Randomness thread, part two.

[Poopadoop]

The second point is one of the most fascinating things about being a person. We lie to ourselves all the time and we tell ourselves that we're good at things we are not and smart about things we barely understand. Our brains actively ignore huge swaths of what we could be capable of perceiving.

I've never really looked into whether people believe theyr'e good at being random or not, though that's an interesting question. It's mostly (I think) that people have an innately poor understanding of what randomness looks like, and so they can't reproduce it.

Also, it's worth noting that the very idea of behaving randomly assumes you ignore what you just did on the previous trial and that's pretty much impossible to do.

What tends to happen is people seem to think 'ok i was fast on the last trial, so I'll be slow on this one. Random!' , when obviously they shouldn't do that.

It's fun. Try to pick a random number between 1-100, then another random one. The chances a person will pick one high and one low number are nearly 100%.

E.g. next time you look at yourself in the mirror, notice that you only ever see one eye looking directly back at you. OK, this makes sense.You're focusing on that one eye, and not the other one, so it makes sense. Here's the brain lie: when you look from one eye to the other, you see no transition. You see no blurred "sweeping camera" motion. The bottom line is that your eye definitely did receive that blurry info, and your brain was like, "yeah... that's just not useful." Whether or not your conscious mind finds it useful, you will ignore all of those blurry moments. Here's a clincher... when they would have been caused by your own motions. You still see stuff as blurry when you look out a car window. Your brain doesn't link the motion of the car to motion of your muscles, so it doesn't ignore the blurriness.

It's fascinating, this madness.

Your brain sends a signal to the perceptual regions telling them when you're moving and how far, that's why eye movements don't make the world jump. You can fuck with this by just pressing gently on your eyeball (through the lid obv., I don't recommend you poke your own eye), and watch the world move around while you're obviously sitting still.

[Poopadoop]

Then why doesn't the better player always win? Does ELO not even allow us to make predictions about how often an X rated player would lose to a Y rated player?

Because they make mistakes. If you want to call that 'variance' then I guess it's fine. I would consider that skill myself. Variance to me means some external influence such as a dice roll.

[Poopadoop]

Checkers is also solved so always ends in a draw, boring.

Never said it was a good game, just said it doesn't depend on variance.

[Savy]

I want to call it variance because that's exactly what it is. By definition.

Your point about skill doesn't make sense though because the better player is more skilled than the worse player and he still loses at times.

[Poopadoop]

Then how do you define skill?

[Savy]

Then how do you define skill?

In the most general sense being expected to win more often. It's worth noting that a lot of games and sports have a level of skill required to introduce variance into the game whatsoever. For example if I played Ronnie O'Sullivan in 100 frames of snooker I wouldn't come close to winning a single frame. If Ronnie played the lowest rated player on the professional circuit the chances are he'd win most of the frames but the chances he didn't lose a single frame would be almost 0.

Some games like poker someone who has only just learnt to play the game could play 100 hyper HUSNGs with the best hyper HUSNG player in the world and it wouldn't be that strange for him to win a couple.

[Poopadoop]

Your point about skill doesn't make sense though because the better player is more skilled than the worse player and he still loses at times.

My point is that he doesn't lose because of some random external event, like a die gets rolled and the referee takes his queen of the board.

Being more skilled than your opponent in a game of pure skill does not require you to win 100% of the time. In chess for example, you may be more adept at playing an open game whereas he is more adept at a closed game, for example. He may try to steer the game towards a closed system, but your skill only allows him to do that a minority of the time. So you might win 80% of the time, and he wins 20%. That's a difference in skill, not luck or variance.

[Poopadoop]

In the most general sense being expected to win more often.

What I mean is what are the relative contributions of skill and luck to the outcome. If someone is expected to win 80% of the time against a given opponent, do you think the universe draws a random number and if it's higher than .8 they win? Because that WOULD be variance, but that's also not what happens obviously.

[Savy]

What I mean is what are the relative contributions of skill and luck to the outcome. If someone is expected to win 80% of the time against a given opponent, do you think the universe draws a random number and if it's higher than .8 they win?
Because that WOULD be variance, but that's also not what happens obviously.

If we're being general about it then yeah that pretty much is what happens.

Also that'd mean they'd only win 20% of the time.

edit - Skill is something you control. If you can only control the way the game goes a certain % of the time then that is out of your control and hence comes down to probability.

[OngBonga]

Someone mentioned Hotels earlier. Never build Hotels.

Not quite.

Optimal strategy is to build up to four houses, then when houses have run out, on your turn you can buy a hotel, which frees up four houses, which you can then immediately buy before anyone else gets a go. This is powerful in mulitplayer games when you bankrupt someone and take their properties, giving you a new set.

The real strength in controlling houses is that when a rival is forced to sell a hotel to pay a debt, if he can't break it into houses, then the whole development will have to come down, costing him a fortune and clearing a safe path. It's not just about stopping other people from developing, keeping them weak, it's also a weapon against already strong rivals.

[Poopadoop]

Also that'd mean they'd only win 20% of the time.

Pedantic but correct.

If we're being general about it then yeah that pretty much is what happens.

I can see the appeal of that idea, but don't think it's really correct.

Skill at a game is not a constant that applies universally within that game, which would NOT lead to the 'universe deciding' theory having a good fit to the world. In any one playing of the game numerous situations arise in which skill level will vary within an individual. The overall accumulation of those situations and their likelihood across multiple games and opponents' styles equates to the overall skill level of the player in question. None of that happens at random (i.e., due to variance) in a game such as chess, since all the situations that arise do so because (and only because) of the moves the players make.

Take a novice white chess player who opens p-qr4. That's (I think) a dumb move that immediately lowers his prospects for the game. But that move itself was not determined randomly, he chose it. So there was no variance at play, just skill.

Now say black replies with something sensible (I dunno, n-kb3). That's a reasonable move that immediately makes his prospects better. Again, determined by his skill, not randomly.

I just don't see where variance comes into a game like chess.

[OngBonga]

There should be a game called 'communist monopoly'; everything just gets distributed equally. Just as dumb as the real thing but in a different way.

This isn't how communist Monopoly would work.

What would happen is when you land on a property, instead of buying it, one would work there, thus taking a share of the means of production, which gives you a percentage of the profit the company makes. You can't claim rent because you don't own any property, you're merely a former employee once you roll the dice again.

When we earn money by landing on property, we get very little. When we pass go, we get fuck all. When we go to jail, we miss ten goes unless we roll a double six or pay a $1000 bribe. When we land on chance or community chest, we have to pay outrageous amounts of money for "luxuries" like batteries and full cream milk. When you land on tax, it'll probably be enough to bankrupt you. There's also a card in the chance pile that triggers a famine, ending the game in a draw, unless someone has picked up the "stockpile food and guns" card, in which case that person wins.

[BananaStand]

Do you guys play monopoly where you have to land on a property to buy it? Or do you play with the rule that says if the person landing there declines to buy, then the property goes up for auction to all players?

The latter, I believe, results in a more skill-based game. Also makes it a fuck-ton faster.

[OngBonga]

It should go up for auction, but some people will adopt a house rule that says it just remains for sale.

[wufwugy]

This isn't how communist Monopoly would work.

What would happen is when you land on a property, instead of buying it, one would work there, thus taking a share of the means of production, which gives you a percentage of the profit the company makes. You can't claim rent because you don't own any property, you're merely a former employee once you roll the dice again.

When we earn money by landing on property, we get very little. When we pass go, we get fuck all. When we go to jail, we miss ten goes unless we roll a double six or pay a $1000 bribe. When we land on chance or community chest, we have to pay outrageous amounts of money for "luxuries" like batteries and full cream milk. When you land on tax, it'll probably be enough to bankrupt you. There's also a card in the chance pile that triggers a famine, ending the game in a draw, unless someone has picked up the "stockpile food and guns" card, in which case that person wins.

Add spots where the work is harder yet the pay is the same. Then you got your communism.

[OngBonga]

Actions are fun. They can take a long time, what with people upping the bid by the minimum amount.

I'll bid a dollar for Mayfair.

It begins.

[OngBonga]

Add spots where the work is harder yet the pay is the same. Then you got your communism.

Yeah, except I forgot one thing.

There's an oil field on the board, which you can buy, and if you get it, then you're definitely going to win, because you can make millions while everyone else struggles to survive.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, except I forgot one thing.

There's an oil field on the board, which you can buy, and if you get it, then you're definitely going to win, because you can make millions while everyone else struggles to survive.

I think that's called Oligarcholy.

[OngBonga]

Chinese Monopoly would be great, too. When you open the game, it immediately starts polluting. If you haven't got a well ventilated room, you'll die of carbon monoxide poisoning before you've even dished out the starting cash. It works like a mix between capitalist and communist monopoly, except landing on chance is dangerous, not expensive, because you might get shot by the government for posting an image of the dude and the tank on twitter.

[wufwugy]

Yeah, except I forgot one thing.

There's an oil field on the board, which you can buy, and if you get it, then you're definitely going to win, because you can make millions while everyone else struggles to survive.

Make millions by helping millions.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think that's called Oligarcholy.

[OngBonga]

Then there's Jamaican Monopoly. The chance cards all say the same - "pay a ten pound fine or roll a spliff". All the properties are cheap, and there's very little currency in circulation. However, weed is considered legal tender. Merely promosing to pass the next spliff is good enough to settle most rent debts on undeveloped land. One might need to offer a cold beer if there's a hotel on there that you can't afford.

[Poopadoop]

Trumpopoly: You rent your properties to the secret service. Chance is fake news, CC is when you hold a rally to bash the media. If you get too many chances and not enough CC's you get impeached. Otherwise you get re-elected every four times around the board. Free parking makes you a dictator and elections are abolished.

[wufwugy]

Trumpopoly: You rent your properties to the secret service. Chance is fake news, CC is when you hold a rally to bash the media. If you get too many chances and not enough CC's you get impeached. Otherwise you get re-elected every four times around the board. Free parking makes you a dictator and elections are abolished.

Oh god I would play the shit out of this.

If you can get this in meme form, t_d would love it

[Poopadoop]

Oh god I would play the shit out of this.

If you can get this in meme form, t_d would love it

I would but I'm too busy trying to apply GTO to win every time at go fish.

[Savy]

I can see the appeal of that idea, but don't think it's really correct.

Skill at a game is not a constant that applies universally within that game, which would NOT lead to the 'universe deciding' theory having a good fit to the world. In any one playing of the game numerous situations arise in which skill level will vary within an individual. The overall accumulation of those situations and their likelihood across multiple games and opponents' styles equates to the overall skill level of the player in question. None of that happens at random (i.e., due to variance) in a game such as chess, since all the situations that arise do so because (and only because) of the moves the players make.

Take a novice white chess player who opens p-qr4. That's (I think) a dumb move that immediately lowers his prospects for the game. But that move itself was not determined randomly, he chose it. So there was no variance at play, just skill.

Now say black replies with something sensible (I dunno, n-kb3). That's a reasonable move that immediately makes his prospects better. Again, determined by his skill, not randomly.

I just don't see where variance comes into a game like chess.

I also don't agree that it fits perfectly when talking about specifics and have been clear I am talking quite generally. As I've said multiple times though skill is a meaningless word with no definition so to say something is determined by skill doesn't mean anything. When I say something is variance I am talking about just exactly that.

Your opponents moves are very luck based btw.

[wufwugy]

GTO and Go Fish is never not funny together.

[Jack Sawyer]

THIS IS NOT A DRILL

I REPEAT

THIS IS NOT A DRILL


Nearby system has 7 Earth-sized planets, several in the habitable zone

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...abitable-zone/

[Poopadoop]

I also don't agree that it fits perfectly when talking about specifics and have been clear I am talking quite generally.As I've said multiple times though skill is a meaningless word with no definition so to say something is determined by skill doesn't mean anything. When I say something is variance I am talking about just exactly that.

I don't think you're making much sense here but ok.

Your opponents moves are very luck based btw.

You may get 'lucky' in the sense that your opponent habitually blunders in a situation, you don't know that beforehand, and you create that situation for different reasons. I'll give you that.

[Savy]

GTO and Go Fish is never not funny together.

Ever played bullshit? That's such a great easy card game.

I don't think you're making much sense here but ok.

Tbf I rarely do.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think the only real issue is how you're each defining variance.

At heart, variance is a measure of variation in a result or outcome. Whether or not that result is driven by a "truly random" variable is not necessarily a factor.

Variance is deviation from expectation, squared (or near enough for a lay discussion). So if you have any outcome which is not 100% consistent, then there is a mean outcome and a variance about that outcome.

Frequently when discussing variance, one person may be talking about the variance in one thing while another person is talking about variance in another thing.

E.g. If you track your winrate in poker after many hands, then you may say, the more hands I play, the lower the variance gets. This is false on it's face. It's true that the more hands you show a profit, the expectation that you are a winner has lower and lower variance. However, the more hands you play, the variance in your final BR is always increasing. So the statement that a winning player sees less variance over time is difficult to make sense of. It depends on variance in what, exactly.

[Poopadoop]

I think the only real issue is how you're each defining variance.

Clearly.

At heart, variance is a measure of variation in a result or outcome. Whether or not that result is driven by a "truly random" variable is not necessarily a factor.

There's two levels of variance at play here; the 'truly random' variance inherent in the influence of a random variable (e.g., dice) on a game's outcome, and the variance within an outcome of a game. The former, when in play, will always contribute to the latter, but the latter can arise without the former (notwithstanding whether you can characterize people's choices in a game as falling in a distribution, which they probably do - hence why I conceded the point to Savy).

If you track your winrate in poker after many hands, then you may say, (1) the more hands I play, the lower the variance gets. This is false on it's face.

It's true that the more hands you show a profit, the expectation that you are a winner has lower and lower variance.

However, the more hands you play, the variance in your final BR is always increasing. So the statement that (2) a winning player sees less variance over time (3) is difficult to make sense of. It depends on variance in what, exactly.

1) The problem here is that people use variance and standard error interchangeably, which is obv. wrong.

2) Again, it's a misuse of the word. They're really referring to their probability of showing a profit rather than the variability of their BR - two different things.

3) It's not that it's difficult - it's that there is no way to make sense out of nonsense.

[Jack Sawyer]

That's the verdict of scientists who have analysed ancient DNA of the extinct animals for mutations.The studies suggest the last mammoths died out after their DNA became riddled with errors.
The knowledge could inform conservation efforts for living animals.

So it seems that inbreeding got them

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39142941

[bigred]

Hopefully not a repost but my favorite thing right now....

https://vimeo.com/190453307

[aubreymcfate]

Hopefully not a repost but my favorite thing right now....

https://vimeo.com/190453307

<3

[JKDS]

Remember when Game of Thrones was a thing? It's been off my radar for ages now.

[VanDam]

Remember when Game of Thrones was a thing? It's been off my radar for ages now.

Still the best show on TV IMO.

[VanDam]

New season starts 7/16

[bigred]

The 90s are back, kids

[bigred]

Anyone else here a fan of the Tanis podcast? I think it might be one of the best fictional pieces I've ever encountered. That's all mediums included.

[bigred]

Drinking some Carlsberg in Kuala Lumpur so consider this a Bigred guest appearance. Let's talk about things we care about. The Highly Suspect show I posted before had my favorite song of 2016 (opening song) Bath Salts.

Other cool things I loved from 2016 include:



An amazing song I listened to while roaming the dark streets of Ha Giang, Vietnam one night:

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

Apparently you can only post one video tag per post

[bigred]

More Bo Burham:

[bigred]

Books wise I've been reading a lot of discworld (mostly the guard series), Tools of Titans by Tim Ferriss, Hilbilly Elegy by JD Vance, Ancillary Justice, and a few others. What's everyone else reading?

[bigred]

I really don't like the songs by this band but this opening and song are great:

[bigred]

Also a cool flashback:

[aubreymcfate]

One of my favorite Bo Burnham bits.

books:

The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula Le Guin
Cosmic Trigger by Robert Anton Wilson

Just finished VALIS by Philip K Dick.. fucking awesome..

Going to start Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow soon, which is gonna be a massive undertaking..

Hillbilly Elegy sounds very interesting.

[Jack Sawyer]

[JKDS]

Remember that different states have different laws. You may get fucked by imitating him, even if he was right in his own jurisdiction.

[a500lbgorilla]

I was gonna post this yesterday but bigred was on a tear.



He hits a lot of important points and I think it's a great example of how easily people can become convinced incorrectly and how difficult it is to pull out of it.

[a500lbgorilla]

Remember that different states have different laws. You may get fucked by imitating him, even if he was right in his own jurisdiction.

I think the point is how extraordinary it is how someone in a position to really ruin your day is citing fictitious laws to have his way.

[Poopadoop]

This is how you deal with dick cops.

[JKDS]

They were being dicks?

[Jack Sawyer]

I think the point is how extraordinary it is how someone in a position to really ruin your day is citing fictitious laws to have his way.

Spot on

[Jack Sawyer]

Climate change/ global warming FTW yo

[Poopadoop]

They were being dicks?

Not especially I just thought it was funny.

But since you raised the question, they didn't seem to think they had any business asking him what was in his bag either the way they just accepted his answer and walked away. So apparently, he wasn't a) bothering anyone; b) visibly intoxicated; or c) holding an AK47-shaped bag.

So you have to wonder what gives the cop the right to ask what's in your bag. Not saying the citizen wasn't being a dick as well and probably a bigger dick than the cop was, but still. Also obv. we don't know the context.

Have you ever been stopped by the cops to ask you what's in your bag?

[JKDS]

What gives the cop the right to ask what's in your bag? The same thing that gives you that right to ask the very same question. Cops don't lose their rights as civilians just because theyre cops.

Can they look in it without permission? No. Can they stop you for no reason? No. But cops are free to ask questions, just like everybody else is.

[OngBonga]

They were being dicks?

To a degree, it seems so. The fact they backed off shows they had no reason to actually suspect him of anything, otherwise they would be more curious about why he was being aggressive and persist with the search. Isn't swearing at a cop illegal in USA? I think it's enough to get yourself arrested here, if the cop wants to actually be a dick about it. So they weren't full on dicks because they thought "whatever" and left him to it, but it only begs the question why they wanted to look in the bag in the first place, nosey fuckers.

[Poopadoop]

What gives the cop the right to ask what's in your bag? The same thing that gives you that right to ask the very same question. Cops don't lose their rights as civilians just because theyre cops.

Can they look in it without permission? No. Can they stop you for no reason? No. But cops are free to ask questions, just like everybody else is.

What his rights are as a civilian seem kind of irrelevant here. The cop is on duty so he should have a reason for asking people questions in his capacity as a police officer, shouldn't he? It's not like someone in civvy clothes just walking up to you and asking what's in your bag. There's clearly a different dynamic going on when it's a person in authority asking the questions.

Maybe not everyone knows their rights as well as you. Maybe some people will answer any question the cop asks, because they think they have to. Maybe the cop was the type who was going to keep asking questions all day long if the guy kept answering, because the cop is the type who gets his orgasms from giving people a hard time.

[Poopadoop]

And for that matter, if a civilian came up to you on the street, pointed at you, and asked what you had in your bag, wouldn't you call that being a dick?

[BananaStand]

The cop is on duty so he should have a reason for asking people questions in his capacity as a police officer, shouldn't he?

Yeah. Crime prevention.

It's not like someone in civvy clothes just walking up to you and asking what's in your bag. There's clearly a different dynamic going on when it's a person in authority asking the questions.

So?

Maybe not everyone knows their rights as well as you.

So?

Maybe some people will answer any question the cop asks,

So?

Maybe the cop was the type who was going to keep asking questions all day long if the guy kept answering,

So?

because the cop is the type who gets his orgasms from giving people a hard time.

So?

People are protected against illegal searches and seizures. If the cop looked in the bag without permission and found cocaine, enriched uranium, and severed heads.....the guy walks.

Isn't that enough?

you want to inhibit cops ability to interact with citizens because "maybe" some cops might take a few liberties with the privilege?

[JKDS]

To a degree, it seems so. The fact they backed off shows they had no reason to actually suspect him of anything, otherwise they would be more curious about why he was being aggressive and persist with the search. Isn't swearing at a cop illegal in USA? I think it's enough to get yourself arrested here, if the cop wants to actually be a dick about it. So they weren't full on dicks because they thought "whatever" and left him to it, but it only begs the question why they wanted to look in the bag in the first place, nosey fuckers.

How would you react if someone responded that way to one of your questions? Where'd you get that shirt? NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS, THAT'S WHERE. You might back off too, right?


Personally, I want nosey cops. Nosey, lawful cops.

[JKDS]

What his rights are as a civilian seem kind of irrelevant here. The cop is on duty so he should have a reason for asking people questions in his capacity as a police officer, shouldn't he? It's not like someone in civvy clothes just walking up to you and asking what's in your bag. There's clearly a different dynamic going on when it's a person in authority asking the questions.

Maybe not everyone knows their rights as well as you. Maybe some people will answer any question the cop asks, because they think they have to. Maybe the cop was the type who was going to keep asking questions all day long if the guy kept answering, because the cop is the type who gets his orgasms from giving people a hard time.

I guess we should throw out every confession cops have ever gotten then.

There isn't anything wrong with an officer asking a single question in the instance linked. It wasn't a stop, it wasn't a search. He didn't orDer the guy to answer, or even to wait. He asked a question, got a hostile response, then went about his business.

But maybe he gets his jollys from it, like movie cops and that guy from that one video, so fuck him

[Jack Sawyer]

What his rights are as a civilian seem kind of irrelevant here. The cop is on duty so he should have a reason for asking people questions in his capacity as a police officer, shouldn't he? It's not like someone in civvy clothes just walking up to you and asking what's in your bag. There's clearly a different dynamic going on when it's a person in authority asking the questions.

Maybe not everyone knows their rights as well as you. Maybe some people will answer any question the cop asks, because they think they have to. Maybe the cop was the type who was going to keep asking questions all day long if the guy kept answering, because the cop is the type who gets his orgasms from giving people a hard time.

How about that unreasonable search and seizure thing??

[OngBonga]

How would you react if someone responded that way to one of your questions? Where'd you get that shirt? NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS, THAT'S WHERE. You might back off too, right?


Personally, I want nosey cops. Nosey, lawful cops.

Yeah but I'm not a cop who first of all thought someone looked suspect enough to ask "what's in the bag", then when the person replies "fuck off", the cop says "well ok then, good day sir". Not sure if the cop is being a dick, or just sucks at his job.

Nosey cops... depends what kind of nosey. If I'm walking, going somewhere, in no apparent hurry, and assuming I don't match the description of someone they're looking for, well don't fucking stop me. If someone looks shifty, nervous when they're aware of police presence, perhaps looking like they're in a hurry, well yeah, get nosey. But if the cops are working on the basis of "can I please look in your bag" then I dunno what the fuck is going on. I thought you guys had harsher laws and cops than us, the idea that you guys can just tell cops to fuck off is confusing to me. His exact phrase is "none of you fucking business, that's what I've got in my bag". You can't say that to a cop in the UK. You can say none of your business, but you can't swear at the cunt, otherwise he could, if he wanted, arrest you for a public order offence and waste your time, perhaps even give you a slap at the station when noone's looking.

[MadMojoMonkey]

IDK the specifics, but there is no threat to the officer, no matter what words come out of someone's mouth. I don't think they can press any charges over disrespecting them verbally. They can, of course, take your attitude as "reasonable suspicion" to search you. Police officers don't need a warrant to act on their immediate suspicions when they're on duty for a wide range of searches. Anyone who's been pulled over for a traffic violation and had them search the entire vehicle knows it's true.

They can't enter private property w/o a warrant, but your property in the public space is fair game, as I understand it.

Of course, in some jurisdictions, they can arrest you and detain you w/o filing any charges (They can hold you for up to 20 hours w/o filing charges in my home town, not sure in my current jurisdiction). Even if they arrest you for a minute and never file charges, they have the responsibility to search your person and every item you bring into their cars / stations.

EDIT: My point is that they can make you regret giving them attitude in more ways than one.

[JKDS]

Yeah but I'm not a cop who first of all thought someone looked suspect enough to ask "what's in the bag", then when the person replies "fuck off", the cop says "well ok then, good day sir". Not sure if the cop is being a dick, or just sucks at his job.

Nosey cops... depends what kind of nosey. If I'm walking, going somewhere, in no apparent hurry, and assuming I don't match the description of someone they're looking for, well don't fucking stop me. If someone looks shifty, nervous when they're aware of police presence, perhaps looking like they're in a hurry, well yeah, get nosey. But if the cops are working on the basis of "can I please look in your bag" then I dunno what the fuck is going on. I thought you guys had harsher laws and cops than us, the idea that you guys can just tell cops to fuck off is confusing to me. His exact phrase is "none of you fucking business, that's what I've got in my bag". You can't say that to a cop in the UK. You can say none of your business, but you can't swear at the cunt, otherwise he could, if he wanted, arrest you for a public order offence and waste your time, Rerperhaps even give you a slap at the station when noone's looking.

We got freedom though, unlike you tea drinking Redcoats. I imagine the civilians statement isn't a crime in most jurisdictions.

As for the video, we don't know the circumstances. It could be outside a protest, near a crime scene, or just before Trump's Inauguration for all we know. The reasonable circumstances you describe cannot be known from the video above.

[Poopadoop]

As for the video, we don't know the circumstances. It could be outside a protest, near a crime scene, or just before Trump's Inauguration for all we know. The reasonable circumstances you describe cannot be known from the video above.

Well they can, since the cop never pressed him on the question. How many cops with a valid reason to ask what's in someone's bag just walk away after they get told it's none of their business?

[bigred]

You guys are doing a horrible job at random.

Can't get enough of this meme: https://twitter.com/valerieloftus/st...08087118151681

[MadMojoMonkey]

You guys are doing a horrible job at random.

Can't get enough of this meme: https://twitter.com/valerieloftus/st...08087118151681

That link to twitter is offensive to my sensibilities.

Here's the gif.

Walk into the room like:

[JKDS]

Well they can, since the cop never pressed him on the question. How many cops with a valid reason to ask what's in someone's bag just walk away after they get told it's none of their business?

Most would just walk away. Absent reasonable suspicion of a crime, a standard that needs articulated facts and is more than a mere hunch, they arnt allowed to stop or search you. Intentionally doing so anyway, in spite of the constitution, is what law suits are built of off.

Police departments don't like being sued. Officers may get into shit for that. Also, cops found to be dishonest or who have committed misconduct get put on Brady lists...meaning they become useless to prosecutors meaning they get fired.

[OngBonga]

You guys are doing a horrible job at random.

Can't get enough of this meme: https://twitter.com/valerieloftus/st...08087118151681

This sentence makes sense and is therefore also failing at random.

Get your cat to walk over your keyboard if you want to mock our efforts.

[OngBonga]

That link to twitter is offensive to my sensibilities.

Here's the gif.

Walk into the room like:

Someone do a gif of him shoving her in the face.

[Poopadoop]

Most would just walk away. Absent reasonable suspicion of a crime

I don't follow this. You're saying if he did have a good reason to ask he would still just walk away? That seems like a pretty shitty job cop to me.

Either you have a reason to ask and it's enough reason to follow up the question with a search, or you don't and so you shouldn't ask imo.

Would you like a cop asking you what was in your bag for no good reason? What about asking you what's in your pockets? Maybe he can also ask you if you have a receipt for the shirt you're wearing, or where you got your shoes from.

[BananaStand]

Someone do a gif of him shoving her in the face.

If you can find the video of this (I saw it on TV the other day), what follows is even funnier. Another kid comes along in one of those rolling deathtraps that I actually thought were illegal these days. They both make a racket and then the mom comes in like a pro wrestler and drags them both out.

[wufwugy]

Best one.