1209 stories
·
5 followers

Everything

2 Shares

Read the whole story
plewis
6 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Surge

5 Shares


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
All I'm saying is I've never seen her and Jodi Beggs in the same room at the same time.


Today's News:
Read the whole story
plewis
6 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

NYPD prostitution scandal

1 Share
When ever corruption scandals breaks, I always notice two things:

1) The "blue was of silence" is more fiction than fact. Sure, cops in collusion won't talk, at first. But that's hardly a blue wall. I mean, given people's natural inclination not to snitch on their friends and family, cops snitch on other cops quite regularly. Probably more so than other occupations. Why? A) cops don't like bad cops, B) when push comes to shove, people CYA and say "I'm not going to risk my pension for that dirty cop I never liked anyway."

2) The dollar amount some cops are willing to screw up their lives, their reputations, and their valuable pension. It's chump change. Lazy cops retire. Bad cops retire. But dirty cops rarely retire because being able to rat out a dirty cop is a great get-out-of-jail-free card. And that card is something other crooks find very useful. I mean, just put in 20 to 25 years and they pay you for the rest of life! And you screw it all for $100 here and $200 there?

But here we go, as reported in the Times: "One detective was allowed to pay $20 for an encounter with a prostitute that would normally cost $40." A cop gave his all for $20 off a blow job.

This was a "multi-year NYPD investigation" started by a top from a cop. But a multi-year NYPD investigation means there are a lot of well crossed T's and beautifully dotted I's.

Last I heard, 7 cops and about 20 civilians were arrested.

It's also interesting when internal PD investigation brings down dirty cops. Cops are like, "Great, system finally worked! Stupid dirty cops got what they had coming." Cop-sceptics are like, "Blue Wall of Silence is proof police are irrevocable corrupt!"

Also, for police and sex-workers alike, prostitution should be regulated and legal.
Read the whole story
plewis
6 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Photo

2 Comments and 12 Shares


Read the whole story
plewis
6 days ago
reply
popular
16 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
StunGod
17 days ago
reply
I'm incorporating this for my captchas from now on.
Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth

Sandboxing Cycle

7 Comments and 20 Shares
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that so much to ask?
Read the whole story
plewis
13 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
7 public comments
DaftDoki
12 days ago
reply
Life
Seattle
JayM
13 days ago
reply
Oh, this is perfect. Must pay some royalties for this for the next microsegmentation conversation. So spot on.
Atlanta, GA
tante
13 days ago
reply
XKCD's sandboxing circle not only applies to tech.
Oldenburg/Germany
beslayed
13 days ago
reply
.
Covarr
13 days ago
reply
You don't have to sanitize your inputs if your application runs in a sandbox that prevents inputs.
Moses Lake, WA
alt_text_at_your_service
13 days ago
reply
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that so much to ask?
alt_text_bot
13 days ago
reply
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that so much to ask?

This post will self-destruct. People think I’m anti-irony, but I’m n...

1 Comment and 2 Shares

This post will self-destruct.

People think I’m anti-irony, but I’m not. I’ve never called for a new sincerity or whatever. I’m not even sure what it would mean to be against irony. It would be like objecting to jealousy or loneliness; it’s just a part of human experience and couldn’t be stamped out. It’s only that what people take for irony these days is a cramped and mannered facsimile of the real thing. Irony and sincerity are not and have never been antagonistic, for one.

They think I’m against irony because they think a particular affected way of operating in the online world is irony. And they likely think this because that affect has grown to so completely dominate internet life, they think it is coterminous with irony. You know what I’m referring to already; it is the default means of interacting in social online spaces. You drench yourself in sarcasm (which is not the same as irony). You adopt a pose of amused knowingness, acting as though you have seen everything and could be surprised by nothing, saddened by nothing. You regard the world and its treasures with practice disdain. You find everything funny and nothing impressive. Human life itself is not sufficient to rouse you from your display of cold, unimpressed, amused self-satisfaction.

This is not irony. This is, I think, the Something Awful/FYAD routine. Somehow that obscure forum has become the biggest influence on online self-performance writ large. It’s a sociological marvel; I genuinely believe someone could write a great dissertation exploring how in the hell it happened. One way or the other, though, most everyone online has adopted this belief that the only time well spent is time spent heaping derision on someone from the protective cocoon of blank sarcasm. How did this happen? How did we get here? I don’t know. People who act this way talk about their online friendships, but I don’t understand how that works. Vulnerability is a necessary aspect of human connection, and vulnerable is the one thing you absolutely cannot be online.

I cannot overstate the degree to which this mode of existence has colonized the media. I know many people in the media and know of many many more and I literally cannot think of more than 10 people who do not engage with the world in precisely this way. It’s as if there is an industry-wide requirement that you remove your emotion chip and replace it with an addiction to self-satisfied mockery. Go to Twitter. Find a few dozen journalists. Everything they post – everything – will be expressed in this type of artifice. The industry runs on this fuel. And it does corrupt and deform the media’s output, all the time, in a myriad ways. Read the New York Magazine website or Slate or anything ever published under the auspices of Gawker/Gizmodo media. You can’t tell me that the dictate to treat all of human life as a competition to be the most mean and clever doesn’t warp their coverage. And though I’m sure it initially feels energizing, writers become boxed in by the narrow confines of this style. There’s a whole cottage industry of Professionally Unimpressed White Women that, despite the ostensible empowerment, looks to me like just another professional ghetto.

I just wish people would stop and acknowledge that this is happening, to ask why and wonder what the consequences are. But there is a fiercely-policed rule against discussing what is happening. It’s quite a trap: to be able to have an honest discussion about why everyone online talks as if they are perpetually self-impressed judgment machines, we would have to engage with a form of sincerity that is not permitted under those rules. How can we examine an aspect of contemporary culture when the industry that is meant to analyze such things is too busy living that culture to consider it? There will always be this impediment to an adult accounting of where we are: anyone who attempts to undertake it in good faith will simply be met with more of the same. To ask what it costs us when everyone is telling the same stale jokes is to get those jokes turned back on you in return.

Perhaps I am so disdainful of all of this because I can’t access it, never could and never will. It could all be sour grapes for me. Because I am not emotionless. I am not above everything. I am not incapable of feeling shock or disappointment or sadness. I don’t feel superior to all the people I interact with. I don’t find everything funny. My heart hurts, all the time. I could never keep up the act, even if I wanted to. This is a broken world and we are broken within it, and I think that it’s better to face it than to pretend to be something that we aren’t. But maybe I’ve been wrong.

Read the whole story
plewis
23 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
ahofer
18 days ago
reply
Was going to excerpt this, but ended up with the middle two paragraphs. But how about this: " to be able to have an honest discussion about why everyone online talks as if they are perpetually self-impressed judgment machines, we would have to engage with a form of sincerity that is not permitted under those rules. "
Princeton, NJ or NYC
Next Page of Stories