nobody9999
Joined 6 years ago
Karma
6,583
Submissions
3,482
Member since
Jul 8
Recent submissions
Comment · 1 day ago
Comment · 2 days ago
>Insane algorithm burying this highly commented and voted submission on the second page, far behind posts that have fewer comments and votes that are 3x as old.
That's one of the reasons I don't even look at the front page any more. Rather I look at the "Active"[0] and, less often, the "New"[1] pages.
Comment · 3 days ago
>FISA court is an insane post-9/11 secret tribunal,
Wow! It's amazing how the time travelers went back in time after 9/11 just for FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). It was enacted, and FISA courts created in 1978[0].
All sorts of stupid stuff was done after (and in the name of "anti-terrorism") 9/11. FISA was not one of them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...
Comment · 9 days ago
>> I guess they could be gambling that she can't afford a good lawyer; many people can't.
>Then the government provides a lawyer; you can't be without counsel even if you can't afford them.
I'd note that many (most?) state jurisdictions (the Federal judiciary has the Federal Defender's Service[0]) require a defendant to be "indigent"[1] before a lawyer is appointed, rather than requiring the defendant to hire a lawyer.
Also, in many jurisdictions, private lawyers are appointed by judges to take on the cases of "indigent" defendants. Often there's little in the way of vetting such lawyers, and the fees paid generally aren't very high -- resulting in subpar lawyers and representation.
Even in places (like NYC[2]) with a more robust public defender system, these lawyers are generally handling dozens of cases at once and don't have the resources of the prosecutor's office (investigators, budgets for forensic testing/analysis, etc.), leaving the defendants' side at a considerable disadvantage.
As such, it's not just saying "I can't afford a lawyer," and Perry Mason rushes to your rescue.
[0] https://www.uscourts.gov/topics/defender-services
[1] Different jurisdictions have different standards for determining if a defendant is "indigent." But many of those won't appoint a lawyer unless you're flat broke. Own a home? Take out a second mortgage. Have a job? You're not indigent. Etc, etc, etc.
[2] https://www.thecityreporter.nyc/2024/04/08/how-public-defend...
Comment · 10 days ago
>What would burn in those manhattan buildings? Are the internal walls wood?
Me? I'd certainly prefer that didn't happen.
Which is why I'm glad I have a fire escape. Should there be a fire that either blocks access to the main stairwell and/or my front door, there's an additional egress point at the other end of my apartment.
I'd much prefer that there wasn't a fire at all, but I'd much rather have multiple egress points for me and my animals than having to sit and wait to die of smoke inhalation if a serious fire were to rip through my (more than a century old) apartment building.
Comment · 13 days ago
cf. "Code Switching"[0]
Comment · 16 days ago
digital (adj)[0]
6 : done with a finger
a digital rectal examination
Comment · 16 days ago
>Right, so you assume (and conclude) the possibility and necessity of a perfect enforcement procedure which will never detain a US citizen.
No. Just follow the law[0]:
(a) Issuance. If the complaint or one or more affidavits filed with the
complaint establish probable cause to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the defendant committed it, the judge must issue an arrest
warrant to an officer authorized to execute it.
Comment · 16 days ago
>Yes, this is the only evidence I can find of anything even tangentially claimed in this comment. "At least 36 citizens were held at least a day without being able to contact a lawyer or family."
So, you assert that at least 36 American citizens (as well as many thousands of non-citizens who, despite the rhetoric of some, are afforded constitutional rights by their presence in the US, but I digress) have had their constitutional rights violated by government agencies.
>It seems this is an incredibly small number for such a large operation, ie., the worst case treatment of US citizens appears to be 36 held for a day.
That strongly implies that you believe that given the scope of "such a large operation" that number is acceptable. If 36 is acceptable, how about 50? 100? 19,000? Where do you draw the line at the number of violations of constitutional rights are acceptable? That's not a rhetorical question.
I say it should be zero, as all Federal agents are required to take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. How many Federal agents shredding the Constitution is acceptable to you? I again say zero, and criminal charges should be brought against any and all who break their oath.
What say you? Again, not a rhetorical question.
Comment · 17 days ago
>They must still be chasing growth in the UK. It was once like that in the US as well
Where I live (in a large US city) many things are same day delivery, an enormous amount are next day delivery and, weirdly, except for four-serving Strawberry Jell-O (which ships from Texas), almost everything is two-day delivery.
Not sure where you live, but my experience is completely different from yours.
Comment · 17 days ago
From the Freebsd fortune file:
Mr. Jones related an incident from "some time back" when IBM Canada
Ltd. of Markham, Ont., ordered some parts from a new supplier in Japan.
The company noted in its order that acceptable quality allowed for 1.5
percent defects (a fairly high standard in North America at the time).
The Japanese sent the order, with a few parts packaged separately in
plastic. The accompanying letter said: "We don't know why you want 1.5
percent defective parts, but for your convenience, we've packed them
separately."
-- Excerpted from an article in The (Toronto) Globe and MailComment · 18 days ago
>It’s wild that this got flagged. There are some really important points here that deserves a discussion.
Whoever flagged it got what they wanted. Flagging generally kicks a submission right off the front page and limits the post's visibility.
After posting, it received a bunch of upvotes and comments. Within an hour or so of flagging, both pretty much stopped -- which achieved the goal of whoever flagged it -- to limit the discussion of this topic. I'll leave identifying the flagger's motivation as an exercise for the reader.
Angela Collier did an extensive bit[0] on that. Although she left out several of the canon-breaking details in the series.
That said, Patrick Stewart nailed it. Every. Single. Time. Despite the awful plotting/writing of Star Trek: Picard.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdLHKdn0JTY