Xhieron

We all called it. Didn’t matter. Time to move to the next box.

Windows 10 LTSC 2021 ends support in 2027 (although it doesn’t matter quite as much). And it’s likely that the Win 11 LTSC later this year will necessarily be free from much of 11’s bullshit. Linux is still the right call, but for those of us who need to run a Windows machine for whatever reason, there are alternatives, so, you know… yarr.

That was the point… Did you reply to the wrong comment?

That’s flattering, but I was actually just expecting a press release. So where is it?

She sure can’t. Sounds like all OpenAI has to do is produce the voice actor they used.

So where is she? …

Right.

AI = Absent Indians

Christmas.

Not to shit on my own profession (about this–there are plenty of other reasons for that), but lawyer education is nowhere near doctor education.

To paraphrase one of my professors, “Ever wonder why in the legal profession you can get a terminal degree after only three years without having to write a dissertation?” [Answer: It’s because lawyers control their own profession, along with the government that controls how professions are regulated.]

On the OP, I don’t think police should be required to pass the bar exam. The reason is that the bar exam, and by extension law school, covers much more material than police should ever realistically need to know, even being generous. Cops don’t need to know which agents owe their principals fiduciary duties, for example. They don’t need to be able to articulate contract remedies or determine when a party might have a prevailing argument against personal jurisdiction.

They should, however, have to pass a version of the UBE that covers criminal law and procedure in their jurisdiction, and they should have continuing education requirements. [And in many if not most or all US jurisdictions, they already do. --they do in mine, at least.] More importantly, they need to carry a bond.

In order for any of this to matter, however, first a court has to hold that the police owe a duty not only to the public at large but also directly to those in immediate need. In the US, the state of the law with respect to police and other state actors vis-a-vis victims of the torts and crimes of others is reprehensible. Take a look at Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (“Poor Joshua!”), and Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981). And if you like podcasts, Radiolab has covered this.

In short, the police need to be bound by a legal duty to rescue, and members of the public need a private right of action against agencies (police and others, including agencies like DCS) to whom private remedies have been surrendered when those agencies fail to perform their duties as required. It would require an upending of the American “system” in favor of something closer to civil law jurisprudence (e.g., the European continent). And it’s desperately needed and long overdue.

As a young teenager: Do not start working until you have to. Once you start, you’ll never stop.

We have not created the heavens and the earth and everything in between except for a purpose. And the Hour is certain to come, so forgive graciously.

15:85 Quran

I’m incredibly fascinated by the ghost comparison. Is the probability that ghosts are a real physical phenomenon higher or lower than the probability that aliens exist or have visited us? That’s an extremely interesting question, and I’m sure someone could do a statistical meta-analysis comparing the incidence of, say, UFO sightings with the incidence of paranormal experiences (if such an analysis doesn’t already exist). Both questions seem like the things that should be generally empirically falsifiable (and indeed, specific instances certainly are), but humanity’s curiosity about both has proven remarkably durable despite centuries of curiosity and myriad efforts to settle (negatively) both questions once and for all.

SO close. Just another five or ten seconds to finish the whole license. I would love to see someone cover this thing and tie it off.

Your quote never appears anywhere in any of those citations.

That the Bible–a collection of religious texts, many of them advancing directly or indirectly the ethnic and national interests of their authors’ people groups–would have stuff in it about killing people for lots of reasons is no surprise.

But your purported origin of the common proverb in the Bible is a fabrication. It’s not in there, anywhere.

Also Christianity doesn’t advocate killing non-believers as a matter of doctrine. Plenty of Christians have done that historically, but it’s not a teaching of the religion, and it’s never advocated in the Bible, anywhere.

There’s plenty to criticize Christians for. I don’t understand why you felt you needed to make something up.

Where, exactly, in the Bible does it say that?

Lawyer here, and generally no. At best, the judgment could be persuasive to other courts in the First Circuit–and of course that’s what Nintendo wants, hence the effort to craft language that could be easily ported to other sympathetic courts–but the legal theory is absolutely not binding on other parties until/unless the finding/rationale is adopted by a higher court.

Really? I’d be very interested in seeing a peer reviewed article in Nature in which someone reputable claims to have disproven the existence of the soul (especially without making a bunch of other ontological assumptions first). Can you point me to one?

As far as I can tell, the existence of a soul, like the existence of God, is inherently a non-scientific proposition–i.e., it is not falsifiable. But correct me if I’m wrong.

Narrator: It didn’t.

Your solution to rampant economic inequality is … campaign and vote downballot.

I mean, sure, that’s a great idea, but your argument essentially boils down to combating apathy (which isn’t a new or unique problem), and I guess attacking a hypothetical Sanders administration that never happened because–I dunno, you just wanted to get a jab in at voters who were actually motivated about a candidate for once in a lifetime? Well, good news for you; all the Sanders supporters are back to voting defensively until their kids grow up, if they vote at all. Does that feel like a win to you?

People aren’t “taking the easy way out” by not voting the entire ballot. In fact, split-ticket voting is down historically, at least as of 2020, across both parties. Blaming people for not devoting their lives to political activism is akin to blaming minimum wage workers for not walking out: Yeah, maybe things would be better if they did, but people have to survive. Choosing to use what little spare time one has with family instead of participating in local politics isn’t a moral failure, and it’s not the easy way out. It’s just rational. People have limited time and limited means, and there are more important things than who gets to be the constable next year.

None of these are legal requirements of an agreement in the US.

Source: Am lawyer who writes EULAs for a living.

There are plenty of good arguments for why a particular EULA might be legally problematic, but “no signature, no contract!” isn’t one.

There’s a lot to take from Bojack, but I’m not sure I could pin down one sentiment to wrap up the whole show. Frequently, it’s just a good comedy. At other times, the show is an exploration of depression and self-destruction, and I think that’s what makes it resonate with so many people.

For what it’s worth, the first season is generally the worst in the show by a fair margin. It has a few high points, but I think most fans appreciate that the show demands more commitment than many are willing to devote. It wasn’t until into the second season that things started to really hit the highs that made the show stick with people.