and a measure of the probability of those outcomes. It's one or the other.

The "problem" is that we're using a rigorously defined mathematical definition of random, and but you're not.

We're not separating those ideas, as both are relevant.

A "fair" 10 sided die is more random than a "fair" 6 sided die. There are more outcomes, equally distrubuted, so there's more randomness.
An RNG that produces a random number from 1 - 10 has more possible outcomes than an RNG that produces a random number form 1 - 6. E.g. it's more random.
I had to stipulate both facts to draw that conclusion. 1) that both dice are fair and 2) that one die has more possible outcomes.

It takes both pieces of information to apply entropy (as applies to information theory) in order to produce a value that is a measure of the randomness, the Shannon Entropy.
• 05-22-2019, 10:38 AM
OngBonga
Quote:

statistical randomness.
This is just a mathematical tool to help us fill the gaps in when we don't know all the variables.

Quote:

Nope.
Yep. If randomness is a variable concept, then it has to be a deviation from expected probability (well,the inverse). A fair dice has zero deviation (maximum randomness) from expected probability, over an infinite sample. Same with the coin. Therefore, equal (maximum) randomness.

If you're going to say that the dice is more random than the coin because six not two, while also insisting that a loaded dice is less random than the fair dice, then you're using two different definitions of random, one to describe the number of possible outcomes, and the other as a measure of the difference in probability between different outcomes.
• 05-22-2019, 10:40 AM
OngBonga
Quote:

The "problem" is that we're using a rigorously defined mathematical definition of random, and but you're not.
I'm defining random rigorously. An event that happened for no reason.
• 05-22-2019, 10:47 AM
Quote:

You're talking about hard vs. soft determinism. I'm talking about statistical randomness.

It's worth noting that QM is about both. Hard determinism coupled with statistical randomness.

Hard determinism in that if we know all the knowable information about a particle's state, we can exactly calculate the probabilities that we will later observe it in another state.

It can't be soft determinism - because the predictions made when we assume that what "can be known" is a True fact about the system and not some reflection of our ignorance about the system's "hidden" properties - those prediction produce extremely precise predictions. If there was soft determinism, then we'd see outcomes that DO NOT exist in our prediction or that would take place at a probabilistic rate that is NOT what we've calculated as our EV.

It can't be non-random, because the outcomes vary.
• 05-22-2019, 10:48 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm defining random rigorously. An event that happened for no reason.

That is not mathematically rigorous.

"For no reason" seems like a very hard thing to prove, under the best circumstances.
• 05-22-2019, 10:54 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
That vid is a fantastic example of something we call random that isn't random.

If you recreated all initial conditions precisely, you would get the same outcome. Maybe there's a clearer definition of random. An event that doesn't necessarily have the same outcome when all initial conditions are identical and the experiment is repeated.

And I still insist a fair dice and a fair coin are equally as random... ie, 100% random. Both are equally predictable over a large enough sample.

One of my favorite demos involves a piece of tech that I must describe first.

Each student is required to have a little remote control device called an iClicker. That remote control has 6 buttons on it. Power and A,B,C,D,E. It's simply a device so we can ask a multiple choice question to 100+ students in the room and track their participation and attendance for a tiny fraction of their final grade.

OK

In this demo, I put out a bin of pennies and tell each student to take one as they enter the class.

The demo goes like this:
Each student flips the coin 4 times and enters the appropriate A,B,C,D,E corresponding to 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 heads flipped.

The cool part is that the graph of student responses comes in real time and is shown on a projector. It always produces that binomial distribution. We could never tabulate all those initial conditions to reproduce the experiment exactly, but we don't need to and that's the point. We could never predict which students would flip exactly 1 head or exactly 2 heads, but we can definitely predict the % of students who will flip that number of heads with remarkable precision (taking error bars into account).
• 05-22-2019, 11:15 AM
OngBonga
Quote:

It always produces that binomial distribution
*nearly always. Sample size too small.

What you describe there is something that is seemingly random. Once again, if you know all the relevant variables, however many trillions that might be, and were capable of processing them,then you could predict the outcome without the need to rely on probability. Statistical analysis is a mathematical tool, very closely reflecting the behaviour of the universe. Because it's so close, we're led to believe randomness is a real life thing. It's not. It's an emergent property when we lack information.
• 05-22-2019, 11:28 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
This is just a mathematical tool to help us fill the gaps in when we don't know all the variables.

Attachment 1142

Whatever you say.

You're still talking about determinism vs. statistical randomness. If you want to argue those are different things, then sure they are. If you want to argue determinism means there is no such thing as statistical randomness then no, it doesn't.
• 05-22-2019, 11:29 AM
OngBonga
Fuck me, learn how to post images.
• 05-22-2019, 11:31 AM
You can flip that Galton board 'till the end of time and it's always going to produce that binomial distribution, within the error bars of that specific geometry and number of balls.

Same for the coin flipping. It's not like my one class is the only ones to perform this experiment. It's been performed thousands if not millions of times for over a hundred years across the world. That's not a small sample size, though my classes' specific contributions to the overall population is small.
• 05-22-2019, 11:32 AM
Quote:

It's worth noting that QM is about both. Hard determinism coupled with statistical randomness.

Hard determinism in that if we know all the knowable information about a particle's state, we can exactly calculate the probabilities that we will later observe it in another state.

It can't be soft determinism - because the predictions made when we assume that what "can be known" is a True fact about the system and not some reflection of our ignorance about the system's "hidden" properties - those prediction produce extremely precise predictions. If there was soft determinism, then we'd see outcomes that DO NOT exist in our prediction or that would take place at a probabilistic rate that is NOT what we've calculated as our EV.

It can't be non-random, because the outcomes vary.

eh, yeah I forgot what soft determinism was. It's actually about free will. I thought the argument was that since QM can include randomness this somehow gives us free will.

Quote:

Soft Determinism is the theory that human behaviour and actions are wholly determined by causal events, but human free will does exist when defined as the capacity to act according to one's nature (which is shaped by external factors such as heredity, society and upbringing)
IAC, it's irrelevant since Ong is just repeating over and over stuff about how everything is predetermined, which is orthogonal to my explanations of statistical randomness.
• 05-22-2019, 11:33 AM
OngBonga
Quote:

You can flip that Galton board 'till the end of time and it's always going to produce that binomial distribution, within the error bars of that specific geometry and number of balls.
The balls are bouncing off each other, so their behaviour is governed by the dynamics in question.

Quote:

thousands if not millions of times
Sample size too small.

What's the probability that every student flips heads with every flip? Is it precisely zero?
• 05-22-2019, 11:35 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
*nearly always. Sample size too small.

Statistically, a "large sample" is n > 30. So assuming he has at least 30 students in the class each year, it's practically guaranteed to work.
• 05-22-2019, 11:36 AM
OngBonga
Quote:

practically
Indeed.
• 05-22-2019, 11:37 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
What's the probability that every student flips heads with every flip? Is it precisely zero?

.0625^n, where n is the number of students.

For 30 students, it's ~ 1 x 10^-37

(that's 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001%)
• 05-22-2019, 11:41 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
Fuck me, learn how to post images.

I will if you make that image your avatar.
• 05-22-2019, 11:45 AM
OngBonga
Quote:

(that's 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001%)
Like I was saying, sample size too small. Thanks for doing the maths for me, I couldn't be bothered.

Quote:

I will if you make that image your avatar.
Is "I'm a twat" not cutting it?
• 05-22-2019, 11:45 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
The balls are bouncing off each other, so their behaviour is governed by the dynamics in question.

The whole point is that random variables can be the result of deterministic physics. Whether or not the minutia of motions is random or not is another question entirely. I agree that the system is rigorously deterministic on scales above the QM realm.

That doesn't erase the binomial distribution of outcomes that results from the statistical analysis of all possible results and their expected frequencies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
Sample size too small.

What's the probability that every student flips heads with every flip? Is it precisely zero?

No, of course not. It's just very small. Statistics isn't about exact numbers, it's about probabilities and relationships. It's about ranges of outcomes with rigorously defined error bars on those possible outcomes.

If that could never happen, that would be proof that the distribution is not a binomial distribution, after all.

In fact, this isn't about any 1 class, really... it's about the population of all classes and all sets of 4 coin flips.

***
It's fair to argue that randomness isn't mathematically provable as such. We can only say that something behaves like a perfect mathematically random variable or it does not. We need infinite information to make the error bars go away entirely, and that's not possible.
The best we can do is compare how a perfectly random variable would behave to how our system under investigation behaves and note that there is no statistically provable difference between them.
• 05-22-2019, 11:46 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
Is "I'm a twat" not cutting it?

BWAAAHAHAHAHA!

Nice
• 05-22-2019, 11:51 AM
OngBonga
Quote:

We need infinite information to make the error bars go away entirely, and that's not possible.
Not quite infinite information, and in some cases we might one day be able to measure and process all relevant information sufficiently to make accurate predictions... that's where I see QM going.
• 05-22-2019, 01:24 PM
Error bars are the standard error, which is stdev/sqrt(n). So as long as n < infinite and stdev > 0 then se will always be se > 0.

So yes, infinite.
• 05-22-2019, 01:33 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by OngBonga
Not quite infinite information, and in some cases we might one day be able to measure and process all relevant information sufficiently to make accurate predictions... that's where I see QM going.

You're completely missing a very important fact about QM.

Presuming mathematically perfect random variables are "good" models of many phenomena just works. This is a core assumption of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which provides more precision than any other predictive model, ever. Does that mean it's "True?" No. Not remotely.

What it does mean, though, is that whatever is ultimately "True" has to manifest as this perfect randomness within rigid boundaries.
Nothing new can make the data go away. The data says there are many properties of particles which are accurately modeled as mathematically perfect random variables. In many, varied experiments, this has been shown. For decades. Despite many intelligent people like yourself feeling like it can't be the Truth.

The doubting physicists have been won over by the data. I am one of them. Though my gut still wants to agree with you, my mind simply must accept what it knows to have personally witnessed.

We can get into the many interpretations of QM and maybe find arguments like the "pilot wave theory" which compel a less probabilistic view of the underlying mechanism. This is a bastion of many physicists whom still trust their gut on the matter, even though the data shows something irrefutable. The thing is that the "pilot wave" is the imaginary* portion of the solution to the position wave function. We can't measure imaginary values, only real ones. The position is a real value... it's pilot wave is imaginary. It's an untestable hypothesis. It can neither be proven, nor disproved.

EDIT:
* imaginary as in i^2 = -1
• 05-22-2019, 01:47 PM
Quote:

eh, yeah I forgot what soft determinism was. It's actually about free will. I thought the argument was that since QM can include randomness this somehow gives us free will.

This is certainly not the case. Many neuroscientists and physicists have put a hard no on this one.

The problem is exactly in the random variables, and the precision of predictions the data shows.

If "you" can affect the outcomes in any way, that's not a random event anymore. Not in the way the Standard Model says it's random. There would be measurable deviations from the statistical prediction. We'd be able to look at the particle physics in brains and see definite missed predictions from our model. The model stipulates perfectly random variables. Any deviation from that perfect randomness, by imposition of free will, e.g., would be measurable. It's not.... to VERY large N.

Quote:

IAC, it's irrelevant since Ong is just repeating over and over stuff about how everything is predetermined, which is orthogonal to my explanations of statistical randomness.

My bad... I guessed at the distinction from context and guessed wrong.
• 05-24-2019, 11:09 AM
Which is not to say that consciousness is not a very useful way to describe human behavior.
The models we use can vary on different scales.
The properties of the constituents can be vastly different... unrelated, even... to the properties of a complex body.

As a poor analogy.
Both Sodium and Chlorine are poisonous chemicals and you shouldn't eat them.
Sodium Chloride is table salt and is an essential food that you need to survive.
• 05-24-2019, 02:14 PM
CoccoBill
All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison.
• 05-24-2019, 03:10 PM
The solution to pollution is dilution, yes.
• 05-24-2019, 04:37 PM
I heard a lot of soldiers in WW1 died from eating chlorine.
• 05-30-2019, 07:51 AM
Jack Sawyer
Another one of those "but guns" cases

• 05-30-2019, 08:15 AM
Killer Kampground Kathy lol.
• 05-30-2019, 11:58 AM
Y'all seem to not see the difference between the immorality of an outright ban vs. the immorality of unregulated access.

It can be perfectly legal for Kathy to own a gun and carry it on her person while simultaneously being perfectly illegal for her to draw the gun in any manner that escalates a situation from "not potentially fatal for anyone involved" to "potentially fatal for someone involved."

Looks like Kathy needs her permit to open carry suspended while she attends a training course in general gun safety and she completes the exam associated with said course.
• 05-30-2019, 12:52 PM
Jack Sawyer
Quote:

Y'all seem to not see the difference between the immorality of an outright ban vs. the immorality of unregulated access.

It can be perfectly legal for Kathy to own a gun and carry it on her person while simultaneously being perfectly illegal for her to draw the gun in any manner that escalates a situation from "not potentially fatal for anyone involved" to "potentially fatal for someone involved."

Looks like Kathy needs her permit to open carry suspended while she attends a training course in general gun safety and she completes the exam associated with said course.

And my argument is as follows:

Whatever reason she may have top have had a gun, she, at that point, draws her gun on people for a in every case frivolous at best reason. She has the power to easily end their lives over a permit dispute. She should not have that power in my opinion. If she chooses to do so, it should be very hard or require particular skills, so not anyone who can pull a trigger can do it.

People like her spoil it for the rest of the people who would actually carry a gun in a responsible manner. She has a gun, we have no idea whether it's licensed or not, she is not using it responsibly in any way, shape or form. She drew it upon people over a fucking camping ground permit dispute. Are you fucking kidding me

I've seen people draw a gun and shoot another because they were punched. The general populace should not have the power of an executioner over whatever generally trivial matter they may deem of utmost importance. Your personal judgement should never lead to someone else's life being lost over nonsense.

Oh, and about legal guns (and carry permits, this is the reality right now)

• 05-30-2019, 01:23 PM
oskar
Quote:

Looks like Kathy needs her permit to open carry suspended while she attends a training course in general gun safety and she completes the exam associated with said course.

DO YOU WANT COMMUNISM? What part of 'inalienable right' don't you understand? What about innocent until proven guilty?! How will she unsuccessfully defend herself against tyranny?

Hey you still haven't told me if you're in favor of less strict gun laws and why/why not.
• 05-30-2019, 02:44 PM
OngBonga
Quote:

She should not have that power in my opinion.
"in my opinion"

How refreshing.

I agree this women is wholly irresponsible. If these people were carrying a weapon also, it very quickly turns into a very serious situation. You've got an argument for self defence when someone pulls a gun out on you for something so trivial. You have to question their sanity.

She needs more than training. She needs to lose her right to own a gun.
• 05-30-2019, 03:58 PM
Quote:

It can be perfectly legal for Kathy to own a gun and carry it on her person while simultaneously being perfectly illegal for her to draw the gun in any manner that escalates a situation from "not potentially fatal for anyone involved" to "potentially fatal for someone involved."

What you're missing here is that if it wasn't so easy for her to own a gun, her inclination to escalate from non-lethal to lethal wouldn't even be relevant. Such escalation would not even be an option for someone of her ilk.
• 05-30-2019, 04:00 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
Hey you still haven't told me if you're in favor of less strict gun laws and why/why not.

He suggested private citizens should be allowed to own nukes. So he has answered the first half of that question at least.
• 05-30-2019, 04:06 PM
oskar
Quote:

What you're missing here is that if it wasn't so easy for her to own a gun, her inclination to escalate from non-lethal to lethal wouldn't even be relevant. Such escalation would not even be an option for someone of her ilk.

WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM?

https://i.imgflip.com/22cq2y.jpg
• 05-30-2019, 04:07 PM
oskar
Quote:

He suggested private citizens should be allowed to own nukes. So he has answered the first half of that question at least.

I'm pretty sure that was nanners.
• 05-30-2019, 04:46 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
I'm pretty sure that was nanners.

You must have missed it then.

Banana suggested bazookas for teenagers.

Mojo suggested nukes (with permits, the commie) for all.
• 05-30-2019, 05:09 PM
@ Jack:
IMO, Kathy had a right to carry a gun until she drew it in a frivolous situation / manner / when there was no other threat to anyone's body being harmed. Then, IMO, she lost that right. I'm in favor of criminal charges being brought against her for unlawfully brandishing a weapon.

The right to terrible means is not the same as the right to irresponsible use of those means.

@ Oskar:
My stipulation is that we all have an inalienable right to means of lethal violence. Not that we have an inalienable right to use or openly threaten to use means of lethal violence without nuance or consequence.
IMO, Kathy was innocent until she brandished a weapon over a couple walking their dog where she didn't want them to. Then she was guilty. Nothing out of chronological order as far as innocence and guilt, IMO.
By brandishing her weapon as she did in the video, she has proven herself to be the "tyrant," and her rights should be lawfully curtailed thereafter.
I have many times told you my position on gun restrictions and my reasons.

It wasn't nanners, it was me who said that I don't believe there should be any outright ban on nukes. Heavy regulation, scheduled inspections by a regulatory agency, a facility and staff that meet regulations... etc. I'm not saying it should be easy or cheap, I'm saying it shouldn't be outright banned to people with no criminal history.
• 05-30-2019, 05:17 PM
Quote:

What you're missing here is that if it wasn't so easy for her to own a gun, her inclination to escalate from non-lethal to lethal wouldn't even be relevant. Such escalation would not even be an option for someone of her ilk.

What you're missing is that Kathy misbehaving is not a reason to curtail MMM's rights.

What you're missing is that Kathy misbehaving is excellent reason to curtail Kathy's rights.

@bold: C'mon, man. Kathy has her choice of legal ranged or melee weapons to use, she just chose a gun for convenience and glam. Take away her gun and she'll find a suitable replacement. Human nature. Don't you study it? You seem to have blinders up to the darker side of human motivations.
• 05-30-2019, 05:47 PM
Do you think Kathy is going to be so brave with a knife as she is with a gun?

This whole "you have the right to be potentially deadly to others until you do something to show you actually are potentially deadly" seems odd to me, sorry.
• 05-30-2019, 06:03 PM
OngBonga
The biggest sporting even in the world is happening next month. Anyone want to take a guess what it is?
• 05-30-2019, 09:42 PM
Quote:

Do you think Kathy is going to be so brave with a knife as she is with a gun?

I have no reason to speculate upon how clever and/or innovative Kathy would be under different legal circumstances. I certainly see nothing to indicate that she'd do nothing at all, or that she was only acting confrontationally because of the gun. For all I know she'd have brandished a rake or attack dog or nail gun or anything else that would visually convey her meaning and intent.

My speculation is boring at any rate. I'd rather talk about your inability to acknowledge the darker side of human motivations and the rose colored glasses you seem to want me to wear despite the clear evidence all around us that humans are brutal and savage and unpredictable. The illusion of safety you've embraced is a cultivated backdrop to build a society against, but it's still a lie.

Quote:

This whole "you have the right to be potentially deadly to others until you do something to show you actually are potentially deadly" seems odd to me, sorry.

No need to apologize. I'm not trying to convince you.
It's called the presumption of innocence and it goes back at least as far as the Romans, so it's not like I just came up with it, though.

To be a human is to be capable of murder. You, Mr. Poopadoop could use your clever knowledge of gravity and human balance to push me off a building if we were so conveniently placed and you had the intent.

Should your brain be illegal? Your hands? If you really put your back into it, I'm certain you could choke me out. I'm a wet noodle. Should your hands be illegal? Over the stupid argument that they're "potentially lethal?"
Do you see why that argument holds so little weight with me? The whole, "it could be used to kill" argument describes 95% of the stuff in my kitchen, 95% of the chemicals in the cleaning cubbord, 100% of my actual tools and power tools. The simple fact that something "could be" potentially lethal is in the intent of the wielder.

The assertion that we are not "potentially lethal" weapons ourselves is what I can't get behind. It's just not a good model for human behavior, IMO, to disregard the brutal truth about the way humans interact when stresses are high.
• 05-31-2019, 12:48 AM
Jack Sawyer
Quote:

@ Jack:
IMO, Kathy had a right to carry a gun until she drew it in a frivolous situation / manner / when there was no other threat to anyone's body being harmed. Then, IMO, she lost that right. I'm in favor of criminal charges being brought against her for unlawfully brandishing a weapon.

The right to terrible means is not the same as the right to irresponsible use of those means.

I agree with you. But then, my points are:
- if she didn't carry a gun, she wouldn't have been in a position where a) she'd be a danger to strangers and b) she would get in the criminal system (criminal charges). Win win both for her and the people she could have killed.
- This seems to be her default stance. I would not be surprised if people like her draw a gun on a McD's counter because they forgot to include mustard. The moment they have a gun, they feel emboldened to use it. How do you know someone is like that BEFORE they legally get their hands on a gun? How do you know someone would not become like that AFTER they get their hands on a gun despite passing every test with flying colors?
- Bad apples like these damage it for all. Why? Because the consequences of her potential action are irreversible. That's someone's mom and dad she almost offed due to a permit dispute.

Quote:

@ Oskar:
My stipulation is that we all have an inalienable right to means of lethal violence. Not that we have an inalienable right to use or openly threaten to use means of lethal violence without nuance or consequence.
IMO, Kathy was innocent until she brandished a weapon over a couple walking their dog where she didn't want them to. Then she was guilty. Nothing out of chronological order as far as innocence and guilt, IMO.
By brandishing her weapon as she did in the video, she has proven herself to be the "tyrant," and her rights should be lawfully curtailed thereafter.
I have many times told you my position on gun restrictions and my reasons.

It wasn't nanners, it was me who said that I don't believe there should be any outright ban on nukes. Heavy regulation, scheduled inspections by a regulatory agency, a facility and staff that meet regulations... etc. I'm not saying it should be easy or cheap, I'm saying it shouldn't be outright banned to people with no criminal history.

Today it's nukes. It could also be sarin, weaponized plague/ebola, the fucking I am Legend cure. Tommorow it's vaporizer weapons and AI nanodrones. All of these are designed with one thing in mind: killing.

Let's take it all the way. Do you think a random person has the right to own antimatter?

Second question: so they should have the MEANS to kill, but not the RIGHT to kill? Or should they also have the right to kill as well?
• 05-31-2019, 02:12 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I agree with you. But then, my points are:
- if she didn't carry a gun, she wouldn't have been in a position where a) she'd be a danger to strangers and b) she would get in the criminal system (criminal charges). Win win both for her and the people she could have killed.

I'm sure she does a lot of things you and I would disagree with, but that almost none of those disagreements amount to our right to take away her toys.
a) and b) just boil down to presumption of innocence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
- This seems to be her default stance. I would not be surprised if people like her draw a gun on a McD's counter because they forgot to include mustard. The moment they have a gun, they feel emboldened to use it. How do you know someone is like that BEFORE they legally get their hands on a gun? How do you know someone would not become like that AFTER they get their hands on a gun despite passing every test with flying colors?

Regulations, background checks, licensing, etc.
Presumption of Innocence means the bad guys get at least one bad act before we take away their rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
- Bad apples like these damage it for all. Why? Because the consequences of her potential action are irreversible. That's someone's mom and dad she almost offed due to a permit dispute.

No. The consequences of throwing away the presumption of innocence are too dangerous, and requires a higher bar than this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Today it's nukes. It could also be sarin, weaponized plague/ebola, the fucking I am Legend cure. Tommorow it's vaporizer weapons and AI nanodrones. All of these are designed with one thing in mind: killing.

Let's take it all the way. Do you think a random person has the right to own antimatter?

Second question: so they should have the MEANS to kill, but not the RIGHT to kill? Or should they also have the right to kill as well?

It's the mind of the designer that did it. And if one designer can think it up, then another can.. and has... nuclear tech was developed simultaneously by competing governments. You can't outlaw smart.

Yes. Antimatter isn't too hard to get. Hospitals use it in PET scans. The P is for positron, an anti-matter electron.
Good luck storing it, though. Seriously. It's attracted to regular matter, which is everywhere, and it disintegrates in a flash of light when it contacts matter. We don't store it, we produce it on site with radioactive elements.

The means to kill is in having a human brain and able body. The right to kill is in self defense.
• 05-31-2019, 05:52 AM
CoccoBill
After consideration and trying to see past the arguments, I'm with MMM here. I also don't support a total ban on weapons, I support strict background checks, permits, waiting periods, mandatory training, etc. The stricter, the more powerful the weapon, where you better have a REALLY good justification for having an automatic weapon. Hunting, self protection etc would not be sufficient reasons. 99.99% would not open or concealed carry, those things would be in locked cabinets.
• 05-31-2019, 05:54 AM
Quote:

I have no reason to speculate upon how clever and/or innovative Kathy would be under different legal circumstances

The discrepancy in force between fat old Kathy with a kitchen knife trying to stab someone and fat old Kathy with a gun is obvious.

Quote:

I'd rather talk about your inability to acknowledge the darker side of human motivations and the rose colored glasses you seem to want me to wear despite the clear evidence all around us that humans are brutal and savage and unpredictable. The illusion of safety you've embraced is a cultivated backdrop to build a society against, but it's still a lie.

You defeat your own argument here. You say people are brutal, but then you use this as a reason that they be allowed to have guns. Does not compute. I agree they're brutal (at least some of them), and that's why they should NOT be allowed guns.

Quote:

It's called the presumption of innocence and it goes back at least as far as the Romans, so it's not like I just came up with it, though.

To be a human is to be capable of murder. You, Mr. Poopadoop could use your clever knowledge of gravity and human balance to push me off a building if we were so conveniently placed and you had the intent.

Should your brain be illegal? Your hands? If you really put your back into it, I'm certain you could choke me out. I'm a wet noodle. Should your hands be illegal? Over the stupid argument that they're "potentially lethal?"
Do you see why that argument holds so little weight with me? The whole, "it could be used to kill" argument describes 95% of the stuff in my kitchen, 95% of the chemicals in the cleaning cubbord, 100% of my actual tools and power tools. The simple fact that something "could be" potentially lethal is in the intent of the wielder.

The assertion that we are not "potentially lethal" weapons ourselves is what I can't get behind. It's just not a good model for human behavior, IMO, to disregard the brutal truth about the way humans interact when stresses are high.

You're just being silly here. The difference between all of these things and a handgun is that the other things are actually useful for things besides killing. The handgun is only for killing. No-one goes out and buys a toaster thinking "Imma gonna clock any trespassers I see with this."
• 05-31-2019, 07:44 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by CoccoBill
After consideration and trying to see past the arguments, I'm with MMM here.

Starts by saying he agrees wtih Mojo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I also don't support a total ban on weapons, I support strict background checks, permits, waiting periods, mandatory training, etc. The stricter, the more powerful the weapon, where you better have a REALLY good justification for having an automatic weapon. Hunting, self protection etc would not be sufficient reasons. 99.99% would not open or concealed carry, those things would be in locked cabinets.

Ends by stating a position much closer to Oskar/Jack/Poop than to Mojo's.
• 05-31-2019, 11:10 AM
oskar
Quote:

@ Oskar:
My stipulation is that we all have an inalienable right to means of lethal violence. Not that we have an inalienable right to use or openly threaten to use means of lethal violence without nuance or consequence.
IMO, Kathy was innocent until she brandished a weapon over a couple walking their dog where she didn't want them to. Then she was guilty. Nothing out of chronological order as far as innocence and guilt, IMO.
By brandishing her weapon as she did in the video, she has proven herself to be the "tyrant," and her rights should be lawfully curtailed thereafter.
I have many times told you my position on gun restrictions and my reasons.

It wasn't nanners, it was me who said that I don't believe there should be any outright ban on nukes. Heavy regulation, scheduled inspections by a regulatory agency, a facility and staff that meet regulations... etc. I'm not saying it should be easy or cheap, I'm saying it shouldn't be outright banned to people with no criminal history.

I think the reason I can't understand is because we're defining words differently. I don't want to be presumptuous but I prefer the dictionary definition of words, so when you say someone turns guilty the moment they do something bad and then by the force of magic their rights should be revoked... I genuinely do not understand what you're saying.

In the real world, the other party could probably sue for something, but just quickly googling this, their chance of success is really low. The woman is not guilty of anything under the law.

You keep repeating that you have explained your position, but your position makes no sense to me. You want this lady to lose her right to own a pistol while not actually having violated any laws. At the same time you think citizens should be allowed to own nukes... if nukes aren't the line, is there one? Dirty bombs? What about weapons prohibited under the geneva conventions? What do you think about the geneva convention? Do you think cluster mines and agent orange should go back on the menu for solving international conflicts? Should they be prohibited in war, but available for private citizens?
If these sound like insane questions... this is why I dismissed you saying that nukes should be allowed as hyperbole.

That also means you do think that currently US gun laws are much too restrictive, right? Why are you so relaxed with the current level of gun control in the US when both the current level and the level we're advocating for are not even on the same scale as your ideal scenario.
• 05-31-2019, 02:11 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

lol, seller ask the guy, "Are you legal to buy a gun?"

Him: "Yayaya."

Seller: "Ok."
• 05-31-2019, 03:49 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
I think the reason I can't understand is because we're defining words differently. I don't want to be presumptuous but I prefer the dictionary definition of words, so when you say someone turns guilty the moment they do something bad and then by the force of magic their rights should be revoked... I genuinely do not understand what you're saying.

Whereas I think you're not interested in understanding me, only in changing my mind to agree with you.
I find that to be a disrespectful way to approach any conversation about morality or ethics, and as such, I'm really not interested in talking with you about this subject. We can talk about so many other things and you're not so pompous as to think my mind needs changing.

At any rate: I'm saying that, IMO, the law should be such that she broke it when she escalated the situation from very unlikely that anyone would be harmed to an open threat of physical harm. That escalation is what I'm saying "should be" the line of criminal behavior. Of course, "guilty" is a legal distinction, and it'd take a jury to convict her, but with the evidence in the clip, I feel comfortable with the kangaroo court in my mind that calls her guilty. Of course my mind is not a real jury, and it'd take a full trial to convict her, and thus restrict her rights in accordance with the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
In the real world, the other party could probably sue for something, but just quickly googling this, their chance of success is really low. The woman is not guilty of anything under the law.

In the real world, you'd follow the fact that this conversation is about my personal beliefs, and what I think the law "should be," and stop with all this misdirection.

Does this mean we're cartoons?
:p

Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
You keep repeating that you have explained your position, but your position makes no sense to me.

The former is true, but the latter probably isn't. It's not that you don't understand, it's that I don't agree with you. It's that you're not trying to understand me, you're trying to get me to agree with you.
I'm not interested in agreeing with you on this. You've repeatedly shown me that you value different things than I do on this subject. That's fine. We can have different values and neither be wrong. This is about personal beliefs.

While I find your eagerness to abandon the presumption of innocence to be distasteful, and ultimately far more dangerous to good people than to bad people, I'm not judging you for your position. I simply disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
You want this lady to lose her right to own a pistol while not actually having violated any laws.

No. I want the law to be such that her brandishing a pistol over nonsense is criminal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
At the same time you think citizens should be allowed to own nukes.

Yep.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
if nukes aren't the line, is there one?

On outright bans? Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
Dirty bombs?

Same. I've really already explained this. I'm against outright bans on anything if the sole or primary reason is "It can cause death."
If there are other reasons, then I'm all ears. The simple fact is that just about everything can cause death if used to do so. It's not a good enough reason on its own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
What about weapons prohibited under the geneva conventions?

Prohibitions are ridiculous. Consequences to use are not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
What about weapons prohibited under the geneva conventions?

I don't think you know what you're talking about.
I think you mean either the Hague Conventions with reference to use of asphyxiating gasses on the battle field, and "bullets that expand in the human body". or the Geneva Protocol with is basically the same thing, but a couple decades later, and expanded to encompass all biological or bacteriological agents.
At any rate, those are all agreements signed by participants that say effectively, "If we ever go to war with you, we promise not to use biological or chemical weapons against you, SO LONG AS you don't use them against us."

Sounds like parties are free to enter this agreement, and it's not about any ban, but a statement of consequence.
I like all of that, if I got it right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
What do you think about the geneva convention?

I think granting rights to people is usually a good step, and drawing some sharp lines between civilized and uncivilized warfare and treatment of POWs is a pretty good thing to have done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
Do you think cluster mines and agent orange should go back on the menu for solving international conflicts?

I think the idea that one nation can tell another nation what it can or can't have is stupid. I think telling another nation that there will be severe consequences if it does X is perfectly reasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
Should they be prohibited in war, but available for private citizens?

I'll let you guess what my answer is on this one, as a test to see if you're even trying to follow this, or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
If these sound like insane questions... this is why I dismissed you saying that nukes should be allowed as hyperbole.

These are perfectly reasonable questions which different people will answer differently, in accordance with their personal beliefs and values.
I think your issue in understanding me is that you don't think this is the case.
You think these questions have "obvious" answers, and when you hear someone say otherwise, you aren't prepared to accept that they are an intelligent person with different values. You're only prepared to plug your ears and try to convince me how wrong I am.

Fine. If I'm wrong, I want to know and to change, but ... your arguments are shallow and short-sighted, IMO. Worried about the immediate ugliness and not the long-term ugliness. Great. I'm glad people are worried about both. On this particular issue, I take a long view. It's not the case on all issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
That also means you do think that currently US gun laws are much too restrictive, right?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar
Why are you so relaxed with the current level of gun control in the US when both the current level and the level we're advocating for are not even on the same scale as your ideal scenario.

I'm just a laid back guy, what can I say?
• 05-31-2019, 05:01 PM
oskar
You made the statement that the woman was innocent until she did the thing, and then she was guilty. Not that she ought to be guilty. To claim that I am misdirecting for accurately reading your statement is a cunty thing to do.

Quote:

While I find your eagerness to abandon the presumption of innocence to be distasteful, and ultimately far more dangerous to good people than to bad people, I'm not judging you for your position. I simply disagree.
If my position that slightly stricter gun laws could save a lot of lives is a display of my eagerness to abandon the presumption of innocence because of your presupposition (which I don't share) that only guilty people should be slightly more restricted in their ability to purchase weapons suitable for mass murder; then YOUR unwillingness to campaign your little heart out for your right to own every conceivable weapon is showing your eagerness to abandon the presumption of innocence. If this is truly your belief. Why are you ok with such draconic gun laws as judged from your ideal situation of near total deregulation?

If you think your inability to own nukes violates your presumption of innocence (retarded, but your argument!) then you are as guilty as I am. Actually much more because I'm not for much of a change. I don't think I've gone into details but the difference from what I think ought be from what is, is actually pretty minor. Your idea of what ought be is a far cry from current reality, and you are ok with being treated as a guilty person by being prohibited from strapping caesium-137 to an IED? Isn't this far more dangerous to good than to bad people?

Quote:

I think the idea that one nation can tell another nation what it can or can't have is stupid. I think telling another nation that there will be severe consequences if it does X is perfectly reasonable.
Huh? I guess then we can make gun laws stricter as long as we word it as: this is not prohibition, it just means that there are consequences if we catch you owning it... like jail I guess. Ok? Did we just solve this?

Quote:

I'll let you guess what my answer is on this one, as a test to see if you're even trying to follow this, or not.
fuck yourself
• 05-31-2019, 05:12 PM
You're really taking all this too personally, oskar.

You're also toeing the line on forum rules. Please don't. If you can't treat everyone here with respect, then you can not post. If you lack the self-discipline to control your posting, then a ban will be in order.

Seriously. I'm done responding to you on this topic out of respect for you. You can pretend I'm ignoring you for some spiteful reason if you like, but the truth is that I like having you here, and if you keep talking to me (or anyone on FTR) with the tone you use on this topic, you will be banned.

So I wont be responding to you on this subject, but please don't take it as any sign of disrespect. It's quite the opposite.
• 05-31-2019, 05:21 PM
oskar
• 05-31-2019, 05:24 PM
oskar
You are willing to have an obscenely elevated level of gun deaths and your justification is the blatantly inconsistent idea that not being able to own every conceivable weapon is a violation of the presumption of innocence, but the current level of restrictions is not sufficiently a violation of your presumption of innocence to be worried about. This is complete nonsense no matter how you turn it.
• 05-31-2019, 05:31 PM
Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar

Don't get yourself banned dumbass.

Mojo, he's frustrated because of your stupid habit of making vague, long-winded statements, half of which are non-sequiturs that avoid the issue, and then refusing to clarify what you actually think, or at least realize the logical inconsistencies of your statements. Then on top of it you accuse others of not listening, when all they're trying to do is get you to make some fucking sense once a while.
• 05-31-2019, 06:13 PM
OngBonga
Quote:

Originally Posted by oskar

World class insulting this. Credit where it's due.
• 05-31-2019, 10:52 PM
Quote:

Mojo, he's frustrated because of your stupid habit of making vague, long-winded statements, half of which are non-sequiturs that avoid the issue, and then refusing to clarify what you actually think, or at least realize the logical inconsistencies of your statements. Then on top of it you accuse others of not listening, when all they're trying to do is get you to make some fucking sense once a while.

I'm frustrated, too, but I'm not being disrespectful.

As for the rest, if you have any actual questions about my position, then read what I've already written and ask a question that isn't ignorant of all that's been said.

And "others" aren't listening.
My position is based on very simple statements.
1) All life causes death.
2) Any argument against the causing of death is an argument that nature is wrong, and not worth my time in a discussion about real world and real events that happen between real people, and who has what rights.
3) The right to the means of lethal violence is therefore an inalienable right
4) The right to the means of violence is nothing at all remotely to do with any right to exercise the use of lethal violence.

5) The presumption of innocence is a good move for humans.
6) Taking away anyone's right to the means of lethal violence is a steep restriction of their rights, and any argument to that effect needs to take point 5) heavily into account.
7) Humans are brutal, unpredictable savages and the notion that anyone doesn't have the right to defend themselves against said savagery is worse for the good guys than the bad guys.
8) Literally any outright ban on what anyone can own is a restriction of their rights, and again (5) is important.
9) Regulation, restriction, inspection, etc. are not a ban, and so long as they don't amount to a ban by the complication being literally impossible for anyone to meet, that's OK.

I've made so many more points than these that for anyone to claim that they don't understand my position is nonsense. Whether or not you agree with me, if you don't understand me after multiple pages of me repeating myself, that's on you.
Don't be stubborn. Don't pretend that someone whom you disagree with is therefore less intelligent than you. This isn't a math question.
• 06-01-2019, 03:14 AM
Thank you for clarifying this. It may have been clear to you but it wasn't entirely clear to me until now.

And, just because I think your ideas are stupid doesn't mean I think you are less intelligent. But, there is not a clear chain of logic in what you just said, even if it is clear what you mean.
• 06-01-2019, 03:33 AM
Jack Sawyer
Quote:

antimatter

My bad, I should have stressed the hypothetical. I meant, like, the hypothetical and somehow miraculous accumulation of 1kg of antimatter.

Quote:

The means to kill is in having a human brain and able body. The right to kill is in self defense.

Fair enough. Should the killing be facilitated too? A handgun facilitates these.

I could swear she would not pull out a jackknife on the people she threatened with the piece, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoccoBill
After consideration and trying to see past the arguments, I'm with MMM here. I also don't support a total ban on weapons, I support strict background checks, permits, waiting periods, mandatory training, etc. The stricter, the more powerful the weapon, where you better have a REALLY good justification for having an automatic weapon. Hunting, self protection etc would not be sufficient reasons. 99.99% would not open or concealed carry, those things would be in locked cabinets.

I agree with you here.

Let's take the analogy further, the means to killing as a right. What is the reason for a civilian to have a rocket launcher? A T-14 Armata? A kg of antimatter? Bubonic plague in the fridge?
• 06-01-2019, 06:31 AM
OngBonga
Antimatter could be used as a weapon against someone who's trespassing on your property. It could also be used as an energy source if you're clever enough. I'd imagine 1kg of antimatter would boil a metric fuck ton of water. In fact it's probably the metric measure of a fuck ton. How much water boils when we throw a kg of antimatter in it.

If I figured out how to safely create antimatter, and safely turn it into energy, should I not be allowed to? Because, if I'm mentally unstable, I could threaten trespassers with it?

What if I want a rocket launcher for fun? Maybe I've got a cow that needs culling.
• 06-01-2019, 07:58 AM