Finally, something cool. Breakthrough in tiles.

Never mind the politics bullshit, this is actually interesting.

Previously, the least number of shapes required to tile a 2 dimensional plane with non-repeating patterns was two. Sir Roger Penrose invented his Penrose Tiles in 1974. They have a fivefold symmetry, which is supposed to be impossible in mathematics. They assemble to an infinite space and the patterns never repeat. Infinitely variable.

So now there has been discovered a SINGLE shape that does the same thing.

 

The Hat.

 

A quartet of mathematicians from Yorkshire University, the University of Cambridge, the University of Waterloo and the University of Arkansas has discovered a 2D geometric shape that does not repeat itself when tiled. David Smith, Joseph Samuel Myers, Craig Kaplan and Chaim Goodman-Strauss have written a paper describing how they discovered the unique shape and possible uses for it. Their full paper is available on the arXiv preprint server.

When people tile their floors, they tend to use simple geometric shapes that lend themselves to repeating patterns, such as squares or triangles. Sometimes though, people want patterns that do not repeat but that represents a challenge if the same types of shape are used. In this new effort, the research team has discovered a single geometric shape that if used for tiling, will not produce repeating patterns.

This, believe it or not, is a Big Deal. A completely novel way to tile the 2D plane with no repeating patterns. Amazing.

You're welcome. ~:D

"You people do not deserve freedom." Liberal Party of Canada

I've been saying this for years. The ruling principle of Canada in particular and socialists everywhere is: People are stupid. They must be controlled.

Someone at the National Post and the Spectator UK seems to have finally noticed.

A few days ago, Britain's Spectator magazine did a tremendous job of summing up all the intrigue, machinations, politics, and noise surrounding Chinese interference in Canadian elections. And it came to a remarkable conclusion.

"There are those who bemoan declining trust in our leaders. Here we see the damage that can be done by a leader who does not trust the public," wrote their correspondent Sam Dunning.

 They go on to cite a laundry list of Liberal Party scandals from the Rule of Pony era, and the response from the Shiny Pony always being a shrug of the shoulders, as if such things were beneath his notice and what's all the fuss about.

Their conclusion:

When it comes to China, we see the same ingrained paternalism. Trudeau knew there was a problem with Chinese interference; the Prime Minister's Office had reports that Chinese money was being funnelled to Liberal candidates in federal elections, national security agencies had warned that Chinese Canadians were being recruited to assist in distributing illegal donations, and to vote for preferred candidates in nomination races.

But Trudeau's reaction was to keep silent and keep Canadians in the dark. Why? Maybe Trudeau is a traitorous villain who allowed China to do their worst. But the more obvious explanation from his past actions is that he didn't think Canadians needed to know. In his arrogance, he almost certainly thought he and his party were not only best to handle it, but that they could learn little from anyone else's input.

This is the core of the thing, which the authors do not address directly. They blame it on Shiny Pony narcissism, which while certainly true, falls short of the reality.

Reality is that Freedom, capital F, is for the Great and the Good. The leadership of the nation, you know. People who know what's what. For the rest, there is Obedience. Capital O, which stands for "shut up and get back in line you filthy peasant."

Naturally they don't trust the sheep. Sheep are too stupid to live. The job of the shepherd is to guard the flock and keep it in line. The job of the flock is to be fleeced for the shepherd's benefit. Of what use is freedom to a sheep?

That's us. We are the sheep in this saga. That's the governing principle of your country, normies. How do you feel about that?

The stupid. It burns.

I haven't posted anything since January, there hasn't been anything sufficiently surprising to amaze me or sufficiently stupid to gain my ire. Until now.

The Idaho Supreme Court has vacated a Mountain Home man's conviction for felony drug possession and delivery after it ruled that a police drug-sniffing dog trespassed and conducted an illegal search by putting its paws on his vehicle, prompting the search that led to his arrest.

The court issued its decision Monday, with three of the five justices in agreement and two dissenting.

The case centered on the 2019 arrest of Kirby Dorff. According to court documents, the officer said Dorff was stopped by a patrol officer in Mountain Home after Dorff drove across lanes of traffic without using a signal. A second officer arrived with a police K-9 named Nero who was trained to detect illegal drugs.

While Dorff explained to the first officer that he didn't have a valid driver's license or proof of insurance in the vehicle, Nero began sniffing around the car. Police body camera footage showed the dog jumped up against the car multiple times, including once when his paws rested on the driver's side door and window as he sniffed the "upper seams" of the car, officials said.

Oh noes, the dog put his front feet on the car! Like dogs never do that.

The legal opinion:

 Justice Robyn Brody in the majority opinion wrote that justices weighed whether the dog's intrusion on the exterior of Dorff's vehicle constituted trespassing as it would have if the dog had entered the interior of the vehicle.

Ultimately, Brody wrote, she and justices John Stegner and Colleen Zahn agreed that the exterior of the vehicle is protected by the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful searches. They said the drug-sniffing dog "intermeddled" with Dorff's personal effects by jumping up on the car.

"Intermeddling is the difference between someone who brushes up against your purse while walking by and someone who, without privilege or consent, rests their hand on your purse or puts their fingers into your purse before your eyes or behind your back," Brody wrote.

According to the majority opinion, it doesn't matter that the unlawful search included the exterior of Dorff's property or was performed by a drug-sniffing dog.

The dissent:

 Bevans in a separate opinion reiterated his view from an earlier case that a drug-sniffing dogs canine instincts aren't the same as intentional police intrusion.

For justices to equate a drug-sniffing dog "instinctually jumping onto the exterior of a car" to a government agent placing a tracking device on a vehicle "stretches logic beyond the breaking point of reasonableness," Bevans wrote.

The dissent, unsurprisingly, is a longer version of what I said. Dogs jump up on shit when they're excited. That's how they are.

The real issue, apparent from the utter stupidity of the majority opinion and the fact that the news article doesn't mention it, is that the Court does not want police to have drug-sniffing dogs present at traffic stops. Or possibly to have them at all. Because politics, at some level or other, has created two opposing factions. One faction represented by the majority opinion, one by the dissent.

The problem with letting courts decide things is that they invent stuff like this to disguise that they're really doing something else. Somebody doesn't want Idaho police to have dogs, or they want less drug dealers in jail, or they just want to fuck over Idaho by letting criminals have a free hand. But they can't get the votes to do it in the legislature. So they get their bros onto the court, and they do it that way.

Oh and Mr. Dorff got booked again in February 2023. Going by his picture he's a real pillar of the community.