daltotron @ daltotron @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

528

Joined

2 yr. ago

It encourages violence, it desensitizes us,

We can understand why that's like, not a very concrete justification to be against espousing violence, right? I also find it weird, right, that we're doing this step-around thing, where you're calling everyone out for the hypocrisy of, oh, well, people are against this violence, but they're not against this violence? Have you maybe considered that the two forms of violence are distinct? Perhaps that the two forms of violence are actually not similar? That people have reasons for, say, wanting violence against one party, but not another?

That's what they're commenting about. You say "it's either all okay or none of it's okay" because it encourages violence, right, but, I am giving you an opportunity to show your work, when it comes to this very basic claim, upon which rests the rest of your argument.

That kinda sucks. I would expect more of your mainline 3D modelling things to be on top of this, or there to maybe be some sort of blender modification, some blender fork, that gets it to work in VR. Seems like kind of an obviously much better use case, to me, compared to memorizing a shit ton of hotkeys, and having to maybe buy one of those space mice they sell for the same price as a whole ass VR headset.

I've tried it at a friend's house, quest 2, like the other guy, and I think an oculus at another friend's house, but a quest 2 more recently. It was probably due to game selection, but it was kind of underwhelming, personally. headset was also way too heavy for me.

I dunno, I was more impressed when I used a wii back in 2009 or whatever, when I was like 7. Partially because I was a kid, probably, partially because wii sports is based, but I also think there's something to be said of the natural symbiosis between motion controls, couch co-op, and a shared screen, even if there's a lot of inherent limitations to that approach in terms of game design. I might be falling behind all of that in terms of the internet being the new couch co-op, though.

I also think the lack of easy, built in locomotion is something that probably needs to be solved, because it seems like a pretty big limitation in terms of game design and immersion, and I also wanna bring up haptic feedback again because I like haptic feedback and find it useful but nobody else does and it has no support. I think it might help.

I also haven't really seen many devs taking advantage of the platform's actual like, capabilities. I've seen more devs try to recreate things as they exist in the real world almost 1 to 1, and almost constantly in first person, instead of devs that are like, okay, we have head tracking, we have active motion controls in both hands, we have 3D capable perspective, what can we do with all of that? I haven't seen many games that are playing with that in a more abstract way. Something like ping pong, for instance, would kind of make a lot of sense, when you look at it from the angle of, what are the specific capabilities are of the platform. You could make a lot of interesting perspective based puzzle games, like echochrome on the PSP, I think that would be worth pursuing.

As for future capabilites, I really have no idea. I think we've kind of achieved optimal pixel density for whatever screens we might employ, right, mostly as evidenced by the smartphone market (though we might see some innovations there, I really don't know). I think the main limitation now would probably be how optics are designed, which seems like kind of a harder problem to deal with. I'd like to see phased array optics with lasers and holograms and stuff become a thing, but that's still quite a ways off.

damn, I didn't really know it was that intense, that serious. I guess I have, once again, underestimated the furries, my greatest rivals on this god forsaken planet.

nah but fr that makes a lot of sense. I would've just kind of thought, you know, stereotype of wealthy furries in IT shelling out for fursuits and shit, and furries in VR, put 2 and 2 together and blam, wow, the math checks out, but yeah, I do believe there's probably a good proportion of people for whom it's important enough to kind of get on top of it asap.

also VR headsets are getting cheaper than I thought, so that's another factor.

So, is VR actually good, or is it mostly just for wealthy silicon valley furries to hang out with each other in VRchat, like everyone used to do in second life? The only game that really comes to mind as being something that's even close to a killer app is beatsaber, and that's basically just DDR with your upper body. I really haven't seen much support, both in the way of games, and more importantly, in the way of, say, 3d modelling apps, or something to that effect. Utility software, stuff that's useful, but is specifically more convenient in virtual reality, stuff that might be benefited by the platform. But then, it's not really something I've looked into much.

I don't really look at it as a symptom of lack of graphics throughput, but more as a benefit of eye tracking, which is also potentially something that benefits, say, the immersion of others through portraying your facial expressions more realistically, or something to that effect. You could also use it as a kind of peripheral for games or software, and apple currently uses it as a mouse, so it's not totally useless. But I also can't imagine that most developers are going to be imaginative enough to make good use of it, if we can't even think of good uses for basic shit, like haptic feedback.

Perhaps it breaks even in terms of allowing them to save money they otherwise would've spent on rendering, but I dunno if that's the case, since the camera has to be pretty low latency, and you have to still dedicate hardware resources to the eye tracking and foveated rendering in order to get it to look good. Weight savings, then? I just don't really know. I guess we'll see, if it gets more industry adoption.

I'm the CEO of whiteness. By official decree, Korean people are now white, except for when they aren't. Let it be known.

I dunno. Lots of places, even, are named really dumb shit in their native language, or in old english. Places that are just named like, Johnstown, or some shit. Johannesburg. Hillsborough. Portland, land of the ports. These are really dumb names, they're kind of akin to the modern convention of naming the streets of suburbs after the trees that we cut down for the land, like Pine street, Fir street, Douglas avenue, and don't get me started on Main street, or streets that are just numbered in order.

Basically, I guess my point is just that everything has a stupid name, I think it just sounds cooler when it's nonsense (perceived, or otherwise) because it becomes associated with the work on it's own, rather than being associated with external stuff which may or may not be descriptive of the work.

New idea I've just come up with, we make it so, before upvoting or downvoting something, you have to press a button, and then wait at least a minute, or, better yet, solve a captcha, and then you don't even have to have accounts anymore and that takes about a minute. The only people upvoting or downvoting will be those who are really reflecting on what it is that they're doing, or the people who are really really committed and pissed off about something. I'm sure the latter won't happen like, ever.

I think maybe that's exactly how people are using it, it's just that most people aren't thinking "oh, well, this post made me a little mad or uncomfy, but I like the content and discussion that it's spurned, so I'll toss it an upvote". I think most people are more inclined to go "THIS POST MADE ME MAD! GRUG DOWNVOTE!". It doesn't even really not make sense, it would be kind of insane to spend like, even just a minute, thinking consciously about every single upvote or downvote you make, it would take a million years for anyone to ever upvote or downvote anything, and a lot of people would just not engage unless they were really committed, which doesn't necessarily map to their level of discernment, but might just instead map to how mad people could get over a given thing. Plenty of people could get mad enough about a thing to sit through a minute long wait period to downvote something.

This is technology considered the holy grail of computing.

This shit is just analog computing though, right? Like at it's base, we're just reproducing analog computation in a digital environment and then we're framing that in a million different ways, like we've been doing since the seventies. We've actually had this shit since the first computers, which were analog. The whole reason we moved to digital, though, is because the results were easier to break down, parse, and we had control over every step of the process to confirm it was correct, and it was going to be correct every time. A clearer sense of limitations and constraints, basically.

Now I'm not entirely against analog computing as a matter of fact, right, in fact I think it can be pretty cool if we recognize it for what it is, but at the same time I can't help but think that the level of hype around it is fucking insane. Primarily because it's not easily controllable or reproducible. Not in the sense that we're gonna somehow invent a rogue AI that will kill us all, or whatever garbage, but in the sense that, while you can get easily reproducible results (such is the nature of computation), it is very hard to control what the output is of a given neural network. You can process loads of information extremely quickly, but, like, what use is that if I don't know whether or not the solution is correct, or if it's just a kind of ballpark figure? That's the main issue.

Again, fine if we recognize it, but I don't think we're really close at all to just like, randomly inventing a rogue consciousness. We're not anywhere close to that, from what I've seen. We're still barely good at image recognition and generation in an actually complicated environment, and even then it's still pretty hard to get what it is that you specifically want, partially because the hype is driving so much development at this point, and the implementation is bunk and, again, kind of uncontrollable. Venture capital jumping down this thing's throat has partially blocked it's airway, as I see it. Still a useful technology, potentially, but a million stupid tech demos and image generators for nonsensical memes that we can flood everyone with is the dumbest shit imaginable, and even dumber than that is the level of venture capitalists I see that want to somehow monetize that.

And so I have to ask, right, if I want a robot to sort through the different colors of little plastic beads, right, do I get a large language model on that, or do I just run a pretty basic and more efficient algorithm that just narrows the parameter of beads to a certain color, as recorded by the camera, and then that's it? Do I want to translate a sentence with AI, or do I want to just manually run a straight word to word conversion that maybe changes based on a couple passes I'm gonna run at it to check whether or not it contextually makes sense with something like a markov chain? Trick question, they are both the same approach, AI has just done it in a way where I could apply a kind of broader paintbrush to the thing and get my results a little faster and with a little less thought even if I have less control over it.

I can't contest the first point cause I'm not a firefox junkie, so I won't.

What I will contest is that the existence of AI, or, deep learning, or LLMs, or neural networks, or matrix multiplication, or whatever type of shit they come up with next, I'll contest that it isn't problematic. I kind of think it is, inherently, I think it's existence is not great. Mostly because it obfuscates, even internally, the processing of data, it obfuscates the inputs from the outputs, the works from the results. You can do that with regular programming just fine, just as you can do most of the shit that AI does with normal programming, like that guy who made a program that calculates the prices for japanese baked goods and also recognizes cancer, right. But I think AI is a step further than that, it obfuscates it more. I kind of am skeptical of it's broad implementation.

For trivial use cases, it's kind of fine, but I think maybe use cases we might consider trivial, otherwise are kind of fucked, maybe. AI summary of an article? I dunno if that's good. We might think, oh, this is kind of trivial because the user should just not really trust what the AI says, but, as with all technology, what if the user is an idiot and a moron? They might just use it to read the article for them, and then spout off whatever talking points and headlines it gives them. I can't really think of a scenario where that's actually a good thing, and it's highly possible. It might make it easier to parse an article, like that, but I don't think that's actually a good or useful tool, it's just presented a kind of illusion of utility, most especially because it was redundant (we could just write a summary and have it at the top of the article, like every article on the face of the earth), and it was totally beyond our control, at least, in most circumstances.

Also, the Mozilla Foundation is nonprofit, but the Mozilla Corporation is not. The Foundation manages the Corp, which manages Firefox development. So depending on which one you're referring to, it might be a non-profit, or it might not be. In any case, the nonprofit is a step removed from Firefox development, which I think is an important side-note, even if it's not actually that relevant to whatever conversations about AI there might be.

Interesting, you gave me a lot more than I was anticipating. I've had a couple friends in the military, and even in high school, it was pretty common for them to be watching liveleak videos and shit like that. I guess, yeah, it would make more sense as something that's kind of like, that's kind of something that people promulgate themselves, just sort of internally. People are a little bit fucked up, huh? I've also heard from them that it's pretty common that someone offs themselves in basic almost every time, or you get attempted suicides, I think one of them was talking about some guy that tried to snap his neck with something heavy thrown out of a window, might've been a forklift, or something to that effect, can't quite recall. I'd be interested to know whether or not that's an abnormal amount of suicide, or if that's just kind of the expected rates for what I would assume to be a heavily male subset in an environment where there's easy access to firearms and a bunch of other potential ways to kill yourself.

Also I gotta ask, and I'm sure I could find this out via google, but do they still use quicklime for body detail, or do they have some sort of other chemical disincorporation that they've moved to? Pretty grim stuff, in any case. I don't envy that, not a big fan of mindlessly digging a bunch of holes. Makes sense that most people wouldn't be prepared for it, I'd imagine the smell is also pretty bad, in combination with the sight of it. People don't really think about it much, but while you can close your eyes, or avoid trying to look directly at something, you can't really shut off your sense of smell in the same way.

I dunno, it's interesting because on one hand, the humor is used to inoculate you to traumatic shit, right, but on the other hand, it's also a kind of like, if only aesthetically, comedically, the humor presents a kind of functional ideology to people. It's going to propagate because of the environment, because it makes the job easier, and then the job is selecting for people who will naturally not be disgusted by the humor, who will find it funny, and, you know, the cycle feeds back into itself. Same shit as why rich people litter their house with self-help books, so they can get rid of their wealth guilt.

Also yeah, the whole like, it's just a job, is also kind of concerning. Basically everyone I know that got in, got in just for the free college alone, which, you know, also having healthcare and a steady job right out of high school is nice, if you can swing it. I've never really encountered anyone, outside of old people, that kind of view the military as being something that they have a kind of moral calling to. If they do, that's sort of a thing that comes as like an "also, I think it's a good thing", rather than their primary motivation. It's not necessarily a bad thing, right, I would expect it to be a job, but it's just kind of weird, mostly. It's like an extreme disillusionment. I dunno whether or not it's a good thing, to be able to morally recognize and then square away that, oh, this isn't a great thing, right, we can dispel the illusion that we're morally righteous and are fighting a "good war", but at the same time, it's just replaced with nihilism, and the effects end up working out to be the same. Such is our postmodern condition, I suppose.

Also, yeah the acronyms make sense, when you consider the amount of information, sort of a self-contained mnemonic. It's self-referential, isolated, standalone, compared to calling, like, a cigarette a "cowboy killer" or something, which might rely more on external information. It's a good point. I'm sure they have some sort of evidence based thing related to how they train it, but I do kind of wonder like, just a general thing, about the lingo, the jargon, of a bunch of different fields. Like how science uses latin all the time, or how engineering disciplines can call something a flange, programming calls shit bits and bytes, or folders and documents and desktops, since it's all digitized bureaucracy. It's fascinating because the things kind of evolve into whatever is functional for the field, but it's also entirely and completely arbitrary, and things end up carrying a lot of baggage.

So I dunno. We moved from a kind of, and this was true of broad culture at the time, I suppose (maybe, I might just be an dumb zoomer idiot though), but we moved from a kind of culture where things were named relatively arbitrarily, right, nicknamed, or just named after whoever the designer was. Oh, that's the jerry-can, oh, they have shell-shock, stuff like that. Now we have PFCs and PTSD. We went from picture boxes, to televisions, to TVs. I dunno, maybe that's just a result of a kind of rapid systematization of things, everything needs formal codes that you can write down and file. Maybe a side effect of digitization, more than post-war. Maybe as a result of having so much information to digest, right, for the troops, but also it might be having so much information to digest even for the people actively working with it. Oh, we need a clever new word for this new thingamabob! uhhh, uhh, I dunno, maybe we just give it a kind of protracted, proper name, and then we just shorten it to an acronym. Easier than trying to give it a "clever", natural name, that's maybe going to rely on external reference or information to get across. We can just say the full name once or twice, and then have a self-referential piece of information we can refer to now, very easily.

Edit: also about the UAPs, I find it really funny that they tried to distance themselves from it by changing acronyms, right, but then everyone still basically did the same shit they did with UFOs to it, and just treated it exactly like a UFO. Word substitution. Strikes me as a very funny, especially military kind of decision to make about it. I don't know why, but it does.

You know, maybe more of a kind of theoretical, or heady point, I would make here, but I'm gonna make it anyways and then just kind of give you free reign to tear it apart, since it's been on my mind for a little bit, and you seem like you know what you're talking about.

So, desensitization isn't an explicit course, but it's obviously it's still a factor in the training, right? To be able to be trained how to fight, you have to become used to fighting, pretty simple idea, you train for what you do, you do what you train for. Not necessarily desensitization to murder, mind you, just desensitization to shooting your gun and hitting human sized targets, you know. What happens afterwards is entirely circumstantial. But enough of me shitposting at you, in any case, you already broached that whole deal, and I don't know what the military service entails in terms of conflict de-escalation or whatever.

No, what I really wanted to talk about was passive desensitization through language, through framing. It's pretty common, and easily lambasted media literacy 101 type shit, to look at police headlines and kind of tear them down. A bullet left the officer's gun and struck the suspect, right, rather than, oh, this policeman shot someone, type shit. One uses passive language for the officer, it was just a kind of cosmic event that happened, and the other one uses more active language. Partially as a result of a 24 hour instantaneous news headline news cycle, and partially because reporters are just easily willing to swallow and regurgitate whatever authoritative information they come across, these events are framed in such a way, and are framed, usually, devoid of external context. Events are described with passive language framing them. Events happened, that was it.

Now this is partially because there's a pretense of objectivity, right, you just give the viewers the authoritative information, and what they decide to do with it is up to them. But this pretense is kind of problematic, because, you know, we're not actually critically analyzing any of what's been presented, it's just a random event that happened, and then we push on and kind of uncritically assimilate it into whatever superstructure it is that we've evolved in order to deal with this very quickly. And which frame of mind strikes you as the one people are more likely to evolve in a contextually devoid vacuum? The one that's simple, where they just say "oh, yeah, the officer shot that guy because that guy was bad"? Or the more complicated and emotionally burdening one, where they say "oh, because of the litany of factors that lead everyone to this moment through the long arm of history, that guy got shot by the officer, that kind of sucks and is a tragedy."? So, without any real framing of the issue, with just presenting "objective" information, we can kind of just passively trust the reader to arrive at certain conclusions. If not all the time, right, then we can at least trust the majority of our headline-only stooges to arrive at those conclusions, which is realistically all we wanted to do anyways.

So, that's a point I would also make for the military, right? We don't actually have to charge, or frame things in certain ways, we don't have to actively attempt to desensitize people to whatever they're doing. And actually, it would be worse if we did, because then we would be focusing on it much more, and kind of playing our hand to what's happening here. I dunno about how you feel about the WMDs in iraq, for instance, or the vietnam war, or what have you. Instead of looking at these wars and kind of thinking about them from the top down, though, the viewpoint is forced into that of a pure tool, you are just presented the information, and then you're trained to respond, and the reasoning you're doing internal to the process isn't expounded upon. Sink or swim. People just are expected to evolve whatever opinions and viewpoints will help them to be more functional in the field, because they're presented information that is just kind of, right in front of them, matter of fact, and it's harder to think long term when you're kind of swamped in a constant state of emergency or danger or, to put it more charitably, when you're constantly processing information that's right in front of you.

I've even heard stories, pretty commonly, where people get into the service, and then retroactively come to conclusions that "oh this kind of sucks I don't think we're doing anything good here", and then they still continue to go along with it, because like, of course they do, what else are they supposed to do? They get dishonorably discharged, that's gonna blow for any career prospects, you have to be immoral to do it, and you're abandoning your squad. Are they supposed to pretend to be insane? There's not really any backing out, there. You know, and that's especially going to be the case when the only people who ever know shit about the military are the people who are in the military, you know, the people who are more likely to have evolved opinions that are functional to what it is that they're currently doing.

Also a relative sidenote, but something that stands out to me is the use of acryonyms in the military. It's like, fetishistic, almost. Theoretically, right, this makes it faster to refer to things in emergency situations, but then, people would just use codes for whatever they're doing in those situations anyways, right? So I would think that the only thing it would really serve to do would be to save printer ink. More importantly, though, I think maybe it serves to obfuscate and isolate the military world from the civilian world, even more than it already is. Even to the point where you can start calling things UFOs, and then switch to UAPs, because they're lockheed-martin in-camera phenomena from fighter jets, right, pretty obviously, and then mainstream media is like "guys, we have aliens. They admitted we have UFOs." basically regardless of whatever you're doing. Just because the previously internal, somewhat unprocessed information is public, and then the public can process it however they choose, basically. I dunno, shit just strikes me as weird.

So, why do we have them?

I think it's a pretty common narrative that police agencies came about as a result of slave catchers and strikebreakers, thought I'm not sure to what extent that's true, and to what extent that's been the case with, say, police in the UK, or other countries, who obviously still have police forces with different reputations than those in the US.

In any case, even if the narrative might not necessarily be accurate, it's still somewhat reflective, to me, at least, of what police are supposed to do in the modern day. They have no duty to protect citizens, they steal our property, they can kill us, and they're immune to the law. They are the law, is basically what it is. They are an armed gang, they're an armed gang that the city pays in order to manage all other forms of violence which might happen in the city, even systemic violence which the city might create from, intentional or otherwise, resource mismanagement. They deal with the homeless, and mentally ill, and push them into a prison system where for-profit and public prisons can use them for free labor and generally lock them away into chaotic, meaningless, and authoritarian microcosms of society.

We also need homelessness to be rampant as a kind of threat, which we can levy against labor, since a population which can quit their jobs and go and still have a house obviously has more leverage against their employers, a higher capacity to unionize and strike. Homelessness also means housing is in more demand which helps drive up housing prices as long as you are trafficking the homeless away from the housing, when, otherwise, homelessness would generally decrease the value of the housing in a neighborhood since they would just kinda stick around, being, even formerly, embedded and tied to a community. Drugs need to be illegal as a form of protection on intellectual property laws, enforced at the behest of pharmaceutical companies, who want to monopolize particular sectors of the market, and sell to our extremely privatized hospitals at an absurdly high premium. The police serve these interests, and more. That's their purpose. They just exist as an extension of society and serve it's whims. They exist, basically, to maintain status quo, good, or, in this case, bad.

I mean it's partially a myth in terms of pay, but I wouldn't really be opposed to officers having more training, especially for crisis intervention, and shit like that, training for when they actually have to interact with people face to face, rather than pseudo-military tacticool bullshit.

I think it's kind of a multi-tiered issue. What you say is true, but police are also kind of structured in the way they are in the US because we have so many issues that we basically use them as a band-aid for, so we spread them very thin and kind of go with a quantity over quality approach. Which hasn't ended up working out very well, except in that, sometimes, and particularly for your white middle class neighbors that are going to call the cops for a noise complaint, cops appearing is basically the only thing that they needed to do. It's just for security theater, just so you can have an interlocutor that can do all the work of dealing with someone else for you, at your behest. A cop is just kind of meant to be around in order to make your dwindling population of middle class white people feel safe, more than they're supposed to actually make everyone safe. Such is why private institutions in a lot of places basically just have their own LARP cops in the form of security guards, who just stand around 95% of the time, and eat up way more in salary than they would save from product losses, or increased insurance premiums on product.

You pair this with the actual built environment in a lot of places, where cops have to be even more spread out than they otherwise would be, enforcing traffic tickets and shit like that, and it's kind of an obvious formula for a shitshow. Even if you gave police departments just straight up more money, three times as much, you'd still probably see complaints that they're underfunded, because they'd just spend all the money on hiring more people, and more equipment, rather than making a smaller number of people who are maybe better equipped to deal with, say, psychological problems that somebody might have. And obviously, in such a case, you're not going to get a better return on investment, than had you, say, dumped all the money into infrastructure that could've benefited your community, created jobs, lifted people out of poverty, and decreased the systemic causes of crime.

It's not a great policy, but it's a decision that, you know, has ups and downs either way. On one hand, if you have a particularly sharp officer who can peep out someone shooting at them, locate where that person is, and then fire back and understand exactly what they're shooting at. It would be better if that officer was able to also get their partner to follow their instructions, rather than relying on their partner, who, you know, being part of the police, might not be a sharp, and might not really be able to understand what's going on or what to do without external instruction.

That's if you have it as a kind of top down encompassing training thing, but that's really kind of the stupidest way to handle it. It's why the military has rank, and specialists, and roles, you can have a more clear chain of command where the more capable can, at least theoretically, rise to the top and be able to give those instructions. But then, none of this really prevents the person above you snapping randomly, and deciding to shoot a detained and searched person because of an acorn. Of all of what I've said, cops have a very mild amount of ranks and shit, too, but they're obviously subject to much less training, have more uniform ranks, and, like the military, they're very insular and have very little faith in anything but themselves. So more often than not they're just going to all collectively default to kind of whatever will keep them the "safest", which is going to be killing everyone around them that twitches kind of weird. Internal to the police, the life of every cop is worth infinitely more than the life of a criminal, and even the life of your average civilian, or, better put in their terms, potential criminal. When realistically it should be the opposite, but yeah.

I dunno, I kind of think sometimes that, I dunno if it's just a lack of news reaching over here from other countries, but I never hear about police brutality from other countries nearly as much. Maybe in britain, and france, and places where I can kind of think, oh, yeah, the power structure above them is kind of fucked up, america style, but maybe a little less so. But, so, I kind of wonder if police corruption is really it's own internal thing, and we should just abolish the police, like everyone says, or if it's really just every overarching power structure that's actually fucked up, and if we were like, finland, everything would be fine, cause I've not really heard a lot about the police of finland being super corrupt. Basically, I wonder if we target the symptom, and not the problem, because the police are obviously the slammer, you know, they're the pog which gets thrown by the long arm of history to flip everything over, they're the direct force that anyone who's doing any political action, or anyone who's a victim of the government, they're who they interface with. But is that because they're intrinsically a problematic institution, or is that because they're just the face, just the tool? I dunno. I find myself wondering that, in the face of, you know, so much evidence that the police is full of like, fucking morons.

See I'm like, I don't even think you could qualify most of the things you would do to this guy as being punishment. Preventing this guy from being a cop forever (pretty unlikely, but could happen), isn't really a punishment. If he's discharging his firearm into his own car, he's obviously just unfit to be an officer and that's a pretty clear safety concern. If you sent him to prison, that might be more of a "punishment", but that's also, you know, what cops do basically their whole careers, is send people to prison, and we still have all the same problems with the prison system as we've always had, so, you know, I'm like. I dunno. That doesn't seem like a clear "win", to me, both in terms of improving society and in terms of helping him out if he's mentally ill which, you know, seems to clearly be the case, here.

You could also maybe think, hey, this guy goes to an asylum or something for mental illness, but that kind of has the same problems as sending someone to prison, it's not usually a helpful system.

I mean sure but I don't really see what he has to do with whether or not the president personally decided to meme or not. I would kind of hope shadowlord eepy joe would have better shit to do than shitpost on twitter.