I always cringe at philosophy trying to explain time. It is observed by the subject trying to explain it making it subjective. If you try to explain the present it has already become the past. The future is real because while explaining the present which is becoming the past you are entering the future. We all know it exists but when boiled down to thought experiments its existence can be questionable. The static view is pretty objective but then it makes no room for the ego and of course it has to come in trying to find meaning for itself.

I blame Newton every time I drop something! Haha

Are we censoring words here too? 😞 I didn’t at any point in this article feel any inclination that the author was using the word “mad” in a derogatory or hateful way. I just checked my hard copy Webster’s dictionary and the first definition is adjective: insane. The only person stigmatizing mental illness here is you. It is clear that the author’s intent wasn’t to belittle the insane by using the word mad. It’s also clear that you are reacting to their use of the word mad, which by definition is an appropriate word to use, and have attached your own bad connotations to that word through either ignorance or possibly being triggered by it. Either way, this is a problem within yourself that you need to work out. Learn how to read a room and hopefully a dictionary.

But if we’ve given up our expectation of privacy, why do they not disclose in court that it was used in the case? That tells me they know it’s unconstitutional.