And how has this penalty incentivised any change in behavior? I assume the money will come from the school district, which is earmarked from local and federal taxes. So now there’s less money to pay for schools. In practice the school board may do as they wish with less funding until they are not reelected. Do you think they will be firing or docking pay of the people who are actually to blame?
Eh, if the government fucks up then it has to pay, the taxpayers should pressure the government to not fuck up again if they don’t like having to pay for making people whole
I agree with you, but to the average citizen, they are unaware of the direct consequences of those who they are voting for, especially when it relates to taxes. To some, this could be seen as a direct result of the “woke agenda” and would be anti-woke tax. They might double down and reelect their candidate who got them into this mess to “fix” the system and stop the tax increases, since that’s easier than actually creating meaningful changes in society.
At least in the Bay Area, there’s a few cities that have municipal utilities (owned and ran by the city). Usually this is because they installed power lines before PG&E existed.
In those areas, the electricity rates are less than 1/3 of PG&E’s rates. Residential electricity is around $0.16/kWh in Palo Alto and Santa Clara (city, not county), compared to something like $0.55-0.60/kWh in summer peak with PG&E.
One of the things with PG&E is that customers in city areas subsidise customers in rural areas, since it’s quite a bit more expensive to service customers in rural areas. Most of the price difference is greed, though. PG&E have record profits every year. The municipal electricity providers are non-profits and have an incentive to keep prices low.
The thing that confuses me is that California bailed out PG&E when they declared bankruptcy, yet PG&E are still operating as a for-profit company? They essentially just got free money from the government. Why didn’t the government take over the company?
I’ve always found it absurd how you can get compensated with amounts of money you would not see in a lifetime of work if you win the right type of legal case in the US so much so that purposely getting hurt to sue has become a running joke. Nothing against this particular case or individual but it always seemed like a perverse form of justice instead of, for example, making the party in the wrong change their policy to avoid similar incidents happening in the future while also covering legal fees.
While I get what you’re saying, the best type of outcome for something like this will be a policy change to avoid similar incidents. However if you were to force policy changes through these sort of lawsuits, you would have the defense fighting for the smallest policy changes and even arguing that these small changes infringe their rights or are cruel and unusual - this would be even more complex to solve, and ineffective. The better way is to make penalties high enough that those penalties themselves motivate policy changes that will actually be effective. It puts the people being punished in charge of their next possible punishment, and this can lead to even better policy changes than simply doing it directly.
For an example, if you sued a company because you stepped on a nail left by their construction crew (which was proven to be willful negligence), they might argue that they can simply sweep up any remaining nails. By changing that to a $1 million fine, they’re going to not only remove all of the nails, but make sure they never get left on the floor ever again. You can’t get this effect by simply ruling “no more nails on the floor.”
Yeah, I mostly used that example since it was a school district so it would be feasible to enact actual policy change that would punish violations internally. I agree that for private corporations this does not work but for public institutions it’s also not as effective of a deterrent as it could be due to lack of direct financial accountability.
I’ve always found it absurd how you can get compensated with amounts of money you would not see in a lifetime of work if you win the right type of legal case in the US so much so that purposely getting hurt to sue has become a running joke.
This isn’t entirely unique to the USA. It takes different, and even worse forms, in some other countries.
In China for car accidents theres a history of the offender intentionally killing the injury victim to avoid having to pay for a lifetime of disability payments. Its cheaper for the offender to pay a one-time fine for killing than it is to pay for years or decades to support the victim financially. source
During the hearing, Greene told Fauci he was “not a doctor” and that he “belonged in prison” for “crimes against humanity” amid heated questioning. She also accused him of experimenting on beagles with disease-causing parasites.
“As a dog lover, I want to tell you this is disgusting and evil, what you signed off on, and these experiments that happened to beagles paid for by the American taxpayer,” she said. “And I want you to know that Americans don’t pay their taxes for animals to be tortured liked this.”
Unusual? How about unhinged?
The vaccine is for a virus, which is a replicating protein, not a parasite.
Dogs are by definition not humanity, but the billions of people who were protected from the virus certainly are.
I enjoy how the party of law and order just wants to consistently ignore laws and order and demands immediate imprisonment of anybody who makes them look bad. It’s been going on for years, but its intensity since Cheeto diapers came around has increased exponentially.
I wonder whether she’s in charge of the group trying to press people to sign pledges to reject any drug, product or procedure tested on animals, or whether she’s even signed it.
I mean, it basically volunteers to be the animals these things are tested on if everyone signs - you just get no vaccines or tooth regrowing or surgeries until then while they’re still tested on animals other than you - but that’s not obvious to stupid people.
Realistically they are losing the lease on the building they rent and some mediocre recording equipment, maybe some dumb neon signs. He could run his shitty podcast from his bedroom if he wanted to. He’s whining like they are forcing him into silence, but this won’t even cover the teeniest fraction of what he owes the people whose lives he tried to destroy. Fuck him. Way harder.
Conservatives can’t be trusted to serve in public positions. They will literally always ditch their principles – if they ever had any in the first place – to serve their political goals, naturally claiming that this is what “the left” does so it’s OK for then to do it too
edit: this is why any sort of jury trial for Trump is probably doomed to fail. Any conservative jurors will favor him no matter what, and will absolutely lie about their plans to do so in the selection process
revenge of the edit: so the NY conviction was by a jury, happy surprise
I dunno the general opinion seemed to be that she was a competent, if not particularly outstanding, judge before she started getting Trump’s cases. Looks like a pretty cut and dried case of bias to me, presumably with an eye to getting a(nother) leg up in her career if he becomes president again to add a little spice of blatant corruption to the mix.
Though I agree, I think they’re worried about how to select a jury that is allowed to see the evidence.
I mean, those with high enough security clearances are less likely to be seen as impartial by Drumpfs supporters. (Not that they see anything but full and undying support as impartial) and more likely (so I would suspect) to convict than those who don’t have security clearances.
People at any clearance level have been asking since day one how he is still able to see sunlight. Day 1 classification training explicitly lays out penalties.
AI summary of the process using the article and other sources -
The process of presenting classified information at a trial involves careful adherence to the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), which provides a framework for handling such sensitive materials while balancing national security interests and the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
Pretrial Procedures:
A pretrial conference is held to discuss how classified information will be managed. The court issues protective orders to prevent unauthorized disclosures [❞][❞].
The government can request to delete or redact classified information from discovery or provide unclassified summaries instead. This request is typically made in a private (ex parte) and closed (in camera) session with the judge [❞][❞].
Defense Counsel Clearance:
Defense attorneys often need security clearances to access classified information. Defendants typically do not receive direct access to such information, especially if it poses significant national security risks [❞][❞].
Use at Trial:
Before trial, defendants must notify the court of any classified information they intend to disclose. The court holds a hearing to determine the admissibility of this information, and the government may propose substitutions or redactions [❞][❞].
If the court deems the classified information relevant and admissible, the government can suggest unclassified summaries or stipulations to ensure the defense can still present their case effectively [❞].
Jury Considerations:
Jurors typically do not need security clearances. Instead, the court ensures that any classified information presented at trial is sufficiently sanitized or summarized so that it does not compromise national security but still conveys the necessary details for the case [❞].
Interlocutory Appeals:
The government has the right to appeal pretrial court decisions that it believes improperly compel the disclosure of classified information. This is a crucial mechanism to protect sensitive information throughout the trial process [❞].
This structured approach aims to protect classified information while upholding the integrity of the judicial process.
Facts are facts bro. New York was a jury trial and the Trump team HELPED SELECT THE JURORS. This is exactly how the unbiased system is supposed to work.
they might lie, but are they intelligent enough not to get caught? extremely unlikely. Conservatives are always super responsive to fear (because their amygdalas are wired wrong and prevent them from being creative and empathetic) so the smurt ones are going to be deterred by the consequences, and the ones who have nothing to lose are going to conceive of themselves as martyrs and believe they are innocent even though that’s not what their church is probably telling them.
For journalists, it raises a question: Should a public official’s family be held to the same standards as that official themselves?
Bullshit. It raises the question: Should a Supreme Court Justice be believed unconditionally when he offers an excuse for what really looks like inappropriate bias? The discovery that another flag associated with the January 6 attack flew in front of Alito’s beach house has shown that the NYT was correct not to accept his story about his wife. I’m honestly surprised by the discussion of how a judge’s family is expected to behave - it’s as if a dead body was found in Alito’s house, he said that he had no idea how it got there, and the press started talking about whether or not he had a responsibility to monitor access to his property more closely.
Yeah, happens to me all the time as well. People specifically ask me not to commit acts of genocide in a specific population, and I just accidentally bomb them anyway a few hours later.
It's truly tragic, but there's really nothing I can do about it, and I honestly wish people would stop bitching about it.
Hey, don't beat yourself up about it. Who hasn't accidentally bombed a camp of displaced peoples? The important thing is to apologize and try not to get caught bomb the next one.
There are natural resources out there that the land owners want to extract. Washington’s and Oregon’s environmental law is far more stringent than Idaho’s.
I can really sympathize with these guys. I live in a blue dot in one of the reddest states in the country. I have been talking with my friends about doing this exact thing.
Technically this is not secession. It’s partitioning. They want to partition themselves and join Idaho. Just like I’d love to partition my city away from the shit hole parasitic state it’s attached to.
The state level representation just isn’t there for them. They’re so dramatically in the minority that they have no voice in state government at all. So changes are mandated to them, and they’re disillusioned. They love their home and they want the government to recognize them.
Set aside the crazy bullshit they want. The grievance is legitimate, the government completely ignores their desires, they haven’t been able to get the government to acknowledge that, and so they retaliate by saying they don’t want to be a part of it anymore.
To be clear, there is no resolution for people in this situation. They have no control over the state government, no ability to change it. The only choice is to leave, and faced with moving or a long shot at leaving or taking your home with you, you’d choose to take your home, every time.
Though it is only 53% of them that want this. Not that I think that should cancel the entire vote, but it should complicate the situation because a 6% difference shouldn’t change the situation into one that 47% don’t want.
This is caused by Gerrymandering and antidemocratic voter suppression. But Republicans don’t want to fix those issues because they’d be a regional party overnight limited to just the south.
I do think there needs to be a dissolution of the parties, but accusing both sides of being the same is not valid nor useful in the state (lol, country?) that we currently live in.
I’m not saying both sides are the same. I’m accusing two different political parties of employing the same shitty tactics, which they most definitely are.
Is one party more guilty of it? Sure. But denying that the Democrats are gerrymandering is delusional.
Oregon’s 2021 congressional map received an F from the gerrymandering project for giving one party a significant advantage.
All governments are run by politicians, by definition. Are you in favor of an anarchist power vacuum that will instantly attract people wanting to set up their own terrible governments?
There are several available at the link I shared. It might be more than one click but, because you’re presumably able to read, a big smart guy like you should have no trouble finding them.
I also couldn’t find a better map on that link. The state itself is strikingly partisan, and I can’t imagine a map that wouldn’t reflect that. That could just be my lack of imagination though.
What do they want that Idaho can provide that Oregon can’t? Some people have to flee entire states over abortion laws for lifesaving medical procedures and they’re told stuff like “well if you don’t like it just move”.
I appreciate that. And this is a great example to whip out when those idiots say shit like that. Obviously moving isn’t an option for most people and for those whom it is, they likely have.
What exactly they want isn’t important, just that it’s very much the opposite of how the state is being run. Admittedly some of the demands fall under crazy bullshit, but the central issue is agency. Politically speaking they have very little, and this is the one lever left to them to pull.
Imagine you’re on a train of trolleys, and every time it comes to a point where a direction could be chosen, every car votes and consistently the ones at the back are out voted by the other cars. You can’t get off and buy another ticket. But you might be able to detach the cars.
Furthermore, reorganization like this should be done far more frequently than it’s being done. Why shouldn’t we allow disparate peoples of similar opinions vote together and govern each other? Why are we locked in to the lines on a map, the last major change of which happened in 1867. Since then, the borders have remained relatively unchanged.
Not only should they, a group of people I likely hold only one fundamental belief in common with, not be afforded some self governance?
Imagine you’re on a train of trolleys, and every time it comes to a point where a direction could be chosen, every car votes and consistently the ones at the back are out voted by the other cars. You can’t get off and buy another ticket. But you might be able to detach the cars.
So, you’re describing the 47% who do not want to partition?
The ability to be more open about being white supremacist garbage. Idaho is a dumpster fire - the state is suffering shortages of medical professionals because of the GQP.
Imagine scraping the money together to move from Idaho to Oregon to protect your health and bodily autonomy, then 300 of your neighbors get together and decide, nope, you’re still in Idaho.
This is why proportional voting is good. The best answer is to give them more accurate representation as part of oregon.
Without some trade for like a blue part of idaho this trade just stacks the deck one way. not 100% of the people in those districts want to leave and there’s blue parts of idaho, why not trade those for red parts of oregon if it’s “just partitioning” why abandon the 20-49% of whomever is in those red districts that would go straight back to being unrepresented
No, this is just right wingers wanting things 100% their way with no reasonable offer on the the table. There’s no “legitimacy” here.
The grievance is legitimate, the government completely ignores their desires…
I see your point, but their “desires” are to oppress or kill the normal people, so I just don’t see their grievances as legitimate. Conservatives are furious that they are unable to use legislation to further their conservative values of racism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, transphobia, antisemitism and other conservative bigotry. There is simply no room in a modern culture for hate-based ideologies like conservatism.
We should not legitimize their harmful desires by recognizing their “grievances”. Instead, we should marginalize hate by marginalizing the haters.
Down. wild is what you’re looking for. This was a pack of wild dogs. Maybe they were owned by someone but this is wild dog behavior. The owner should not only be charged with manslaughter and multiple assault and endangerment, but also some charges for having dogs in a way to do this.
No dog owner would condone any part of this and it’s irrelevant what breed the dogs were.
These were not wild dogs. They were owned. The breed of dog is important for understanding aggression in dogs. Denying that is literally sticking your head in the sand to avoid factual information you don’t want to hear.
Aggression in any dog breed is 100% on the human responsible for the dog.
Ban Pitts and then scratch your head a few years later when you hear about the German Shepherd attacks, ban the German Shepherds and then wipe the drool from your mouth while you read the article about the uptick in Rottweiler maulings the year after.
You can play wack-a-mole all you want, the rest of us will focus on achievable solutions.
Dog species don’t up their attack trends in response to other species falling behind. If pits are banned the attack rates of other species will remain about the same: much lower than pits.
I see, so all those tough guys that like to get lots of dogs for home protection. Never walk them. Never train them. Forget to feed them. They’re going to move on to the Rottweiler and that dog breed will luckily be uniquely suited to handle those circumstances and will turn out fine, not aggressive at all.
Aggression in any dog breed is 100% on the human responsible for the dog.
Funny how 99% of the people responsible for dog attacks own pitbulls and not another breed of dog. It’s almost like this is a multifaceted issue that you’re being reductive about to fit your narrative.
You don’t have to be obtuse about “blame” here. If you own a dog, and it kills someone, it is your fault, sure. Not all breeds are the same though, since the vast majority of fatal dog attacks come from a single problematic breed that ought to be rightfully blamed for the danger they introduce to the community.
That blame should be used to restrict the right to own Pitbulls as a form of harm reduction. Just as a gun control advocate isn’t trying to absolve gun owners of responsibility for their actions when they lobby to regulate unnecessarily dangerous guns, a pitbull critic isn’t trying to absolve dog owners of responsibility for their dog’s actions when they lobby to regulate unnecessarily dangerous dog breeds. It’s all about minimizing human casualties.
Okay fine, Rottweilers too, the only other significant fatal attack risk.
#3 is German Shepherds, but Pit Bulls and Rottweilers are 18x more deadly, so probably not too much regulation needed for those good boys. They truly are most dangerous in the hands of bad owners, unlike the first 2 which are known for sudden catastrophic violence.
After that things aren’t really a problem outside of Pit Bull and Rottweiler mixes. Some smaller dogs are an even bigger bite risk, but basically a zero death risk so not really the urgency to address that any other way than case-by-case.
The data is pretty open and shut, no game of whack-a-mole is needed. We already know which dogs are lethally dangerous. Other countries around the world have solved this problem successfully. We’re not in uncharted territory, and we would save hundreds of lives annually by unconditionally banning Pit Bulls and Rottweilers.
I think ‘limit’ is fine as long as that limit is under levels safe for infant consumption. It’s probably not possible to make baby food entirely free of heavy metals because they’re basically everywhere. But it is possible to make them with heavy metals under a specific safety threshold.
If we limited use of fossil fuel vehicles on farmland, that would help a lot. The exhaust from tractors along with the bits of tires left in fields etc all put heavy metals in our food supply. As it is, almost all farmland in the US needs bioremediation to reduce heavy metals in their soils.
In bones, lead can take 25-30 years to leave the body. Actually, this is true of many types of heavy metal poisoning (and radiation, eg radium), and bone loss as we get older tends to release these compounds. This is part of why they believe there’s a delay with ALS and Alzheimers between when you ingest heavy metal and when you actually develop symptoms.
In older adults, the primary source of lead exposure can be endogenous. Excretion of lead is relatively slow, and accumulation is common [31]. During early and middle life, lead is sequestered in the bones, where it replaces calcium in the hydroxyapatite structure [32]. The skeleton contains 70–95% of the body burden of lead where lead can remain for decades [32], which can be exploited for exposure assessment research. Adults experiencing loss of bone mass via osteoporosis release lead into the bloodstream. In older adults, 40–70% of blood lead can be attributed to previous body stores [32]. Lead that entered the body during previous periods of high exposure can become biologically active decades later.
Well tbf have the babies submitted a compelling case through the proper channels? Maybe they can peacefully assemble to make a difference… that’s how christians have won their battles
What’s more depressing is that there have been 2,291 bills and amendments addressing ingredients in baby food since 1951. They range from limits on toxins to excessive additives and sugars. Most fail at introduction thanks to the lobbying power of Nestlé, who owns Gerber.
If this man gunned them down as they came in, it would have been covered by his rights as his life was endangered. It would never go that way on court. That’s when things will change though, when people start killing armed people on their property under their castle/stand your ground laws. If 30 cops in a small enough area suddenly get themselves killed they will use their union to fight for disarming civilians and taking away the 2nd amendment rights/self defense laws, or the judges will stop signing warrants once they start getting sued/disbarred for allowing the cops to enter a dangerous situation they shouldn’t have. Punish the police and the judges, and change might occur. So… never
I remember a similar case where the police didn’t announce themselves and were trying to claim qualified immunity in front of a panel of judges. One of the judges said that he would have shot at them too.
It is seeming more and more every day that the only way this situation is going to change is if more people start shooting police that are trespassing on their property. It’s become readily apparent that non-violent systems intended to prevent this kind of behavior do not work.
30 Columbia students were suspended in all of the 1968 anti-Vietnam protests at Columbia, which included an occupation of the same building. No one was expelled.
You responded to my comment regarding increased police state with an historical act of police violence. Sure, there was always corruption. I’m suggesting it’s now the standard, not the exception.
Your original comment in response to the 1968 Vietnam protests stated “before we got all police-statey”, which any reasonable reading would see it as implying we were not police-statey in 1968 and became so later. Dude posts about Kent State which happened in 1970 to show what makes them believe we were already police-statey around that time. How you manage to read that as saying things haven’t gotten worse since 1970 is beyond me.
Edit: I’m not here to debate the definition of police state or whether we are one, I’m here to point out what is and isn’t there in the actual comments
The biggest motivation for colleges to end the protests is safety liability. From what I’ve seen, it’s been largely the police that are making the protests unsafe.
it sucks so bad that the internet initially looked like this thing that would enlighten the world and allow for us as a species to make incredible gains in sciences and culture and morality. instead it seemed to do the opposite.
While true, the bigger problem is how many people would rather believe the trash because it gives them someone to be angry at instead of learning empathy for other people.
I was more referring to the unfortunately naive hope that came from the early Internet. I am reminded of this quote by Charles Babbage,
On two occasions I have been asked, — “Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?” In one case a member of the Upper, and in the other a member of the Lower, House put this question. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
I was also hopeful, but I now realize how silly that was.
It was easy to be hopeful because in the beginning it was fucking magical and then just got better and better until capitalism got involved and sunk their teeth into the veins of love and hope and sucked it dry until its dead decaying husk and then zombified by AI.
Exactly, and early on it was being led by people with radical ideas. Things like Wikipedia shouldn’t exist, but crazy people who believed in humanity and the free exchange of information made stuff like that.
Eventually the internet replaced the commons, but capital sees the commons merely as unclaimed land so they outcompeted it then enshittified it.
The solution is unfortunately we have to make normie friendly options. A home server is that just works and is cheap and easy seems like exactly the sort of shit that could help. Federation may very well be the solution
I feel like the Internet has gone through three distinct phases. The first phase was primarily driven by individuals and a small handful of businesses. Content was highly limited, but generally positive. Lots of niche communities formed and most things had a very amateur feel to them, but everything was new and interesting.
The second phase was the rise of big corporations and the almighty ad. This was the first arms race between ad tech and ad blockers and gave us such evils as the pop up and pop under. A lot of the early charm of the internet was lost here. Everything started to become much more polished and commercialized, but we also saw a rapid expansion of content and functionality. This phase was heavily driven by corporations, and most of the early individual content was killed at this time.
The last and current phase is the social media phase. It’s kind of a hybrid of the previous two. We have individuals generating most content again, but it’s controlled, filtered, channeled, and exploited for commercial gain by the corporations. This has somehow lead to things being worse as corporations discovered that catering to people’s worst impulses is the most profitable decision.
I'm not quite old enough to remember that first phase you are talking about, but I'm well old enough to remember the other two, and frankly, during them I don't think the independent niche communities really ever went anywhere. But they are really dying or dead now, and it was discord that killed them.
You're forgetting the pre-Web internet: 99% students & academics. It was largely awesome. When you did get trolled, it was by someone who could spell and form a cohesive argument.
Yup I was there at the edge of that (about a year before Mosaic released on a Mac).
Aol added usenet in 93 and we got on a lot of college servers, also with FTP, gopher and a little later, Hotline. So much warez and shareware games! I was in 8th grade then, had a 14.4 modem and life was pretty great.
Many neo-nazis used the BBS system to find each other. The funding model of direct email and such, that is used today, could probably be traced back to the early 1990s BBS forums. Scummy people have a way of finding each other.
Usenet and FTP were how we did it. Then we found Hotline in highschool (we had a Mac and a modem back then), and found some pretty sick servers to grab 3D software and games.
True story: I made a Gopher implementation that sits on top of Apache. When I first met my wife, this happened to come up in conversation, and they mentioned that being from Minnesota, they used Gopher a lot in school. I thus married the first woman who came along who knew what Gopher was.
Only those seeking enlightenment or open to it will find it anywhere. The internet has done more to pierce echo chambers. Than any other invention of the last 200 years.
The problem is. It was dropped onto a largely unprepared populous. That was born into propaganda, misinformation, and confirmation bias. Without the skills to move beyond it by design. They vault over the enlightenment at their feet. Working hard digging through mountains of shit to find things to confirm their biases.
I was about to say the same thing applies to AI. But AI is fucked right out of the gate. There’s not even a brief window of hope for it being used to better society. Anyone with any awareness on the topic knows these AIs are already corrupted and compromised because they’ve been using the Internet to train all their LLMs.
Have you actually used them? I’ve been shocked at how well they respond to almost everything I’ve thrown at them. From my experience, they give accurate medical advice, they demonstrate appropriate emotional intelligence, they are good at coding, they give sound advice, they’re good at summarizing, they can write complicated papers on niche topics, the list goes on. I’ve never encountered something controversial or offensive, nor anything bigoted, or racist, or ignorant, or elitist, etc. LLMs are shockingly robust and, quite frankly, incredible at what they do.
Yes, I’ve used them. And for some things they are okay (for example, their responses on programming questions can be hit or miss).
But given that there have been active disinformation campaigns and election meddling attempts (with several countries being both the victims and the perpetrators of this), I’m not convinced they will be reliable on some topics. Not least because the companies behind them have been slow to take the topic of information fidelity seriously.
Well if you go back to the use of algorithms they did have this massive potential but they all to quickly got involved with advertising and social media and yeah. it was yuck already at that point. But like computer vision and such gave it so much promise.
algorithms could help people. they could, for example, help you find relaly cool obscure stuff on netflix/spotify that you might like. They worked like this for awhile and ti was great!
But that doesn’t make money. the algorithm that shoves netflix’s latest trash content does, so that is why it shows up in every suggestion an takes up so my screen space. the vast majority of my spotify ‘feed’ is podcast trash i have never or never ever will listen to, and i can no longer use it to find some obscure band playing weird music like I did 8 years ago.
Because the 1st wave of people on the internet were nerds and geeks. People driven by hope and optimist to make the world a better place and using the internet to do things they were already inclined to do… learn and share. You had to read, and write and things were generally long form interactions. Chat rooms required that you write sentences and paragraphs. It was also largely hosted by universities and other non-profit interests. The philosophy of Open Source and Freesoftware was rampant in the 2000s, and then declined as the big 5 took over the internet.
Now the internet is driven by corporate greed and the exploitation of the LCD’s lazy monkey-brain interactions. EVerything now is a blurb, a meme, a click, a reaction emoji. A 8 min youtube video is ‘too hard’ now for the average internet user.
Youtube is horrible in some respects for creating a false reality. Click on one video and down a rabbit hole you go, your stream gets filled very quickly of similar videos, but sketcher in content.
Made the mistake of going down the flat earth rabbit hole a few years back, watched maybe 5 - 10 before I felt my brain melting and couldn’t laugh any more, took months for the suggestions to stop
Maybe to have it as a required part of his sentence, so while time can be reduced, perhaps the castration can’t? I.e. he couldn’t be released early unless he went through with the castration.
I dunno, I’m not a lawyer, just my guess. Fucked up either way on all sides of this.
I suspect it’s a legal strategy he concocted with his lawyers: Chemical castration might have a different time period in which it is applied (because longer duration), maybe even starting right after the sentence becomes effective. As the summary here states, the physical version that he opted for himself(!) is not to be applied until a week before the sentence ends, which gives him a chance of a lot of things to happen before, laws to change etc & eventually get out of this without being castrated at all.
Ken Paxton, as a born and bred Texan I feel comfortable in saying you and your cronies can go fuck yourself. Paxton and Abbott are among the worst things to happen to this state.
The Paxton’s were family friends when I was growing up. We’d drive out there and visit, and my brother and I would always play “jedi vs sith” with their son tucker where they’d team up on me, and I’d always lose, lol. I also remember canvassing for Ken with my parents back when he was running for state congress or something. It is so surreal to see what Ken has become. My parents won’t talk about him. Fuck that guy.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.