u/Jimithyashford

If that turned out to be the case, what then? Paint me a picture of what you'd like to see or what you'd support at that point in terms of punishment/retaliation/justice/etc.

Someone on another thread asked "what would Springfield's National Treasure type clues be?

That made me think it'd be fun to write a little riddle.

NOTE! There is no treasure, do not go trespassing. Just a fun little game. Although it would be neat to do something like this and actually hide a treasure. But not this time.

Anyway, here is the riddle, take your guess. I'll come back to tomorrow with the solve.

-------

When Madison goes to the Market, A tree sits to the south and the west.

An apartment named for this tree, holds the view that is best.

Of the river that runs to the north, flowing off and down to the east.

Where it crosses itself in a sense, you finally are close at least.

On the ridge overlooking the view, on the land where children once played,

The treasure lies hidden below, deep in wild cat's cave.

Where am I?

*Edit* - After several responses, so far I think the best match is 9/11 Truthers. Undoubtably a lefty conspiracy theory that did really have a huge cultural moment and even decades later we still occasionally stumble across and have to debunk. To this day you can say "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" and people will roll their eyes. So obviously it had a lasting impact.

So, that is a pretty good answer.

Conservatives, clearly, don't believe in things like assault weapons bans. I'm not asking about that. I am asking specifically about a definition for "assault weapon" that YOU would find accurate and functionally correct. Or if you reject the term entirely, then what your personal nearest functional equivalent would be, and how you would define it.

Basically, if you were asked to define or outline, to the best of your ability, those guns which are designed to be most effective in military or paramilitary style human combatant engagement, and the design features and functions that serve and enhance that role, what would you call that and how would you define it? And if "assault weapon" is not a good term for this, then what is?

Below is the subject of that I want to ask. I've tried different version of the same post on a few different popular subs, but it keeps getting bounced. I understand why it's a sensitive subject but there has to be somewhere that it's allowed to be talked about.

"Explain Doxxing? Is a person really not allowed to name abusive/bad actors? How could a person be at legal risk for saying publicly a fact they happen to know, such as the identity of (insert online person being openly racist or whatever)?"

When I say "actorly movies" I mean movies that are carried almost entirely by excellent acting and character work. Movies where the plot is extremely opaque and technical, or where there is very little actual plot at all, and the joy of the movie comes not as much from the series of plot events that are unfolding, but from captivating actors acting captivating characters. Sometimes people will say these are movies that feel more like a stage show.

So, for me, examples of this would be:

Margin Call

Hateful 8

12 Angry Men

Most of the 2nd and 3rd act of Django Unchained prior to things popping off.

I would also lump in movies like The Irishman, which yes, does have a significant plot, but a HUGE amount of the quality and joy of the film is seeing the characters just talk. It's the kind of movie where all of the actual pivotal plot moments happen inside a conversation, and the shooting and whatnot are just the foregone conclusion playing out.

Is it solely "injectable willpower" in the sense that it literally only does what you could do anyway if you just had the will power to eat less. Or is there any other weight loss mechanism at play beyond reducing calorie intake?

That's that one part of the plot I didn't really get. He manipulated us/neyrelle into taking his soul to akarat's tomb to possess akarat's body to use the guise of a beloved holy man to gather a ton of follower to sacrifice themselves at the pools of creation to.....what?

Obviously from the about 3 billion evil humans we kill in this franchise, the evils have no problem getting a bunch of human followers willing to sacrifice themselves. So I understood there to be some significance to these followers not knowing they were following a demon, and specifically sacrificing themselves at the pools of creation, but I really didn't get why or what it was supposed to accomplish.

What exactly did we thwart?

Live in Southern Missouri. Not quite as hot and wet as the deep south, but getting close.

I have a lawn that is a big mix of various grasses and clover and violets and all kinds of stuff, and honestly I enjoy that. I keep bees and like have a pollinator friendly lawn.

BUT

I have a couple of use cases, and I'm looking for a good grass seed to fit the bill.

1- Shady corner. I have a shady corner of my yard that is under a few trees, and I have a hard time getting the grass seeds I've used to grow there. So I need an extremely shade tolerant variety.

2- random or incidental bald spot: I have a few bald of bare spots in the yard, due to leaf piles sitting too long and killing the grass, or where I dug a stump out and there is a big dirt patch, that kind of thing. So I need a product that I can just toss on bald or bare spots, water it in, and get some grass to grow and fill it in.

3- I am lazy. I don't want something I have to rake in and water every day and cover in straw and really baby. I want a product where if I toss it out, water it every couple of days for the first few weeks, it'll more or less take care of itself and I'll have grass there.

Does such a miracle product exist?

So, squirrels and rabbits have been destroying my garden, mainly squirrels. Nothing deters them, or at least it doesn't for more than a week or so until they get used to it. So I have decided to go for the nuclear option (metaphorically) and that is a full scale enclosure around my whole garden. Lumber frame with chicken wire.

I'm not new to building things with construction lumber, but nothing of this scale before. I've built chicken coops and compost bins and raised beds, simple stuff like that.

I've found various plans and things, so I know what I need to do, but I'm not clear if this kind of structure requires permitting in Springfield.

Where do I even go to look for that kind of thing? I see all kinds of permitting rules for decks and sheds and house extensions an stuff, but I don't know what rules would apply to this kind of build?

So, Flock is the big deal, a network of cameras that gather information and use machine learning / ai to log information, allowing those with access to Flock, mostly Law Enforcement but other entities as well to better track down people or monitor for certain behaviors.

The legitimate law enforcement use case is pretty clear. But so to are the potential abuses. Those potential abuses or benefits aren't really the point of this post.

The point of this post is: Is Flock, or things like it, a violation of the 4th Amendment, as opponents claim, and is being recorded by Flock, or systems like it, an invasion of privacy.

SO! Here is my current understanding, but please chime in.

There is utterly no right to be free from observation in a public space. Anyone has the right to observe you if you are in public. The information that you were at a place, at a time, doing a thing, or any other observable feature of your person or activity in public, is NOT private information, nobody needs your permission to observe you, and police do not need a warrant or any special permission to observe you themselves or ask others what they saw.

I think most of us understand an agree to that.

Further more, in public, there is no protection against, or right to refuse, having your location or action or appearance noted. If I see you walk buy in a red shirt, I am free to write down "saw man in red shirt walking east on Broadway at 3:14pm" I don't have to tell you I'm noting that, you don't have to consent, that information about you is not private.

Again, I think most of us understand and agree.

You are also allowed to be recorded in public. People don't need your permission to take your picture. A person filming, a traffic camera, a ring doorbell, a security camera, a person taking selfie, whatever, you don't need to get permission from every person who might appear in your footage in order to take it. Public spaces can be filmed and photographed, and you have no right to privacy in such a scenario.

Now, if we have all of this footage, and a police officer, using publicly available footage or footage voluntarily given, of a public space, watches that footage, and with their human brain takes note of car makes and models, license plate numbers, descriptions of persons of interest, etc. I think we all understand that is NOT an invasion of privacy, and is allowed.

The same applies to footage that the officer may get from private businesses either voluntarily turned over or acquired via warrant.

Right, I hope we are all on the same page thus far.

So, what is it about Flock, or similar systems, that, from a legal perspective, crosses a line and should be disallowed? How does having a computer take note of details and record them invade privacy but having a human staffed at a desk watching the same footage and making the same observations not invade privacy? Is it just cause the computer can do it far better? That feels like a flimsy legal distinction to make.

Thoughts?

Remember, I am NOT looking to discuss whether or not surveillance is bad. You don't need to convince me it's bad, but rather, what is the legal reasoning/recourse as you see it?