• 1 Post
  • 33 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 8th, 2025

help-circle








  • The question of whether someone buys as deterrent or evidence collection is individual. Both have some value. Deterrence is actually a much more important part of why one might want cameras, as it puts up signs for experienced thieves that the next place over might be a safer target, and can discourage crimes of opportunity from less organized individuals because people behave differently when they know a camera is watching.

    For evidence collection, value is really determined by your enforcement limits and desired goals. If you can’t get your local police to take an active interest in the case or go vigilante yourself, the money you spent on cameras won’t mean anything. If your system doesn’t get usable identifying characteristics, it’s useless. And the dark truth of the matter is that evidence means nothing if your goal is safety. If your goal is to be safer, what use is evidence, at any quality? It’s great on insurance forms if you have insurance but won’t replace your family’s physical or mental well being.

    Evidentiary value is rarely zero, but people should be aware of what that value is when considering their options.







  • I was just thinking about this the other day. Cameras can be a powerful tool, but in the same way as an axe is a powerful tool. It’s all about whose hands wield them, and to what end. I’m loathe to prohibit them as often they are the most reliable witness to events, but I also don’t trust essentially anyone to wield their power on a day to day basis. Companies want to use them to collect data for marketing purposes. Governments want to use them to suppress dissent. People want them because they are marketed as making you safer, but most people would probably get as much benefit from a fake security camera as from the most expensive real camera. The systems can become harmful themselves without careful setup and maintenance due to malicious actors. (mirai) How do you empower beneficial uses without empowering malicious ones? I don’t really have an answer. I just recognize it as another facet in the larger question of proliferation of powerful tools.


  • Wait, why?

    Don’t you get it? The lack of body hair allows for more efficient air/skin contact to keep you cool. It also reduces itchiness from the socks, which in turn, compress the legs and focus oxygenated blood flow on the brain and vital organs, promoting better code, like a fighter pilot’s compression suit. And all of that is necessary to help counter the cognitive losses incurred by the continuous arousal of wearing the buttplug.

    Couldn’t you just not wear the buttplug?

    Not…? I don’t understand. What do you mean?



  • I place the result of ‘What’s an egalitarian?’ as better than the die roll as to whether they will take it as one or the other, or even a third interpretation. If I say egalitarian, and they can’t define it, they’ll probably go into a questioning mode, which helps make them more open to discussion. The number of people who could define it AND be against it would be minimal. On the other hand, feminist has become almost an epithet to a significant chunk of the English-speaking world. It’s a word that shuts down empathy and critical thinking for those people, even if they couldn’t define it, which your anecdote helps show it can be hard for people to do at any rate.