unity1001

> Contracts apparently don't exist in civil law

This does sound like insincere debate. Where does in my comments it says that contracts dont exist in civil law. It says civil law is not BASED on contracts, agreeements and precedents. The common law is.

And no, the complications that are so beautifully and 'respectably' named in the common law dont exist in civil law. The law is always clear - if something is not covered by an immediate law, it is covered by a broader law that affects those cases.

Nowhere in my comment it says that criminals in other countries do not lie. Or the admission of guild is not considered evidence. It clearly outlines the differences in the legal systems and how the competent criminals navigate the former. If Binance people had any experience, they would be talking by using well rounded and vague words even among each other like how any exec in the US does, and they would avoid providing any such evidence. Moreover, they would easily be able to claim ignorance and deny any wrongdoing.

I recommend you read my comment again.

> Long standing in what circles?

Long standing in history, long standing in diplomacy, long standing in actual freaking Louis XIV administration communique, long standing in practically everything.

No offense but just because you people have a beef with Russia at the moment and they are using the term, the rest of the world is not going to change how they speak so that you dont get offended.

> I don't think I've seen an authoritative source elsewhere use it

Obviously you are not a student of history.

> Ignoring the "Anglosaxon" buzzword

The 'Anglosaxon' term is a long-standing political science, history and diplomacy term. Its not something that can be ignored, especially because...

> none of this is unique conceptually to US law

... it is.

The common law derives from the medieval !Anglosaxon! feudal law, which is based on contracts, agreements, negotiations and precedents. It can be 'interpreted' by the judge, who takes on the role of the feudal lord of the earlier times, and he or she can 'interpret' the law or precedents. The persecution or the defendant can negotiate any outcome. This trait of the common law system causes all the parties to open the 'bargain' from the maximum bets that they can imagine, assuming that it will be 'negotiated down' eventually. Which obligates the need for lying and denying that was mentioned earlier - if you deny any kind of wrongdoing even when caught red handed, you have a better chance of negotiating something better than if you were honest. The only sizable countries that use this law system are the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, and NZ if you count as sizable. Along with a number of smaller island states.

The ENTIRE rest of the world uses the civil law system that descended from the Napoleonic law, which descended in turn from the French Revolutionary principles. It does not rely on agreements, contracts, negotiations or precedents. It cannot be 'interpreted' The law is made by the democratic parliamentary authority and it clearly outlines crimes and punishments and there can be no negotiation made. Even the reductions in sentencing or the modifications that can be done to the final decision on anything are clearly outlined. Including the benefits that confessing a crime brings. Whereas lying is penalized further. There is no 'negotiation' that can be done in any way. That is why civil law encourages confessions and telling the truth in contrast to the common law which allows you to negotiate.

Which is also the reason why the lawyers get upper middle class salaries and income in entire rest of the world but make obscene, irrational income in the US - when the legal system allows outrageous decisions, reparations, sentences that can only be negotiated through professional lying, posturing, playing down or up, personal relations in between the lawyers, prosecutors and judges, it encourages the mess that one can see in the US to happen.

In Europe, judges and lawyers and prosecutors function more like clerks - the law is clear and solid. The rewards and punishments are the same. Has someone done what he or she shouldnt have done? Yes. What is the penalty for this? This particular thing. That is applied. There is no 'negotiation' anywhere in the process.

This difference not only makes the Anglosaxon legal system quite different from entire rest of the world, but it also causes the social, economic and political life in the Angloamerican world and the rest of the world to be very different. A corporation can get away with destroying the environment or killing hundreds of thousands people with their product or the new drug. Even if they know beforehand what will happen and start to repress information and bribe experts to lie on their behalf to sell their product. Because, when they get caught, what will happen will be an eventual negotiation. In the rest of the world that does not happen - there is no way to negotiate down any sentence that may befall on your corporation, but most importantly, you, the perpetrator...

> Thank goodness that criminals aren't very smart

No, the criminals are extremely smart. Its just that these were amateurs who didnt know that in Anglosaxon common law, you have to avoid being honest about anything and even deny any wrongdoing even if you get caught the act of murdering someone. Then you can exercise plausible deniability, claim incompetence or mental incapacity and you can negotiate your sentence. Any kind of honesty works against you in the US law as a result. That's how you end up with people who are total experts in their field testifying in courts that they "didnt know" that something they did would cause so much harm to something or somebody or the society.

As of this very moment, thousands of much, much bigger corporations are actually destroying the entire US society in a real way and not like these amateurs who were just shuffling some funny money. But the real psychos know how common law works. There wont be any trail of their wrongdoing, and when there is, there will always be plausible deniability in that trail...

And it wont work until California can stop what is called 'The Greyhound Express'. That's what some people in other states call the practice that some states have - offering their homeless a one way ticket to California or jail. They export their problem to California, and they criticize California for it.

Concentration also causes less energy to be sent to the digestive system because the energy gets diverted to the brain. Concentration is an evolutionary 'fight or flight' adaptation. Therefore when you are highly concentrating, its possible that your digestion gets impaired. Couple this with shallow breathing, then you would have even less energy available for digestion.

Which causes the food to be badly digested, leading to gas and even various syndromes that cause irritation & inflammation in the intestines and even the body in general. Because when a non-digested piece of food enters the intestines, the body can easily trigger the immune responses of the body, thinking that 'a foreign substance has entered the digestive system' (which is natural). This kind of digestive problems, IBS etc seem to be common in tech circles.

> Gaming laptops are terrible and a bad deal... They will. Either cheaper or better performance for same price.

I found them pretty competent. An Asus ROG G17 easily gives at least ~80% performance of what the components would give if they were in a desktop. (RTX 3070, Ryzen 9). And does it with almost ~50% less power consumption...

Yeah, they dont. Contradictorily so, since the part of the Turkey that is geographically in Europe is larger than many European states both in respect to surface area and also in respect to population.

Depends. A lot of techies still use Windows (AMD or Intel, depending), including in Europe where the purchasing power is higher. Apple people seem to be a certain subsegment of computer users even in Europe, and they may not necessarily constitute the large part of any significant engineering segment anywhere - unlike the US, where Apple usage is quite high in certain subsegments among the technical people.

Normal people around here (W Europe) dont even know about 'Windows'. They know about their 'computer'. And 'the Internet', which is actually the web browser in their laptop. These are not uneducated dumb people either. Any normal, non-techie person, including other white collar professionals. They mostly know about various software that is heavily used in business though - Excel, Word, Powerpoint etc. Or SAP etc, if they are more specialized professionals.

...

What Im thinking is that the reduction in demand of computers and laptops is because existing hardware has developed quite beyond the needs of the majority of users. An average, 75%ile gaming laptop that comes in for ~1500-1700 euros these days, is capable of running most AAA games with good quality visuals and performance. They are capable of running any game from the last decade and earlier. And they are as cheap as an equivalent desktop - which may or may not bring any visible performance and quality improvement. This is the most taxing application that the majority uses and other stuff like business software are in no way anything demanding compared to these, so why someone who bought a new laptop 2-3 years ago need another one today...

This could only change with a new paradigm like consumer-grade, locally installed AI applications or virtual reality bumping up the hardware requirements. Or, through (probably soon to be illegal) planned obsolescence.

The non-technical people use PCs. Macs are extremely expensive for an overwhelming majority of the world population. So when someone needs a 'computer', its a Wintel laptop.