That certainly contributes to it, but all you really have to do is not bend over and spread your cheeks to their authority and then your rights (and maybe your life) are forfeit.

Good. I saw the video, watched the ATA analysis, this was ridiculous all around. A neighbor called about some black guy on their neighbor's property when they were put of town, so the police went to check it out and approach him to investigate, which is fair enough. The guy answered all of the officer's questions, explained that he had permission to be there, that he was asked to water the flowers by the home owner, gave his name, that he lived across the street, etc. And yet he was still arrested because he refused to provide an id. There is no legal requirement to provide physical id to the police unless you are driving and must show your drivers license. You are only required to identify yourself when under arrest, and even then it only requires you give your name and address which can be done verbally, and he had already done so.

The police are allowed to investigate and detain in the process of that investigation if they have reasonable suspicion of a crime. But that detainment must end once that suspicion is dispelled. And they cannot arrest unless that suspicion rises to the level of probable cause which requires a higher level of evidence. In this case, they had reasonable suspicion to detain the pastor based on the anonymous call. However, that became dispelled pretty quickly when they find a man watering flowers who identifies himself, tells them where he lives, says that this is not his property but his neighbor's, and that he was asked to be there and water the flowers by the owner. At that point, barring any other evidence, they should have ended the detention. They could still talk to him, or pull back and monitor from their vehicle, or just leave. But they could not demand id, and could not arrest him for refusing to do so.

The lower court argued that their suspicion was not reasonably dispelled by their observations and his explanations. They said that becuase anyone in the process of a crime could pick up a hose and pretend to be allowed there, the police still had reasonable suspicion. But there are two problems with that argument. 1) Their anonymous call was about an unknown man on the neighbor's property. That is all the evidence that they had that a crime may be in process and that is not a high bar of evidence. Barring any other evidence observed on the property (like broken windows, the removal of property from the home, etc.), of which there was none, his explanation was suitable to dispell the only reasonable suspicion that they had, a 3rd party who was unfamiliar with the person on another's property. Also, short of tracking down the owner who was out of town, contacting them and asking if the pastor was allowed there, what other channels beyond his story and their observations were they going get to dispell their suspicions? 2) Getting a physical id from the man would not have provided any more context for his presence or support for or against his claim that he was allowed to be there. And as he was not required to show his physical id in these circumstances, that failure to provide id on request cannot extend the detention beyond the point that they no longer have reasonable suspicion of a crime. Though they may request id from anyone, they may not detain you nor arrest you predicated only on your unwillingness to provide it (excluding providing a drivers license when driving). So whatever argument there is to be made that they should still have been suspicious, that does not support his continued detention, let alone his unlawful arrest.

Really? They put a rule against murder in the book? Is that new? No? Well then they should tell people that! How are we supposed to know not to kill people if they don't tell us that's against the rules!?

Undeath?

I didn't sign a release!

As a python developer, I'll accept the shower joke in stride. But who are these Esperanto speakers you're shitting on?

Bloody.

Salmonella is eliminated at 165F. Cookies get to around 190-205F when fully baked. So there's at least 25 degrees Fahrenheit between completely safe from salmonella and fully baked cookies.

I often prefer slightly undercooked baked goods.

Not to mention the price spike on eggs specifically is also way less than he would like to make it appear. Yes, in 2020 dollars, a dozen eggs was $1.50. But adjusted for inflation to today's dollars, that 1.50 is actually about 2 dollars today (inflation being a much broader issue and highly affected by covid). So the price didn't jump from 1.50 to 4 dollars, an increase of 167%, nor even from 1.5 to 3 dollars, an increase of 100%. It only went up from 2 dollars to just under 3 dollars (given the signs), an increase of just under 50 percent. Considering all the avian flu outbreaks that is an entirely reasonable price hike on a high demand good.

There's nothing technically stopping us from simulating 4 spatial dimensions now. In fact, there are several games that utilize a 4th dimension in their gameplay. Here's 8 examples. The problem is that our brains evolved in 3 spatial dimensions and, even if we can conceive of, define the nature of, and to some degree even indirectly imagine a 4th spacial dimension, our brains are hardwired to think in 3 dimensions and our understanding of a 4th spatial dimension can only be in 3 dimensional terms. The software of our brains, and the hardware of our eyes are simply incapable of perceiving and processing a 4th spatial dimension as it truly is. It would always be filtered through the lens of 3 spatial dimensions, projected into a 3 dimensional form that we can understand.

For a good example of this limitation, we regularly show 3 dimensions in film, tv, animations, video games, etc. projected on 2 dimensional surfaces. We can interpret those 2 dimensional images into an understanding of the 3 dimensional spaces being projected, but A) we do not actually perceived them as 3d. We still only see height and width. Depth is imagined largely based on perceived scale and parallax oocclusion. and B) we are only able to see the 3 dimensional space in our minds because that is how our minds always perceive space. In order to make those 2 dimensional images seem actually 3 dimensional, we have to project different 2 dimensional images to each eye with precise focal lengths and angles to mimic our actual eyesight in 3 dimensional space. Only with that stereoscopic view do we actually see 3 dimensionality with actual depth. Now, with that understanding, that it takes 2 projections in 2d to trick our minds into seeing 3d, how would you trick our perception into seeing 4d? How to we make either our eyes or our brains see whatever the 4th dimensional direction is called? A 3rd eye? No, plenty of animals have more than 3 eyes or even compound eyes, and still only perceive 3d. We have to perceive a direction perpendicular to height, width, and depth that does not actually exist. How would you achieve that goal?

I don't think that is actually possible. I think, like those games in the link, even in a simulation we are stuck playing with the 4th dimension via its interaction with and projection onto 3 dimensions because our brains cannot truly process what a 4th spatial dimension would even be.

Out of 4 lines