They sure as fuck didn’t ask what you think they asked either, and since your responses have been inaccurate, I’m willing to stand by mine as answering the spirit of it, as well as a more useful one.

That’s how it should work.

Nobody with a lick of sense should be telling the police anything at all. Their attorney should. But that’s not what OP asked.

OP asked if the simple fact would be enough to get police off his ass. It wouldn’t be.

But yes, police can absolutely request records with your consent, and do at times. If you’re dumb enough to not have a lawyer in between.

And, they can as part of their investigation, request warrants for the same information. And they do. It has happened. It isn’t a hypothetical. Various law enforcement agencies get warrants for goggle data often enough that it’s no secret.

For your attorney to be asking for a court order for your records would only happen after you were charged. That’s not what OP asked about.

Afaik, Google wouldn’t even hesitate to give your data to your own attorney anyway. They might, just on the basis of them not wanting to play nice, but records like that can be gained by consent. It’s why cops can track cell phones that are yours without cops needing to get a warrant. If you’re agreeing to it, your due process rights are covered.

Again, you aren’t wrong if Google refused to give your attorney the information. They would then need to be forced via court order. But that isn’t the same thing as a warrant. All warrants are court orders, not all court orders are warrants.

Having an attorney means they have power of attorney. A request from them on your behalf is the same as you making the request. If Google resisted that request, and they could cook up some kind of basis for that I’m sure, but the attorney still wouldn’t need a warrant. Their request would be legal.

A warrant is permission from a court to take an action that would otherwise be illegal, and are issued to agents of the court/state (here in the US anyway, I’m not sure about anywhere else) to take actions that violate rights of citizens or other entities without due process. The warrant is supposed to be part of your due process, though they get abused all to hell and back.

It is police that serve warrants though, usually. They aren’t the only ones, and you could argue that any government agent acting on a warrant is de facto police, but chances of a warrant getting executed without some kind of law enforcement officer present are low. Particularly in the scenario OP asked about.

Think about it like this. If I want to get money from my bank account, I can, within the limitations set by my bank (hours of operation, etc). If I want someone else to be able to, there’s formalities involved, such as putting them on the account or granting them power of attorney. POA of that nature means they act as though they are me for a range of legal statuses. I could sign papers to make anyone POA, but the A in that is Attorney, and once a lawyer represents you officially, they have wide ranging ability to act on your behalf in a legal proceeding.

The courts, and by extension the “Justice system” that includes police, prosecutors and other agents, need a warrant if I don’t give permission. But I can give them that permission, sign some paperwork, and their requests for information would be the same as if I made the request.

And that’s what would happen in OP’s scenario where they want to provide an alibi. If you don’t want to clear yourself via YouTube history, that’s a different question entirely. But, once again, in the hopes of preventing this spiraling, OP asked about providing that alibi to the police.

You’re working on the idea of exhonoration being only at trial. Which, it still wouldn’t take a warrant since it’s your lawyer. But I’m working before indictment, when the investigation is still ongoing because that’s when it would first come up for an accused person. The cops say “where were you at X?” You say, “jerking off to anime on YouTube”, and they want to know if that’s true.

For it to reach trial before you bring it up means your lawyer is not doing their due diligence by asking what the fuck you were doing at the time of the crime.

You’re asking a pretty specific question, but your title looks like trolling. I’m starting with that because people tend to respond emotionally to the first things they read, and it means you aren’t getting solid answers.

Someone else already explained that reddit policies drove that rule, and that’s as much as anyone really knows.

At least, there was a wave of changes like that one, all around the same time, and the few mods that have said anything about it off of reddit have cited that as their reason mostly.

But there are a few that decided to take it as an opportunity to blunt the edge of gendered language in general. Afaik that sub hasn’t had anyone say that, but you did ask about reddit in general as well.

Expanding beyond that, and I want to emphasize that this is not the same thing as above, it’s tangential and here only for background; there are reasons to reduce gendered language overall. While it isn’t really going to totally change English where nobody uses gendered terms at all, reducing needlessly gendered language when speaking about people rather than men or women is an option that would help those among us that don’t fit gender expectations in one way or another. So (again, this is tangential) if you’re seeing it in other places, chances are that it’s intended to meet that concept.

With that, responding solely to your title, I’m not seeing a trend of obsession with it, even among people that are proponents of degendering language. It’s a pretty niche movement, and even the more dedicated proponents know that it isn’t something that’s going to happen just by applying rules to forums.

Dude, if you didn’t want other opinions and input, why the fuck did you post a question?

So, fine, keep doing what you’re doing if you’re happy with it.

You do know that the cops are the ones that do the legwork, right? That most prosecutors rely on them to provide cause to get warrants in the first place. If the cops keep putting the same person forward as their target, that’s who a DA will try to get warrants for, not some other random asshole.

If you can’t convince the cops of your alibi, then chances are good that they’ll keep plodding along at it, regardless of them being right or wrong.

So, yeah, the cops have something to do with it

Depends on how bad the cops want to pin it on you.

If they’re on your ass hard, they’ll ignore exculpatory evidence. Since only YouTube playing isn’t concrete enough to guarantee much of anything about where you were, it’s definitely not going to satisfy them without more.

Even the phone itself being in you home the entire time isn’t definitive proof you were there.

There’s not even a guarantee you could establish reasonable doubt with every record of your phone being available, so you can’t pin your hopes on a jury either.

Hell, you could be on a call from a landline, and that isn’t sure fire proof you were at home. It’s better than a cell call, but there’s ways to fake being at home over landline if someone is determined enough.

It isn’t impossible though. You get the right investigators, they verify that your device was at home, and everything else is consistent with you being there, you could get bumped way down the list for their focus. Mind you, if every other possible suspect is then cleared, they’ll come back to you.

Eh, in general, the use case for peroxide instead of anything else on wounds just isn’t there.

Anything that’s meant to kill off small living cells is going to do exactly that, and not give a damn if those cells are bacteria or your body. Now, it is true that not all chemicals will kill off every given microbe equally, and that applies to your skin/muscle cells as well. That still doesn’t mean that any given agent is going to do anything useful for your healing.

If the concern is microbes, germs, quantity of rinsing simply does a better job at cleaning a wound of them. A lot of water is better than a minimal use of peroxide or alcohol, or whatever. For one thing, if you have running water, you don’t have to keep opening new bottles. If you’re out in the woods, you can still have a better chance of a large amount of water being available compared to finding a magic spring that spouts peroxide. So just the reality of availability makes carrying that kind of thing kinda pointless.

It’s easy to look at all the bubbling peroxide does and think it’s really getting in there and pulling things out, but it isn’t true. If anything, the bubbling is reducing contact time with anything it’s supposed to be killing. So you’d have to continue rinsing with it. And then you’re right back to where water alone is better.

You don’t need soap for wounds either. Indeed, you shouldn’t be using it in wounds in the first place. That’s never been a recommendation that I’ve seen. Not surprising that it would irritate a wound bed. You can use soap on the skin around a wound, but even that isn’t necessary, and it’s not useful unless there’s contamination from something that water alone won’t clear away. The only time I can think of where soap would be used directly in the boundaries of a wound would be with some kind of thick, oily substance being in it. Even then, I’m dubious as to how much benefit you’d get compared to just water or saline with gentle wiping of the wound.

Peroxide also isn’t going to do anything positive to reduce bleeding. The opposite, actually, since it’s going to break up platelets trying to form a scab. You might wash away enough blood from a minor cut that it takes longer to be visibly bloody again, but that just means it wasn’t bleeding fast to begin with.

And, once you’ve used peroxide, you still have to rinse because if you don’t, not only are all the particulates still in the wound, so is the peroxide. So you’d have the stuff sitting there killing cells well after you bandage the wound, and that’s not a good thing at all. So why waste money and time when you can just rinse instead?

Even if you have a contaminated water supply, you’d still be better off buying saline in bottles for wound cleaning than peroxide.

You may or may not notice a difference in healing if you had identical wounds at the same time and used different methods to clean them. That’s not the kind of experiment you can get away with clinically. But, if you compare outcomes from enough people over time, it starts showing up that wounds heal at least a tiny bit slower, and often less evenly. I’ve never read anything about scar formation, but I suspect that if you did it with two wound on the same person, you’d end up with a measurable (if miniscule) difference there.

I’m not saying to never ever use it. It’s better than nothing at flushing a wound out. If you aren’t in a situation where anything else is possible, go for it. But I wouldn’t reach for it first.

I haven’t seen a huge shift overall

What I have noticed is more early down votes that later get raised back into the positive.

Not sure why it is, though it did roughly coincide wit the most recent reddit migration. But that isn’t enough to assume causation. It’s a possibility, just not conclusive since it could be any number of things.

Nothing I can say in public

So, I reckon just throw the biggest party I’ve ever thrown and hire a bouncer that turns everyone away by saying “sorry, you aren’t cool enough” to everyone, including invited guests.

I’m not sure why you’re positing anything when there’s established knowledge about ingrown nails, and professionals that can both diagnose any structural abnormalities, and treat them using already proven modalities.

The answer is to go back to your podiatrist and follow their instructions.

If you’re having chronic ingrown nails, there’s an issue that needs to be corrected, and you aren’t going to improvise a solution, especially with tools that aren’t designed for the job.

Seriously here, you’re making your problem worse with what you’re doing. If your nails are shaped weird or are growing abnormally, you aren’t going to do anything useful just grinding them thin. Best case, you don’t cause more ingrown nails. Worst case you get more of them, and they’re worse because now they’re flexing more severely, and thus dig into the nail bed in worse ways.

Nobody here can diagnose your underlying problem. Could be your footwear, could be a malformation, could be fungal (though unlikely that it wouldn’t have been caught previously, fungal infection s can cause nails to grow in odd ways and lead to chronic ingrown nails), could be even less likely things.

But you aren’t going to dremel your way out of it.

Go see your doctor and find out what’s causing the issue to begin with.

I dunno, I’ve kinda lost track of what is and isn’t gender expected in terms of “mandatory” skills, and when it comes to hobbies, there’s only a few that I’ve ever thought of as being outside of traditional options.

But, yeah, like the example given, I’ve always been able to sew to some degree or another. My hands don’t let me hand sew big projects any more, but still know how to.

I’m also okay with decorative needlework like cross stitching, and embroidery. Cross stitch was absolutely a gender norm for women on my mom’s side of my family, but some boys of my generation picked it up. Embroidery, I picked up in art classes in jr high school and just enjoyed enough to keep at it.

Crochet and knitting were also a women’s craft/hobby on that side, and I tried my hand at both. Didn’t like knitting much, but crochet was a nice thing. Kinda stopped fucking with it after I moved out on my own though. Not much use for it, so it was pure hobby and I had other things I’d prefer spending money on.

On my dad’s side, sewing was about women’s work, but everyone knew enough to patch up a torn shirt or replace a button. My grandmother was a quilter and prone to making her own clothes. I learned a little of both from her.

Both grandmothers were good with a sewing machine, as was my mom. We had a machine when I was growing up, and my mom would make clothes. So I was fairly freely able to experiment with one. Never really got into it, but I can still turn out wearable items, as long as you don’t expect high fashion or expert stitching. Like, my hems are crooked as a politician, but the clothes will fit okay enough.

Truth be told, my mom’s side of the family didn’t really care about gendered interest limits. Us kids were always allowed to at least try things out, and were expected to help with any tasks on demand. My sister can do some basic woodworking. One of my cousins played american football in high school, the only girl in her state at the time. All of the women except my grandmother can/could change tires and oil. And all of the boys can handle normal housework and cooking, and some of us played with dolls and such.

There weren’t any hard lines drawn. Yeah, our grandparents stayed along pretty traditional lines, but they would teach any of us what we were interested in, plus helped make sure we could all handle basic necessities. The only real limitations were that most of the adults had similar interests, so we could only pick things up they knew about. You wanted to learn outdoorsy stuff, you could get a dozen people teaching you. You wanted to learn about repairing electronics, good luck unless it was old electronics (my grandfather did some of that in the Navy before he became an officer, but that way in the sixties lol).

But, yeah, I’m always amazed when guys can’t even sew a button on their shirt. I carry a small sewing kit with me in my day bag, and an even smaller kit in my pocket organizer. Like, it’s a life skill, you need to know this shit, it isn’t just for women.

What’s really funny in that regard is a guy I used to know. He’d crack jokes about my sewing kit, but dude worked with leather. And he’d sew leather as part of that. But he would say, “yeah, but it’s leather. That’s for men. Cloth is for women, dude.”

That whole album is pretty damn good.

But this track was my second favorite off of it at the time.

Obviously, mind playing tricks was my favorite, just like it was anyone’s that will admit it.

But for the era, every track holds up well imo. There are weaker ones, but they haven’t fallen so far off compared to slicker produced tracks we’ve gotten used to since.

I doubt it’ll ever be redesigned.

The reason it’s badly designed as is, is that people wanted specific inclusion into the primary symbol. There’s really no way to change a rainbow; it’s the standard spectrum of visible light being used as a symbol of everyone in their diversity being part of a group.

To be any more inclusive, you have to put things on top of the already inclusive rainbow. A corner piece or an inset is the only way to do that that isn’t horrible looking no matter what it is.

The chevrons from the side are at least visually balanced, though not well chosen colorwise. Then again, the representative colors weren’t chosen with being added to a flag in the first place.

Once you start changing an established symbol rather than just coming up with a new one, design goes out the window. It’s no longer cohesive because it can’t be. It’s like the difference between someone planning a tattoo that covers their arm, and someone getting a few dozen tattoos on their arm. Shoving things together without a plan ahead of time is airways going to be less visually pleasing.

But, visual pleasance isn’t what the flag is for, so maybe it’s more effective than something planned from the beginning. I dunno, but the fact that it isn’t “just” a rainbow does mean you can’t mistake it for someone liking rainbows in general, so that could be a benefit of that change.

I don’t agree that the original rainbow flag has too many colors though. If you don’t have the standard color spectrum there, it isn’t a rainbow to most people’s minds, so it would be worse design. The standard ROYGBV is standard for a pigment rainbow for a good reason.

Well, the degree and severity of what you’re describing isn’t what most people experience, and it seems like it is at an unhealthy degree of frequency and severity.

I would say that anyone experiencing that kind of inner turmoil would benefit from evaluation and treatment. Trying to diagnose someone online is a sucker’s bet even if you’re a qualified professional, and I seriously doubt you’re going to find one of those here on lemmy randomly. But, yeah, if a family member or friend out here in meatspace told me they were experiencing that, I’d be helping them find either a psychiatrist or other mental health provider sooner rather than later.

Most people do experience at least occasional intrusive thoughts, but not to that level. It’s very good that you recognize it’s an inner voice rather than a separate source though. It does tend to mean you’ll respond well to one or more of the various treatment options, which will depend in exactly what the root cause is. Likely, there would be a combination of medications and talk therapy of some variation or another.

And, I suspect that even though most people need to try a few meds before they find the best options, that you will likely get relief quickly once that happens. So you’ll be able to approach other treatments and benefit from them quickly as well.

Being real, there’s not much in the way of easy to get things that are painless, even if they’re fast. Such options have been legislated away. Others have been limited by additions that make them difficult or impossible to take in quantity.

So you really can’t rely on anything you’re likely to have available without also having the knowledge to change them into a form that removes those barriers. And, if you had that already, you wouldn’t be here asking this.

Now, I’m not giving anyone instructions on how to off themselves. It’s illegal in enough places there’s no way I’m risking that for a total stranger.

What I can say is that the things you’ve listed here either wouldn’t work at all, would be painful, or won’t work the way you want.

You’ll have to do your own research on this kind of thing. Nobody that would give you advice in the open could be trusted to give you good advice. I’m not even talking about someone fucking with you, it’s just that it’s kinda specialized knowledge in terms of knowing what to do to achieve the goal of a fast and painless death that will also not fuck you up if it fails.

Like, there’s plenty of stuff that’s fast, plenty that’s painless (or so fast that the pain isn’t a factor), but damn near everything that’s going to be available to the average Joe is going to have a chance of failure. Most of those will fuck up your brain or body, and you’ll be even worse off than before.

So you have to independently verify shit. Even someone well meaning may not have awareness of possible outcomes. Even someone that’s 100% behind right to death can still be wrong in their knowledge.

A button fly’s what?

That’s probably true regarding the dangers; but as far as I’ve ever seen, it doesn’t link to the etymology of it at all. Batty or similar things have a fairly established record. Batshit is less than a hundred years old as a term for crazy, and has solid origins in print that aren’t related to that.

I mean, a pond filter and pump will do the job fine. Wouldn’t even need chlorination tbh. If it stays running at a high enough volume, nothing harmful is going to set up shop before you’d need to replace the water to begin with. It isn’t impossible for a nasty to build up, but the risk is really low once you’re turning a small volume of water over fast.

There’s online calculators for water turnover rates. Plug in the volume of your pool + a little extra for the system, shoot for a 4-6 x a day minimum, and afaik, you won’t even have mosquito larvae.

But, being real, you’re going to be losing a ton of water from splashing and evaporation anyway, so filtering is a lot of expense for something that’s likely going to be used maybe a couple hours a day at most. You’ll have to have that pump running 24/7. In a small system like that, you’ll also be doubling the amount of work.

I’d just dump it into the barrel as is once it gets low and dirty, chlorinate that, then filter for particulates as you go, moving it back and forth to the pool however. It’ll cost way less, and do the same job.

Well, I’m not going to play the “it depends on the writer” card.

But it kinda does apply, even among people conveying their real life experiences. And, to forestall arguments, it doesn’t matter if it is objectively real or not, assuming they aren’t lying, they’re relating their lived experience. Whether that is a delusion or hallucination is irrelevant to this matter.

See, if you start off with the assumption that ghosts either exist, or are a form of shared delusion, then some things can be taken from that.

First, that anyone seeing a ghost is a minority because seeing them isn’t a common occurrence. Second, that regardless of anything else, the first ghost seen isn’t random. Third, that if a ghost can communicate at all (which is not a part of all reports about ghosts), it has limited time to do so.

With those probabilities in mind, if you see a ghost, chances are that it is there for a reason, that you seeing it is for a reason, and that it has to use its time with you to achieve a very specific goal.

Why would the racist ghosts start off saying “now, I’m racist, but hear me out”?

It’s that simple. Unless a ghost is haunting only a given grouping of people, there’s no benefit to expressing their racism at all. If they are haunting a race, then there’s still no need to outright say it; they’re acting on their racism and don’t care if anyone understands their motivations.

It isn’t just those, but horses and bulls have the biggest poops most people will ever see. So using them as reference for giant piles of unpleasant things makes sense.

Now, batshit? For one, have you ever been near where bats stay? The smell is so fucking intense.

But, bats are also known to flit around in a way that’s erratic when you rarely see their entire flight path. So they have a reputation for being less predictable, or a little crazy. At least that’s my understanding of how bats got referenced for someone being easily distracted, weird, or crazy. You know, “that old lady is a little batty, so don’t be surprised if she forgets to pay you”, or “that dude has bats in his belfry”.

How that got linked too batshit, I’m not certain. Back when I looked it up, the sources we have now didn’t exist., which ima go look the etymology of it up and see if there’s something newer to me. If there is, I’ll come back.

Nah, nothing new. Only thing that I saw this time was batshit probably coming more as a variant of bullshit, with a similar meaning, and then getting tangled up with the idea of being batty. So, in terms of how it would be used, a crazy person isn’t bullshitting because they think what they’re spewing is true, so it’s batshit instead.

Also, I noticed apeshit out there as well. Meaning to lose one’s shit in a violent way. Which, apes tend to look like they’re going apeshit as a dominance/threat display, but tend to not carry through as often as humans do