[lulus-delivery-service]

I understand why jurors need to be sequestered from media coverage and stuff, but it’s crazy that they’re prohibited from doing ANY internet research or fact-checking related to the case. Some guy is being fined $11k because he Googled a patch that an ICE officer was wearing in their case – the jury was told in court it was a trade workers’ union patch, but the guy didn’t think it was since he was a retired pipe fitter and didn’t recognize the logo. So he went home and googled it and says he found it to be a white supremacist logo. And since he googled it, he’s being charged with contempt and fined for the costs of the mistrial he caused by doing so. But like… doesn’t that mean that our court system is set up so that juries could be lied to (by prosecutors, etc) and be unable to do any verification or fact-checking without literally committing a crime……?

[wan-shailu]

the idea is that defendants have the right to know the evidence that’s being used to render judgement. so all of the evidence needs to be presented at trial. jurors going off and collecting their own evidence means that the defense (or, in this case, prosecution) has no chance to respond to it 

what should have happened in this case is that the defense should have done that research and presented it to the jury to demonstrate that the prosecution was lying. that is the fact-checking mechanism that exists for this case. the fact that the defense missed that is a massive blunder

[apisashla]

Defense lawyers, in particular public defenders, are overworked and underpaid. The US criminal justice system (despite measures theoretically in place to prevent wrongful conviction) is structured to prioritize securing convictions over anything else. This is not “ah, this person’s lawyer was incompetent and that’s why the system didn’t work!”, this is a system specifically designed to ensure justice is not done.

[wan-shailu]

Be that as it may, those are distinct issues from the rule that all evidence used in the decision has to be presented at trial. that rule is not the core of the issue

[apisashla]

The example given at the beginning should be sufficient to demonstrate that both the rule itself and the way it is enforced in practice do in fact cause problems. The idea that, in theory, it shouldn’t have caused a problem because the defense should have done x does not mean this rule makes sense.

The general idea that juries should be blank slates making decisions based only on courtroom arguments in a complete contextual vacuum is a farce. The least we could do as a society is let juries have access to relevant background information about a case, even if through limited channels.

[wan-shailu]

I mean, serious question: if you were convicted of a crime based on evidence that was never presented in a courtroom and you therefore never had a chance to defend yourself against, would you consider that to have been a fair trial? Because that’s what this is there to prevent

[pocketss]

so hard to find a decent exorcist these days :/

[badjokesbyjeff]

A woman who is constantly embarrassed by her husband falling asleep in church goes to the priest to ask for help.

The priest says, “Look love, if he falls asleep again, poke him with this hat pin. I’ll nod to you as a signal to poke him.”. The woman agrees to the plan.

So Sunday rolls around and sure enough, good old Mr. Jones nods off again. The priest notices and asks, “Who is our savior?” then nods to Mrs. Jones. She pokes her husband, and he wakes up and shouts, “Jesus Christ!”.

The priest, pretending to be impressed, says, “Very good!”.

A full three minutes later, Mr. Jones is asleep again. The priest again notices, and asks, “What is the name of Jesus’ father?” before nodding at Mrs. Jones again. She pokes her husband, who screams, “GOD!” at the top of his lungs.

The priest again congratulates Mr. Jones on his alertness and continues with the sermon. However, during the sermon, he begins nodding enthusiastically, which Mrs. Jones mistakes for a poking signal.

The priest then says, “And what did Eve say to Adam after she gave him his 99th child?” the priest nods. The mistaken Mrs. Jones pokes her husband, and he shouts, “If you poke that fucking thing into me one more time, I’ll snap it in half and shove it up your ass!”.

[lulus-delivery-service]

I understand why jurors need to be sequestered from media coverage and stuff, but it's crazy that they're prohibited from doing ANY internet research or fact-checking related to the case. Some guy is being fined $11k because he Googled a patch that an ICE officer was wearing in their case -- the jury was told in court it was a trade workers' union patch, but the guy didn't think it was since he was a retired pipe fitter and didn't recognize the logo. So he went home and googled it and says he found it to be a white supremacist logo. And since he googled it, he's being charged with contempt and fined for the costs of the mistrial he caused by doing so. But like… doesn't that mean that our court system is set up so that juries could be lied to (by prosecutors, etc) and be unable to do any verification or fact-checking without literally committing a crime……?

[wan-shailu]

the idea is that defendants have the right to know the evidence that’s being used to render judgement. so all of the evidence needs to be presented at trial. jurors going off and collecting their own evidence means that the defense (or, in this case, prosecution) has no chance to respond to it 

what should have happened in this case is that the defense should have done that research and presented it to the jury to demonstrate that the prosecution was lying. that is the fact-checking mechanism that exists for this case. the fact that the defense missed that is a massive blunder

[apisashla]

Defense lawyers, in particular public defenders, are overworked and underpaid. The US criminal justice system (despite measures theoretically in place to prevent wrongful conviction) is structured to prioritize securing convictions over anything else. This is not "ah, this person's lawyer was incompetent and that's why the system didn't work!", this is a system specifically designed to ensure justice is not done.

[wan-shailu]

Be that as it may, those are distinct issues from the rule that all evidence used in the decision has to be presented at trial. that rule is not the core of the issue

[lulus-delivery-service]

I understand why jurors need to be sequestered from media coverage and stuff, but it's crazy that they're prohibited from doing ANY internet research or fact-checking related to the case. Some guy is being fined $11k because he Googled a patch that an ICE officer was wearing in their case -- the jury was told in court it was a trade workers' union patch, but the guy didn't think it was since he was a retired pipe fitter and didn't recognize the logo. So he went home and googled it and says he found it to be a white supremacist logo. And since he googled it, he's being charged with contempt and fined for the costs of the mistrial he caused by doing so. But like… doesn't that mean that our court system is set up so that juries could be lied to (by prosecutors, etc) and be unable to do any verification or fact-checking without literally committing a crime……?

[wan-shailu]

the idea is that defendants have the right to know the evidence that’s being used to render judgement. so all of the evidence needs to be presented at trial. jurors going off and collecting their own evidence means that the defense (or, in this case, prosecution) has no chance to respond to it 

what should have happened in this case is that the defense should have done that research and presented it to the jury to demonstrate that the prosecution was lying. that is the fact-checking mechanism that exists for this case. the fact that the defense missed that is a massive blunder

[mapsontheweb]

Map of Trees Per Person

[mapsontheweb]

Russia is bigger than Pluto.

[catgirlcadaver-deactivated20241]

I am looking neither respectfully nor disrespectfully. I gaze without recognition of your form, and without understanding.

[badjokesbyjeff]

You have to be born in the 1940's and been a teenager in 1957 in order to get this joke

Its 1957 and Bob goes to pick up his date. Peggy Sue’s Father invites him in.

He asks Bob what they plan on doing.

Bob politely responds that they will probably just go to the malt shop or to a drive-in.

Peggy Sue’s father suggests, “Why don’t you kids go out and screw? I hear all the kids are doing it.”

Bob is shocked. “Excuse me Sir?”

“Oh yes, Peggy Sue really likes to screw. She’d screw all night if we let her.”

Just then, Peggy Sue comes down stairs and announces she is ready to go.

About 20 minutes later, a thoroughly disheveled Peggy Sue rushes back into the house, slams the door and screams at her father,

“Dad! The Twist! It’s called the Twist!”

[bluu-spectre]

Literally Everyone in ME1: Shepard, hey Shepard! You remember Akuze? Yeah that extremely traumatic and awful thing you experienced that you probably have nightmares about? Hey yeah you remember? You remember it? You know, Akuze?

Shepard, who is just trying to buy a fucking coffee:

[insomniac-arrest]

carrd? nah. if you want to learn about me you have to connect bits of information from my occasional sentence-long tumblr tags and gay little rants I’ve been putting there since 2016. that is the truest wellspring of self.

[raeanneapril]

this has to be the coolest Shoot compilation ever! kudos to the owner! i tried to trace this vid back to it’s original post but the site was in Chinese. so i couldn’t understand a thing. if this is yours, please let me know so i can give credit. :)

update: thanks to @lrbcn and @rootsstraightarrow for the original link. here it is – http://www.bilibili.com/video/av6915002/

and made by this Chinese fan – http://m.weibo.cn/u/2579937450

(This video is for entertainment purposes only. No copyright infringement intended.)

[vernons]

enjoying the sun ☀️

[iloveurcat]

a bunch of super cuties who love each other!!!! I love them!!

[grenade-maid]

I think like, the death of Vine and Rabbit, Wikipedia constantly needing to beg for money, Discord depending so heavily on venture capital, Facebook turning towards spying on users to generate a return on all the venture capital that got them started, Adobe creative suite turning into a subscription rather than a single product you buy, the strangulation of streaming entertainment as every company pulls their content and makes it exclusive to their service, are all great examples of how like, it really doesn't matter if something is legitimately useful, efficient, or beloved, it is next to impossible for a service to exist if it doesn't make shareholders increasing amounts of money year after year. Which may seem like a "no duh" type of statement, but it's a very simple window into how the profit motive makes products and services worse, not better. And how that's not just a matter of certain companies or ceos being bad and greedy on an individual level, but is an inescapable factor of an economy where existence is dependent on generating capital.

[wan-shailu]

It is next to impossible for a service to exist if it doesn’t make shareholders increasing amounts of money year after year

I think the thing here is that these services all start out as hugely money-losing and massively unsustainable. The goal isn’t even increasing profits, its becoming stable. Plenty of companies are able to sustain services without constant year-over-year profit increases (CSX is a great example. Their annual profit is more or less constant in the long term if you adjust for inflation, and their services are as strong as ever).

But the issue is most consumers aren’t usually willing to pay for what these services actually cost to sustain. I remember a few (probably 10) years ago, there was a rumor that facebook was going to start charging a monthly subscription fee and the instant reaction from everyone I knew on the platform was “time to find another social media website”.

And this isn’t, at its core, a capitalistic issue. If I’m not willing to pay $50/year for discord (I’m not) why would I be willing to pay $50/year in additional taxes for Socialist Discord? 

[capitalism-and-analytics]

[tzimiscelord]

Without the goverment, who will help those in need?

[captainjonnitkessler]

Okay, the notes on this are giving me hives and I am seriously concerned about the absolute lack of critical thinking present, so some things about this from a union electrical worker who works a city contract:

1) Are those stairs up to code?

Just by looking at them: no. Open risers are a tripping hazard, I don’t see any tread grips so they’ll become a death trap in wet conditions, and those treads don’t look thick enough, supported enough, or even level. But hey, maybe it’s just a bad photo. But how far do the railing support posts go underground? Are they below the frost line? Were they properly supported in concrete? Was the concrete prepared right and given enough time to cure properly? Is the wood properly treated for weather resistance? Did he take into account the ground shifting on such a steep grade?

Even IF he did all that and the stairs were 100% up to code, the city has no way to verify that. So no, the city can’t just leave them there.

2) Who cares if the steps are up to code?

I saw a concerning amount of this in the notes. I thought we were all on the same page re: Cities have a moral obligation to make sure their structures aren’t deathtraps waiting to happen, and that’s what codes are for. I promise you, you WANT buildings and structures to follow codes and regulations. But in any case, they definitely have a legal obligation for it, so if they leave those stairs up on public land and someone trips, the city could be on the hook for millions in damages. So no, the city can’t just leave them there.

3) There’s no way stairs cost that much, it’s just the city stuffing its pockets:

$65,000 definitely seems on the steep side to me, and I’d want to see a breakdown of expenditure. But I also don’t know the scope of the project. For a set of stairs like the ones above? Yeah, that’s a lot. To excavate the entire grade and put in a concrete structure that includes stairs, an ADA compliant ramp, and good quality weather resistant material? That sounds more reasonable.

But the city also likely needs to have the following: a ground survey of the build site, architects to draw the plans, civil engineers to OK the plans, and the contractors - typically union, and therefore more expensive - to excavate and then build the structure. All of those steps are going to take a LOT of people and a LOT of time and therefore, a LOT of money.

4) Labor doesn’t cost that much, someone is just giving the job to his contractor buddy who’s inflating the price:

Labor does cost that much. Stop telling people to unionize and demand the value of their labor and then getting mad when people do it.

Anyway, in my city at least, contracts are done by blind bid and the lowest bid wins. Under most circumstances, my city legally cannot take a higher bidder, explicitly to prevent the above circumstance.

TL;DR:

“Local man puts up steps” is NOT a safe solution to this problem, the city legally and morally cannot let an unsafe structure stand, even simple construction is complicated and expensive as hell, and acting like the city could have done this for $500 is ridiculously out of touch.

[november-narwhal]

Building and egress codes are /literally/ written in blood just like so many other protections, we take that shit seriously.

[guardianofscrewingup]

Also, speaking from the healthcare angle, a broken hip from tripping on stairs can lead to complications that kill an elderly person. 

Having them not be open, having tread grips, etc, is potentially life or death for the elderly. There’s a reason hospitals take fall risks so seriously (that’s why beds have those lockable railings on the sides.) 

[prismatic-bell]

Did not think of this. Good information.

[ltwilliammowett]

The American brigantine Tyrannicide, 14 guns, 1776, by Patrick O’Brien 2021

When the American Revolution began, America didn't have a navy. The Continental Congress argued and debated and finally authorized a few ships to be build. The Massachusetts State Navy was begun 1775, and built the brigantine Tyrannicide to the destroy the British tyrants. She had 14 guns and flying the state Pine Tree flag, she sailed 1776 and had a successful career

[nightbringer24]

A+ for the name.

[mapsontheweb]

Map of the Korean War by Pacific Stars and Stripes.