Wanting someone who killed in desparation in well-known and very extenuous circumstances a lighter punishment in no way condones the crime.
Many think the justice system should prioritize rehabilitation, not retribution.
Instead of fixing people, retribution just breaks them even further, making it more likely they’ll commit a crime in the future, oftentimes because they’re forced to by circumstances they find themselves in when (if) they’re finally set free.
Realist: the glass is plastic
Yeah. “I didn’t kill her. But even if I did, here’s my get out of jail free card.”
Lemmy isn’t a single website like reddit.com is. It’s rather a collection of decentralised servers (“instances”) offering the same service (one very similar to reddit). It’s often compared to e-mail - just as Gmail users can talk to Outlook users, lemmy.world users can post and comment on lemmy.ml from their home instance.
What this does is it removes the centralised aspects of Reddit - if a community has powertripping mods one can make an alternate community (like on Reddit). But this goes a step above - powertripping server admins can be reigned in by simply switching instances.
It’s perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.
Why would it be rasonable? Did the tatoo artist do what is (keyword:) reasonable on their end to ensure that doesn’t happen? Did they make information about tatoo ink allergies known to their customers? Do they advise their customers about the allergies? Do they use FDA approved tatoo inks?
It’s not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.
Did the streaming service clearly for example cause magnetic interference and was ruled as a large contributor to the disaster? If yes, then it’s reasonable.
Whatever scenatio you think of, there’s always room for liability. Some, nay, mlst of it’s far-fetched, but not impossible.
However there’s at least one thing that’s never reasonable, and that’s arbitration itself. Arbitration is someone making a decition which can’t be amended after it’s made. It can’t be appealed. New evidence coming to light after-the-fact means nothing. Arvbitration is absolute.
Arbitration doesn’t allow complaint. The judgement is final.
Which is fucking ridiculous.
Let’s return to your two claims of unreasonability:
It’s perfectly reasonable for, say, a tattoo artist not to be liable for the medical bills, if the ink causes a hitherto unknown allergy to kick in.
It’s not reasonable to argue that a streaming service agreement covers liability for being cut in half by a train.
There’s nothing stopping a normal court from fairly making a judgement. It can be appealed, which is fine.
What isn’t fine is giving a company, or a like-minded court sole and absolute jurisdictions over suits against a company by its users. And above that, making said judgements unappealable.
To paraphrase you: there has to be a reasonable understanding of the underlying facts of the case covered. Some claims are clearly ubsubstantiated. Some, however, are clearly substantiated and if the service provider knows and understands that, they would accept the jurisdiction of the court system without carveouts grossly in their favour.
Honestly, isn’t them invoking the arbitration clause a direct admission of guilt? Had they just came to court and said “we have nothing to do with it” they might’ve just gotten away with it. Like this, they literally drag themselves into the suit and say you can’t sue me. Not a good look.
It’s hardly ubiversally popular - anyone seeling a aubscription will lobby against this, and banks are traditionally one of the biggest lobbies, only smaller than perhaps pharma and military suppliers.
2024 version: Are you an idiot? Windows Do you swim in money? Mac No? Linux
The Eiffel Tower in the meme is as illegal as the Rattaouile frame since if the photo is from a broadcast the royalties have already been dealt with.
I think it isn’t a one-time, but rather a yearly fee, so more like a subscription. And on top of that they take their third.
Americans are good at shooting, just not precisely
good supper, nice supper, normal supper!
Super supper!
I wonder how credible Media bias factcheck itself is if they claim the NY Times is left-wing biased and more credible than the Guardian
I don’t see why someone couldn’t be appointed to a second (or even third) term on the Supreme court. The point is to make the court less succeptible to fluctuation by packing, not increase them.
And why wouldn’t they go back to regular attorney work? They could take a post on a Circut court or a state Supreme/Superior court. It’s not as if their entire career will be expunged after their term ends so they have to start as if they’d just graduated Law school.
As if it was about thr worker, it’s about the great gift from Burger King (that never happened)
Bjden and not stepping down?
He got a citizenship after the fact, rather thab by the virtue of his birth (on US soil or to a US citizen parent). More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization
The problem with most paradoxes is that they’re strawmen.
Let’s look at the Wiktionary definition of Tolerance:
- (uncountable, obsolete) The ability to endure pain or hardship; endurance. [15th–19th c.]
- (uncountable) The ability or practice of tolerating; an acceptance of or patience with the beliefs, opinions or practices of others; a lack of bigotry. [from 18th c.]
- (uncountable) The ability of the body (or other organism) to resist the action of a poison, to cope with a dangerous drug or to survive infection by an organism. [from 19th c.]
- (countable) The variation or deviation from a standard, especially the maximum permitted variation in an engineering measurement. [from 20th c.] And as sugar on top, the etymology: From Middle French tolerance, from Latin tolerantia (“endurance”), from tolerans, present participle of Latin tolerō (“endure”).
So tolearnce isn’t some omniforgiving quality, it’s the quality of “I don’t agree with you, but am prepared to endure up to a reasonable point”. This simple check at what the word means renders the paradox moot as the formulation of the paradox implies tolerance to be an infinite amount of forgiveness when it’s in fact a very limited amount of enduring things. And this limitedness is present in all uses of the word, be it in politics, engineering or medicine.
Ironically, even if OP missed the point, the apps pictured are resource hogs and all of them don’t need to run on starup other than Defender.
Sure, leave OneDrive/Dropbox on if you use it. Leave Spotify if you just need your music to start blasting the second you reach the desktop. If opening Steam and waiting ~30 seconds for the lord Gaben-given daily update is too much of a problem let it do its thing on startup, but who in their right mind needs Soptify, OneNote and all the gaming clients slowing down startup of literally everything?
And CCleaner, McAffee and Adobe can go fuck themselves along wirh Nestle.
Rhetoric does mean speech. It’s usually used in a political context, so incediary rhetoric would be incidiary (political) speech.
Other than that, rhetoric is often equated with the policies talked about, so Trump’s rhetoric would be anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, pro-Russia, etc.
As for the ‘it’s not rhetoric’ part of the title - I think they meant it’s not just speech, it’s verifiable - so no direct meaning of ‘lie’ anywhere although the meaning of ‘lie’ is heavily implied.