Could you use a long rifle as a stick for a protest sign?

From what I gathered. It’s mostly a bunch of decrees coming down from central government. “Cost savings” from people who don’t have day to day interactions with the police ok the street.

E.g. buying a dedicated forensics vehicle, in one hit was not allowed. They cost too much. However, contracting for 1, on a case by case basis is fine. Despite the average cost being 1-2x the cost of a new one per year (they apparently last at least 10 years).

Wage pressure also makes them choose between more officers or paying the existing ones better. When there is a hard limit of the number of officers needed, the officers get screwed.

Between burnout, and underpay, they lose the more intelligent ones quite quickly.

A few years back, I did some work for a UK police force, as a (sub)contractor. One of the other guys actually asked the Chief constable why they were using us, not doing it in-house. It turned out they tried. Every time they trained up officers to do it, they quickly jumped ship to the private sector.

Plus side, excessive machoism is discouraged too, so the police tend to be a lot more polite than American police. Effectiveness is another story.

If you want to get extremely pedantic, “Queens English” was defined as the reference. The rich toffs of the British empire got annoyed at their servants having various accents, and either being hard to understand, or mishearing them.

In this case however, it was meant as a local accent, so none noticeable.

90% of people would be fine with it too, maybe more. Unfortunately, it would be VERY easy to catch someone in a very bad state, and make it even worse. Without the context of what sort of person they are, and what they are currently in for, it’s FAR more likely to run into someone who wouldn’t see the funny side.

Don’t get me wrong, it could be hilarious. E.g. the guy who did the same at a nursing home, where he also lived. The heart attack induced was just an unfortunate outcome that put it in the news.

Likely if he had done it to people he knew, and by extension that this particular prank wouldn’t excessively affect them negatively.

Pranking your friends in public, poor taste, but possibly acceptable. Pranking random members of the public, at what could be the worst time of their life…

I had a friend who worked at a wine shop. He was also 1/4 french, though with no accent at all.

Some other friends went in to see him at work. They found it hilarious that he had this excessive french accent. It turned out he did it as a joke 6 months before, and got a good reaction from customers. His subconscious apparently ran with this, without his notice. The more he racked it up, the better the customers respected his opinions on wine. He was, however, completely unaware he was doing it!

As a counter example, I remember listening to a radio interview with a woman who accidentally joined a boxing gym, and decided to roll with it. Even after 3 years training, it apparently took new men about 6 weeks to blast past her in strength.

And jumping back to my earlier comment. Societies tend to amplify differences. Men are stronger, so are expected to do jobs requiring strength. This, in turn leads to stronger men, reinforcing the stereotype.

In short, there’s not much baseline difference between men and women. There are however differences. Societies and cultures often amplify them, particularly when it improves division of labour. In an agrarian society they might not be able to afford the split, so the situation you read about plays out. Men can’t afford to powerhouse, while women need to pick up significant physical labour.

It’s also an unfortunate fact that testosterone makes it a LOT easier to put on muscle mass. A good chunk of men don’t take advantage of it, but the biology still holds. It’s also worth noting that men are on average taller than women. Our volume of muscle is often bigger to start with.

My wife does quite a bit more strength based exercise than I do. The force multiplier on my exercise however means I can easily out power her, when it comes to brute strength.

It’s worth noting however that a lot of the initial strength gain of exercise isn’t muscle increase, but better control. Both men and women can increase this, fairly evenly. The difference tells most once that caps out.

The 2 often feed off each other too. E.g. men are slightly stronger than women, on average. Men are then expected to take on the strong protector role, while women are expected to act weak and subservient. This amplifies the original slight difference massively, reinforcing the social stereotype.

Women seem to have a preference for cooperation, with their ranking within the group mattering most. Men seem to err towards intergroup competition, where your teams ranking matters most. These necessitate different types of social skills, which feeds the stereotype, which feeds the original difference.

Fair, fair.

I will settle for a company who’s demonstrated long term strategy is mostly in line with my interests. It’s not perfect, but I’ll take “morale because it’s profitable” over “enshitifcation for a quick profit”

It’s a terrifying abuse of human brain’s defense wiring.

At a tribal level/time when we are not under stress, we often disagree and bicker. However, when the tribe is threatened, those disagreements take a back seat to survival. If the stress is constant, our brain structure begins to change. Empathy is reduced, to better allow for defence/warfare.

The modern right is designed to hijack these mechanisms. The constant flow of fear puts the brain into a warfare state. Tribe becomes everything, with internal issues being put on a back burner till the threat is over. However, the threat is never over. It shifts and changes, but is never gone. Eventually, out-tribe empathy becomes harder and harder, while internal disagreement becomes almost impossible. In a tribe preparing for war, this is life-saving. For a political party, it’s an unthinking, pliant mob to control.

Breaking out requires breaking that internal cycle. Recognising you are being manipulated, and internally countering the effects. Most people just can’t do that. Deprogramming the damage is a job of generations, and that’s assuming it’s no longer being reinforced.

The ever classic “paperclip maximiser” problem.

An AI is given the goal of maximising paperclip production in a factory. It’s given no other guard rails. Some shenanigans later, it finishes wiping out humanity, in order to divert more resources to paperclip production. (Apparently humans don’t want the iron in their blood used to make paperclips)

It sounds like they have found a chemical pathway to counter some of the disruptions that ultimately cause autism. Particularly things like sensory processing. Autism is likely a cluster condition, with multiple causes leading to similar symptoms. This only focuses on 1 sub path.

As an aspie myself, I am cautiously optimistic. I wouldn’t use it myself. Too much of who I am is built on my alternative brain wiring. However, if it can turn some low functioning autistics into high functioning, I would call that a MASSIVE win.

It is only a mouse model however. It’s interesting and promising, but VERY far from a usable treatment.

I’ve noticed there seems to be a divide between deep thinking and wide thinking.

Deep thinking tends to be directed and has a tight focus. It covers a lot of intellectual thinking.

Wide thinking is a lot more integrated, it’s how we instinctively know how a particular action will affect others, both directly and indirectly. It integrates a lot of topics, but at a far shallower level.

As an aspie, I’m good at deep thinking. I struggle with wide thinking. I suspect I am fairly blind to a lot of wide thinking effects. Whether their more intuitive thinking is better or worse than my logical deep thinking is a different matter.

Karma is generally associated with some form of personal scoreboard. E.g. if you have bad luck it’s either because you did something bad, or a “due” your share of good luck.

Karma is a lie, but it’s a useful lie (like truth or mercy) I explicitly know that my good deeds won’t get rewarded I do it because it can help make the world a better place. If I’m lucky, that will loop around to help me down the road, but I don’t expect it.

It was more subtle and interesting than just a fad. It accidentally hijacked a number of our social instincts. In this case, it was disruptive and obvious. It’s likely the effect is happening to everyone, just more subtly.

It becomes the mechanism through which a very old human phenomenon — the tendency of a stressed group to adopt a shared physical response to that stress

Basically, our stress responses are subconscious, but learnt. Think swearing when you hurt yourself. It’s common, but it’s not universal.

In this case, the girls, due to existing stress formed a pseudo social group. The group “leader” had an unusual ‘stress’ venting method (due to tourettes). The other girls synced to this without conscious involvement. It’s the same mechanism that makes us pick up a local accent, or adopt local habits, when we move somewhere new.

In short, fads include this mechanism, but generally have a far more conscious aspect. This was an interesting short circuit, exposing some of the underlying mechanics of the human mind.

I refer to it as “sowing karma”. I don’t believe actual karma exists. However, a small positive act can create an avalanche of other, small positive acts.

Whenever I do someone a favour, particularly random people. If they try or offer to pay me back, I tell them to pay it forward. I’ve no idea how many do, but even if it’s just 1 or 2, then the world is that bit better for all of us.

Keep being awesome!

Agreed, but with a few provisos.

Turning a peaceful protest (march etc) violet is a big no no. If there is seen to be a risk of this, the popularist section will rapidly hemorrhage members. The radicals can use the events as cover/meeting new members, but not go hot on the march. The exception to this is if the government/police go violent. Defensive counter violence is then acceptable. The goal should be to get the “civilian” supporters (think families etc) clear. Then, it’s down to them whether they bolt too, or play whack a mole with the police.

The other proviso is that the radical groups actions should be proportional. The IRA walked this line. When they set major bombs, they gave the authorities enough warning to clear the area of civilians. They were mostly aiming for property damage and disruption, not mass casualties. The times the IRA went past that line did severe damage to their reputation. They need to act to reinforce the position of the other 2 groups, not undermine it.