I'm a lawyer. I've explained this so many times it's starting to bore me, but I have to keep doing it.
Jury nullification has never existed as a right in any common law system. It is merely a descriptive term that lawyers use to describe a situation where a jury decides to ignore the law. Lawyers cannot instruct juries on its existence because, in the law, it doesn't exist. It only ever happens because juries cannot be punished for deciding contrary to what the law says; their right to their own reasoning is sacrosanct.
It describes a situation where the jury ignores the law, and lawyers can never instruct juries to ignore the law, in any circumstance. Lawyers can never say "I know the law says X but if you ignore that, we can't punish you hint hint."
It is a term that describes a crinkle in the law. It does not exist as a right, and juries are NOT entitled to do it, but at the same time, they cannot be punished for doing so.
People who whine about jury nullification are one step below 'sovereign citizen' types in terms of driving me nuts with their willful misunderstanding of the law.
> I’m sure they won’t even talk to anyone not willing to pay $100k+ per year.
Wouldn't surprise me. We had a vendor whose product we had used at relatively reasonable rates for multiple years suddenly have a pricing model change. It would have seen our cost go from $10k/yr to $100k/yr. As a small nonprofit we tried to engage them in any sort of negotiation but the response was essentially a curt "too bad." Luckily a different vendor with a similar product was more than happy to take our $10k.
We have a model that I see a lot of others do, even if they don't publicize. We have free, OSS, and cheap SaaS tiers fine for many of our academic users, and when a small group really wants the full enterprise version, we generally offer a heavily discounted pricing model to make that affordable too. The only exception here is when it is a true enterprise sale like a shared resource for a large number of users, and we'd still have to think there too.
The reason is it keeps their low budgets and thus their ROI in alignment, which is why this is pretty normal. So again, I'd recommend asking and just clarifying your are a NGO/EDU. No 100% guarantee, but should be common.
I found the early game changes incongruous with the core design of the mod as well. The mod is about logistical challenges - specifically where trips are high volume but high cost. I don't know why a mod about that in the context of space exploring needed an extended burner phase, for instance.
I'd assume this is a relic of his previous mods about automating vehicles, then logically comes the question of how to fuel all that fleet, which then leads to experiments with using that fuel elsewhere ?
There's a lot of theorizing that early sapiens intentionally set fires to clear thick, impassable forests and kill game in the process. The cleared areas would make post-fire hunting easier as well.
Trad burning in Australia has largely been to cool burn undergrowth in the forest areas (relatively small land area) and to patch burn open grass lands (majority of area)
I don't know if this is the same wave, but a few years ago they declassified footage from military planes actively tracking UFOs. In the wake of that there was a bit of a flurry of naval and air force personnel saying they've "seen things." The UFO community - of which I am not a part - seems to have been veritably foaming at the mouth ever since.
Personally I'm always more interested in the conspiracy behind the conspiracy. It is undeniably more likely that the Pentagon has, for some reason, started quietly pushing out things in this vein than it is that actual aliens are flying around. I'm very curious as to what their motivation might be.
There's a lot of evidence, for instance, that during the heyday of Area 51 they knew they had to get out in front of civilian sightings of odd aircraft, and that project bluebook was essentially them just cross referencing sightings with classified test flights. So I'm curious about what they might be trying to get ahead of here.
Agreed. UFO sighting have an analogue on the religious world where devotees witness miracles and in many cases sincerely believe them and official bodies recognize these miracles. But also in many cases these miracles are concocted by someone with a particular agenda (often commercial).
> Having the same shallow conversations over and over with different individuals
I'm ADHD-neurodivergent so I get the point here, but think of this phenomenon as verbal handshaking. The point isn't the subject matter of the conversation, it's everything else about the exchange. You could almost get the same effect just from spouting word salad at each other, the content doesn't matter. It's how people feel out others whom they don't know very well, with a lot of observation gathering going on. There's a social dance you typically need to go through before someone else will feel comfortable engaging you on a more personal level.
People tell a story that matters to them. They do this with everyone they see. The next time you see them they tell you again. And the next time. And the next....
Ad nauseum...
They don't care about You or that You specifically hear the story, evidenced by the repetition even after advising them of it, they are just narcissists self aggrandizing or whining about a an event they perceive as unfair.
Theres no reason to engage with that behavior as it does nothing but encourage it, with the end result being a systemic harm to self and society.
This behaviour is most common in extroverts ime, though thats likely due to the fact they are more visible than introverts in general.
I must admit I have been guilty of doing this in the past. Rather than something negative though it was something positive. I think by telling it over and over it was a way to relive the experience or just express how great it was since I had no one with me at the time. In my case though I genuinely just forgot I told the people the story since I was telling it to everyone and (to me) it was an interesting story. Everyone was polite and didn't remind me that I have already told them the story until one person couldn't bear hearing it another time. It was only at this point that I became conscious of what I was doing.
I know what you mean though. Mentally ill people have a habit of doing this. If you listen in on one talking to themselves you will hear a story of some personal trauma they experienced some time ago.
Perennial victims also do this as a solicitation for love. While as a child we learn to express our bad experiences to our parents and receive love and affection in return. The problem is like drug addicts some people grow up to abuse this to lesser and lesser effect.
When it comes to aggrandizing it can be funny to shut the person down by expressing your disinterest then immediately complimenting them on something trivial that you genuinely like or asking them the question about something you wish to know.
Your comment reminds me of the phrase "People don't do things to you they do things in front of you." It expresses just how performative human behaviour can be at times.
Oh yeah I get that. My issue is that often it is a waste of time. The other person has no intention to reveal their personality, or they are using it as a filter to see what they can get out of you or even they are only engaging so as not to appear unsociable.
I simultaneously agree with you (tor being another prime example of this -- they may not be able to see which tor sites you're visiting [unless they control the exit node] but they sure as hell can see you're using tor), and also think that at some level, the "what have YOU got to hide?" attitude is purposefully encouraged by the intelligence agencies as a way to slowly erode privacy expectations. "Good people don't need an expectation of privacy" is the start of a really dark path.
People will willfully and joyfully will vote for a would-be dictator, so I don’t privacy is really the main thing that brings us on a really dark path. There are far bigger fish to fry to protecting our basic rights and values.
The balance between privacy and the authority is just that. We outsourced the rule of law to the state in order to have a fair and just society. Ipso facto the government should be fair and just to have the right to invade some amount of privacy in order to keep a society free, fair and just.
That’s why the judicial branch exist: to see if what the government (or anyone) did was playing by the rules.
Which brings us back to politics being a danger to a society if people vote in unjust or unfair people.
I don't think this is what the GP was arguing. They were not discussing whether what the court system did was right and justified, nor whether people who know they have done nothing wrong/illegal should be expected not to use privacy technology.
Instead, they were pointing out that it's hard to imagine why the people who knew they were engaging in criminal activity and were hoping to hide it thought it would be a good idea to have specialized equipment/services rather than blending in the crowd with normal phones and apps.
I think dev wages will stagnate across the board. I think the simple existence of the fear of being replaced by never-tiring, always-working AI will subconsciously prime devs to be willing to work for less. Devs have been in a market with a significant shortage of skilled labor; can we say that remains true after GPT hits the mainstream even more than it already has?
Right now? It made a splash but who uses ai for building their software this very moment? Nobody knows how the industry will land on this. Adoption will take time - it's not gonna be a year.
I remember after ruby on rails first demo, next day people had their websites up in ror. Here we will see, but it will be a bigger shift.
Hospitals are not storing the data on a harddrive in their basement so clearly this is a solvable problem. Here's a list of AWS services which can be used to store HIPAA data:
The biglaw firms I’m familiar with still store matter data exclusively on-prem. There’s a significant chunk of floor space in my office tower dedicated to running a law firm server farm for a satellite office.
Jury nullification has never existed as a right in any common law system. It is merely a descriptive term that lawyers use to describe a situation where a jury decides to ignore the law. Lawyers cannot instruct juries on its existence because, in the law, it doesn't exist. It only ever happens because juries cannot be punished for deciding contrary to what the law says; their right to their own reasoning is sacrosanct.
It describes a situation where the jury ignores the law, and lawyers can never instruct juries to ignore the law, in any circumstance. Lawyers can never say "I know the law says X but if you ignore that, we can't punish you hint hint."
It is a term that describes a crinkle in the law. It does not exist as a right, and juries are NOT entitled to do it, but at the same time, they cannot be punished for doing so.
People who whine about jury nullification are one step below 'sovereign citizen' types in terms of driving me nuts with their willful misunderstanding of the law.