This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Stephen T. Stone, neatly taking down the “don’t rush to judgement” angle on the black college student who was thrown to the ground and got a gun pointed at his head for taking a selfie:
We have three law enforcement agencies refusing to explain what prompted the need to tackle, assault, and ultimately arrest the only young Black man on a bus full of students coming from a swim meet. We have the perspectives of the victim and, I assume, several of the witnesses to the event. Only a fool takes these facts into account and thinks “maybe we need to hear both sides before we make a judgment”.
As one of my facebook friends says “99% of cops are giving the rest a bad name”. Sadly sometimes I think his estimate is too low.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start out with Scary Devil Monastery expanding on the claim that “we have only one perspective” on what happened in that incident:
We have multiple police officers using force and oppression against a civilian. and not a single one of them has justification for it. They haven’t even tried to give a reason for their actions.
When a person raises his hand against any other person the default legal situation is that either there is a good reason which can be clearly shown – or it’s a felony assault. This is true whether the person raising the hand is a law enforcer or not.
In this case assault is already proven. Justification which would make it a legal action, has not.
So if the police can’t bring a reason to the table then it’s already an open-and-shut case of police brutality. No further questions need to be asked. The facts of their guilt and physical action is already demonstrably proven.
If the police HAVE a reason for the assault then the situation becomes a different one. Until they do that, however, the only evidence we have is that they assaulted a civilian for no reason.
The only fool here is the one trying to invent facts out of whole cloth and wishful thinking.
Thank, you, Disney, …
… for making absolutely clear that, contrary to what your PR department says, you do not see copyright law as a means to ensure fair compensation of creatives or, as the founding fathers put it, “to promote the arts and sciences”.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous commenter talking about the driver who was left stranded when a “smart” rental car lost cellular service, and the coming solutions for the issue:
So what your saying is that they will soon have 5G power super smart cars. that can only be used in visual range of a major sports stadium. and only if a game isn’t currently happening.
In second place, it’s another anonymous commenter with a joke about Hot Water, one of the winning games from our public domain game jam:
That’s how instant games work. They come dessicated, so adding hot water is the optimal rehydration method, giving also a preferred serving temperature.
Meanwhile, somewhere a buggy-whip factory is planning to reopen.
And finally, we’ve got kog999 responding to the game developer who took an amusing jab a pirate group by selling posters featuring their information file:
but what incentive will codex have to crack games if people dont respect their NFO file’s copyright.
That”s all for this week, folks!