• 18 Posts
  • 1.05K Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 6th, 2024

help-circle


  • I mean, I’m just going to go with the most obvious grift. Ulbricht is going to go right back to operating a crypto street pharmacy. Hell, he’ll do it on the open web now. He’ll call it “The New Silk Road” or similar.

    And then there’s an agreement for the feds to not go after them. In exchange, Ulbricht uses a good portion of his earnings to become the largest single investor in Trumpcoin ever. If asked, the feds can either ignore the question or hide behind some fig leaf excuse they come up with.

    It’s not like Trump didn’t run blatant undeniable cons in the last administration.




  • I just realized something amazing.

    I’ve heard said that in a modern battlefield like Ukraine, where recon drones are ubiquitous and satellite data is better and better, that stealth effectively doesn’t exist. You know where all your enemy’s forces are with high accuracy, and they know where yours are. Even if this is an exaggeration, the fog of war does seem to be dissipating with time. Eventually, recon tech will be so good that there will be no point for even having camouflage.

    So what this means is…WE CAN BRING BACK FABULOUS MILITARY UNIFORMS!!!



  • Exactly. Their ONLY virtue is convenience. Either you’re there for a prescription and buy something because you’re already there, or you’re just looking to do a quick stop. They’re basically a glorified convenience store that happens to have a pharmacy attached. Their prices are high, but they do have convenience on their side. You don’t have to walk across half a mile of parking before getting to the front door. You don’t have to walk into a giant warehouse store that corrals you into shopping in a giant counterclockwise loop. Walgreens does have the convenience option over shopping at a big grocery store.

    And this is what is so bone-headed about these locking cases. Again, their ONLY advantage is convenience. If they’re going to slow things down by putting a bunch of barriers between me and the things I want, I might as well just spend the same amount of time, go to the full-sized grocery store, and save some money.






  • Exactly. There’s a huge prototyping process. I would expect to make, at an absolute minimum, a dozen prototype stages. And each will take hours to print. This is not some covert process you’re doing in a hostel or homeless shelter. And even if you have access to a makerspace, they’re going to notice and immediately kick you out. No maker space wants that kind of heat on them. And you’ll also need access to a firing range that will let you test your sketchy home-made gun there. And again, no gun range wants that type of liability.

    So again, I ask. Where is Luigi’s workshop? Unless you have an owned or rented space, that only you have access to, it is virtually impossible to make a ghost gun without someone finding out.

    You almost need to own or rent a large piece of rural land if you want to actually do this.


  • This is a self-serving lie promulgated by legislators and jurists who loathe a check on their own power.

    Form follows function. The jury nullification “loophole” has been known for centuries. Entire constitutions have been written knowing full well that they will enable jury nullification. There are ways you could design a legal system that wouldn’t allow nullification. Yet time and time again, the people have chosen not to reform the system to eliminate jury nullification.

    Yes, giving juries power to judge the law often produces negative outcomes. But that’s simply democracy. Sometimes democracies produce bad outcomes, just like any system of government.



  • WoodScientist@lemmy.worldtoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 days ago

    Because it’s clearly being banned, not because of privacy violations, not because of the nefarious impact of a foreign government, but because of the content that is shared on it. It is the only major social media platform with a strong pro-Palestinian viewpoint on it. And the people in Congress have been caught on camera explicitly stating this is why they want to ban it.

    I hate Tiktok. I don’t use it. Never have. But I still don’t want to see the US turn its internet into the Great Firewall of China 2.0.

    The leaders in Congress cannot stand the idea of there being a social media platform that is popular in the US that isn’t hosted in the US. Why? The answer is simple - control. All the US social media platforms are heavily influenced by the US government. Hell, most of them openly contract with the NSA. Facebook is an NSA contractor. These platforms get a ton of money from the US government. And despite what conservatives bitch at in regards to “being censored,” the real censorship is against anything that doesn’t advance US power and influence. Outside of Tiktok, the major platforms heavily censor pro-Palestinian messages and stories. Go to r/worldnews and post anything other than “Palestinians deserve to be vaporized,” and you’ll be banned within 5 minutes. It’s literally that bad. Even when outright bans aren’t in place, the platforms will severely down shift any pro-Palestinian content and keep it out of peoples’ feeds.

    “Beware of he would would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.”



  • Assuming the trial results in a hung jury the state can refile the case over and over again - but if the outcome isn’t viewed as a fluke then it’s just a huge waste of money.

    I’ll elaborate on this. In order to actually be acquitted, ie found not guilty, the jury has to unanimously vote him “not guilty.” A hung jury is if that jury cannot come to a unanimous decision.

    In a case like this, if we get a hung jury, the prosecution isn’t likely to let it go. It’s too high profile of a case. What tends to happen in cases this high profile is that the prosecution tries again, but with a lesser set of charges.

    So here they’re trying murder one. If that results in a hung jury for all the charges, then they will try again. Next time, they charge him with murder two. If that results in a hung jury, they’ll charge him with manslaughter.

    Eventually, the charges they’re considering get low enough that the defendant will likely just take a plea deal for a lesser charge. Maybe Luigi takes a plea deal for 2nd degree manslaughter, or whatever the equivalent is in NY. At that point he would likely already have been in prison for years, and he might just be let off with time served.

    I don’t know how likely that scenario is, but that’s what would probably happen if his trials just kept resulting in hung juries. Prosecutors rarely try defendants on the exact same set of charges. If they got a hung jury, they know they were probably over-reaching on the previous set. So each time they dial it back and hope to get the guy on something.


  • It’s not some minor quirk of the system. It’s the only reason we have juries at all. If you just wanted a group of 12 people to decide guilt and innocence based on the facts of the case and the letter of the law, you would never hire 12 random untrained nobodies for that purpose. If that is all juries were for, you would have professional juries; being a juror would be a career that required a law degree.

    We have juries to protect against corrupt laws. That is the only saving grace of having guilt and innocence be decided by 12 random untrained nobodies. Legislatures can become corrupted and end up criminalizing things that the vast majority of the population does not consider to be wrong. A jury of your peers is the last line of defense against corrupt laws. And this mechanism is the only reason we have juries like we do.