• 0 Posts
  • 518 Comments
Joined 3 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年6月18日

help-circle





  • I’m hearing about a whole bunch of feds being deployed to polling sites as “observers.”. I haven’t heard of them doing anything other than “observing,” yet.

    I recommend voting, even if you get observed in the process.

    Edit: the threats and intimidation against the CA election workers are currently prohibited by court order. A court in DC has ordered that the “observers” may do no more than just that.

    2nd edit: if you see irregularities at the polls, call the ACLU Election Protection Hotline.

    English: 1-866-OUR-VOTE / 1-866-687-8683 Spanish: 1-888-VE-Y-VOTA / 1-888-839-8682 Arabic: 1-844-YALLA-US / 1-844-925-5287 Bengali, Cantonese, Hindi, Urdu, Korean, Mandarin, Tagalog or Vietnamese: 1-888-274-8683







  • The modern Effective Altruism movement is a quasi cult loosely connected to another quasi cult called the “rationalist movement,” and all of this is loosely organized around the Bay Area.

    Don’t get me wrong. Rationalism has a long intellectual and scholarly history. Effective Altruism is based on the philosophy of utilitarianism, with its own long scholarly history. Subscribing to these ideas alone doesn’t put you into a cult.

    But there definitely is a loose, quasi cult system, originating out of the Bay Area, using these names and ostensibly claiming to promote the ideas.

    These people also go pretty hard on AI doomerism, and AI singularity as a coming end times sort of event. They’ve been taking this position since long before LLMs ascended to where they are now.

    Lesswrong is the pen name and Internet handle of one Eliezer Yudkowsky. It is also the name of an Internet “community blog” where I think a lot of the rationality side of the group got organised, and maybe where they still organise. I don’t really keep up with the goings on.

    [email protected] is/was a Lemmy community dedicated to critiques and criticism of the rationality / EA system or nexus or whatever. (I have a hard time coming up with names for this. It’s definitely not organised like the Mormons or Scientologists or so on.)



  • In most places in the United States speeding is a criminal offense. Each element of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And the accused has the right to confront the witnesses against him in court.

    I sort of understand the argument about cops needing to hold the radar gun, but I also don’t really get what they’re contributing to the legal validity of the case.

    The biggest thing they contribute is proof of identity. When they pull you over and run your license, they can testify with pretty strong credibility that it was you driving the car.

    To prove speeding you have to prove that the car was going too fast and that someone in particular was driving.

    Having a cop signing the ticket also gives the government a convenient witness who can be subpoenaed to come to court and to testify with personal knowledge of the incident. That satisfies the confrontation clause. Whereas in jurisdictions that have tried pure camera enforcement, the only witness they can usually bring is a low level camera company representative who has no personal knowledge. This leads defendants to demand a lot of discovery into the automated processes of the camera system, because that is what is really accusing them.

    Conclusion: US jurisdictions do a lot better with camera enforcement when they create civil infraction liability under state law. But then some forms of enforcement, like license points, may be taken off the table.




  • In the United States, if you’re going to call a man a pedo, you really need to make sure your shit is buttoned up tight. Because if it’s not, you’re going to have a tough time defending the libel lawsuit.

    Now, if you’re a homeless person on the street, or an anonymous Internet poster with “dozens” of views, you probably won’t get sued. Because the chances are you don’t have enough money to make a lawsuit worthwhile.

    For a company that has money that could be collected in such a lawsuit, it’s a lot easier and cheaper to just not say that.


  • Okay. Now go to File Explorer and right click to create a new text file and try to name it “con”. That’s three letters: con. You can’t do it. Not allowed. Because CON has been reserved (in every directory on every drive) for piping to and from console since MS-DOS 2 or so. (I think 2 is when they stole pipes from Unix)

    Okay. Now, open just about any kind of desktop window and double click in its upper left corner. In > 9 windows out of 10 that action still closes the window even though the “close window” button was moved to the upper right corner by Windows 3. Even though a bunch of modern applications don’t even have any icon there at all any more.


  • What the lawyers say is not under oath unless they go to the witness stand and swear in. The main reason is that lawyers mainly are in the court to make opinionated arguments, not to give facts.

    Lawyers do have a “duty of candor” to the “tribunal” at all times, however. This is because they have taken an oath (different from the witness oath) to become “officers of the court”. This means they cannot knowingly misstate facts or law to the court.

    But the maximum exposure on a duty of candor violation is court sanctions, like fines or adverse court outcomes, possibly contempt, and bar discipline, and so on. It’s not the crime of perjury.