I think one of the reasons I liked Rogue One was that it's "win condition" wasn't "every one lived happily ever after". although I will say, if you have enough time to find a beach and make out, you probably have enough tome to find a shuttle, or something.

(the other reason I liked Rogue One was Alan Tudyk as K2-S0)(okay, actually, that's why I loved Rogue One. Sue me.)

So, going back to Mike Johnson, he's a US lawmaker- the speaker of the house, and 3rd in line for what used to be one of the most powerful and influential positions in the world.

You don't see the harm that he has voices in his head telling him he's some kind of salvation figure (moses) liberating his people (evangelical christsians) from persecution (that isn't happening.) making some very fucked up policies because of all the other shit the voices in his head are saying?

I prefer my policies set on evidence, not the internal monologue of a madman.

You're welcome to believe what you want, but that doesn't mean I have to indulge anything. And to be blunt, I have no more reason to believe spirits come and talk to you than Mike Johnson is sent by god. (even if I do wish he'd go wander the desert for a few decades.)

Because why should I?

People’s brains convincing them something stranger has happened isn’t actually all that strange.

Neither is people just making shit up.

Until I have a reason- tangible evidence- for a thing, I’m going to stay skeptical.

Edit: To put this another way, if I indulge this, then I’d have to also indulge Mike Johnson’s insistence god told him he’s the second coming of Moses. Do you see the harm there?

I hope you’ll forgive me being sceptical that “used these systems” is enough authority to be able to speak for every make and model on the market… I’ve also used a few CCTV systems over the years and they’ve all been absolute lowest-bidder no-name dogshit that were packed full of weird idiosyncrasies.

I encourage skepticism! yes, the software were developed by the lowest bidder and every single one of them all had weird shit slapped in that got in the way of core functionality. I suspect part of that weird shit was that they were trying to keep people from accessing the files without their software. (As if the DVR didn't save it as h.264 or whatever.)

I've been in contract security for over a decade now- and my first post way back ages ago was "slow" to get rid of theirs in 06. (they had ordered their VHS's in bulk so they wanted to go through them first. I think they cracked open the last pack around the time I was hired.)

I've used more systems than I care to count or name; and usually became "the guy" that knew how to actually get it to do "the thing". The worst part of that is most of the people selling the software clients would go tits up in a few years, which gets sold to another dev what doesn't bother to learn the lessons from last time anyways. They just wanted one thing from the code or they had an idiot project manager that thought starting from failed code would be a good way to go.

In any case, because of how the multiplexing VCRs worked, the video playback was always choppy. they'd record using NTSC or PAl at 30 or 25 fps; just like any standard VCR, except that each camera would record each frame in sequence. a 4-chanel (four cameras) would reduce the NTSC's 30 FPS to 7. which looks like this. a 16 channel system would go down to 2 fps. Given the nature of the facility, I would assume they're using 16x systems.

so, speaking as someone whose used these systems for decades, DVR files don't work that way.

The old, old school multiplexing VCRs did, sure. Those were recording to VHS's, and basically everyone swapped over by the early 2k's. What's hilarious is the reason. VHS tapes are expensive and wear out inside a few months- they've usually only got about six hours of recording, after which the rewind and overwrite. The high-end tapes purpose built for that might last four or five. back then, depending on how much data you had going, DVRs basically paid for themselves inside of a couple years (and the disks were expected to last a decade or so.)

In any case, modern DVRs have no gaps. They continuously record in a rolling loop- typically 7, 15, 30, or 90 days. The DVR is actually a server running on a network, and the server manages the data stream coming in, and maybe streaming to a client wherever the security office or whatever is. (or clients, even. It's all just software on the user end.)

there might be a system with digital storage tapes, and not hard disks, but that's really just a question of what digital media the data is stored on, and was relatively short lived. the digital tapes were used for very-large numbers of cameras.

For the record, the fact that we have a single camera that was released and not an array of cameras (or video cropped out looking like a blown up thumbnail,) is because it was a modern system.

there's actually a lot of things I don't get with the video, so yeah, I'm not really taking anything off the table or fixating. But there being more time removed/spliced just makes more sense.

But it almost certainly wasn't a multiplexing VCR. For one thing, the video looks like a bog standard export from a DVR-based networked system. (Which uses client software to access a server to play back video records. VHS tapes got dumped back in the very-early 2k's because everyone saw the writing on the wall. They only last a few months in a record-rewind loop- four at most, and only if you buy the really expensive kind.

Further the black shadowbox around it is from the way they exported it off a modern dvr- the client they used to export it from added it. (probably also added their own shitty player to the file. the player is basically windows media player but even more useless.)

which... really just makes this whole thing shockingly incompetent. But then, that's the problem with conspiracies. It's the details that bite you in the ass.

for the record, it's probably not 20 goons. that's a lot of mouths needing silencing.

The other thing is that halways was in view of the other cells. they wouldn't necessarily be rushing; at least not more than what might be 'normal'.

This whole thing gets back to, the more you try to cover something up, the harder it becomes to cover that something up. Mistakes happen. This video is probably a mistake.

Cutely unamused puppy! (actually they look cold to me. Tootsie used to give anyone with a blanket the same face. After demanding to be outside in the slushy nasty snow....)

They are unconscious in less than 10 seconds (sometimes almost instantaneously) and they aren’t going to wake up the moment you release. Similarly, ask any climber to tie a quick figure eight (or bowline if they are old or european) and they can do that blindfolded, in the rain, in like 10 seconds.

So assuming even two killers? Yeah, a minute is more than enough time.

You, eh, ever try to lift 150-200 pounds of dead weight? while trying to make it look like that dead weight did it himself?

it's not just the fight. It's not just the struggle. just for the record the camera was in the hallway outside and not in the room. a minute is barely enough time to get in, kill him, and get out.

To also then string him up, and remove whatever you need to, to make it look like suicide? three minutes is pushing it, even with 2 guys- and remember, the more guys you add the more potential you have for some one talking.

Probaby the only way to do so, is to set up your own criteria for what "ethical" means and then evaluate companies on your own. There's really nothing more than the ETF's you've already mentioned, and those are usually superiscially about one issue.

Also, just for the record, I don't see where Burry is particularly concerned with ethics or social issues, but honestly I don't know much about him beyond the whole permabear and/or predicting the housing crash.

Honestly, once a company gets onto the stock market, it's pretty hard to make an argument that any of them are really as ethical as they should be. Remember, being a publicly traded company means putting short-term profits above all else. (at least, in the US.)

That makes a bit more sense. one minute was not quite enough to get in, string up a noose, put him in the noose, and get out; never mind the presumed struggle and/or drugging or whatever.

No no.

they're for going through the "does your dick work" questions in the emails so we don't have to.

Their sacrifice is appreciated.

Anyone else screaming “oh god! don’t twist! don’t twist!” ?

We still do. It's a fun trick.

Don’t worry, the voidling is taking care of the hostile mousey.

Somehow, I don't want to know.

These questions are why we invented investigative journalists.

blurry kittens? I only see one tired mum.

which, yeah, I don't disagree with that. The problem is that they're actively working against their own interests. Blatantly so. They don't want to take programs that would give them financial security (or all the other forms of security that would give, like stable housing, access to good and healthy food, a good education, etc.).

Some of it is that they're primed to do that. But a lot of it is, they're lashing out. They don't want to feel safe, as an example, because then that removes their excuse for lashing out at people they want to harass and torture.

to be honest, at this point, I'm pretty sure the RWNJ's don't actually want to feel safe.

But yeah, the appropriate solution is to keep everybody safe, and educate the RWNJ's. Though, if you were able to actually convince them of the truth, they'd probably run off to disenfranchise the next group.

Being safe outweighs feeling safe, so this whole analogy is void.

WOW.... you managed to get my point and still miss it. Impressive.