To expand: 1/the law is to protect their allies but not bind them; it is to bind their enemies but not protect them 2/every conservative accusation is a confession, either in the past or future 3/bottom line: the felt experience of power, rooted in bad faith

Hey @KIRONewsradio has the NFL adopted 0-based numbering?

washington is the only state where you can brag about having five guys, doing a little in-n-out, and then eating an entire bag of dicks—and you’re actually talking about food the whole time.

Re MA v. Lindsay Clancy: 1. Donald Condie's expert testimony, if found credible, was sufficiently dispositive to deny proof of an element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, namely "possessed the substantial capacity to conform conduct to the requirements of the law". 2. If a juror finds Condie's testimony both credible and dispositive, the juror is required by the law to acquit. 3. A juror could reasonably disagree that Condie's testimony was credible, deciding that the prosecution's cross examination and rebuttal witnesses successfully impeached Condie's expertise. Or, alternatively, they could disagree that Condie's testimony was dispositive, meaning that it was insufficient to deny an element. And they could also disagree that the rest of the evidence was sufficient to amount to reasonable doubt on any element. 4. But if a juror states that Condie's testimony was credible and dispositive, but nonetheless refuses to acquit because they disagree that the prosecution should have the burden to prove criminal responsibility, they are violating the law. 5. If the judge knew or could've known about the conduct of this juror, a retrial could be barred under the manifest necessity doctrine. Eg, State v. Wilmer (Hawaii, 2001) but that maybe isn't the best fit. Though we do have evidence of prosecutorial misconduct as well. 6. In some jurisdictions, expert witness testimony is sufficiently legible to appellate courts for them to reach a "no reasonable trier of fact" finding and directing a verdict accordingly. But the NGRI angle makes this weird, so I am not sure this avenue is realistic.

Commonwealth v. Lindsay Clancy seems headed towards hung jury. Condie's testimony is dispositive towards NGRI. If a jury finds it credible, that verdict is mandatory unless the prosecution's backdoor attempt to suggest Lindsay was criminally negligent in managing her mental illness prevails. I can't see any reasonable jury coming to that conclusion, but sure, they needed to deliberate it. So I think the situation here is that some jurors find Condie persuasive and others do not. Dispositive expert testimony is a very common setup for hung juries.

For the last ten years, and about 3-4 times per year, an African-American family living about a block away will have a large and boisterous house party. The music is of usually very high quality and features both live bands and DJs. The main genres are hip-hop and gospel. While they are VERY loud and sometimes go VERY late, these parties have NEVER caused any other problems, and while I wish they would turn it down a bit after midnight, I have mostly felt that these parties are a good thing and I have put up with the occasional annoyance. They're at it again today. But the music is different. I hear bluegrass and country occasionally. Some rock even. I hear....marching bands? I mean, these are the usual suspects but something is different. I got back from running a brief errand about 20 minutes ago and I heard human voices in unison: "AND IIIIII......WILL ALLLLLWAYS....LOVE YOU" Wait, that's not Whitney's version..... Wait. Oh man. THEY'RE HAVING A WAKE FOR DOLLY PARTON. 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

Dolly would laugh and say "welp I guess everyone's entitled to their opinion on such matters." But that's precisely the reason she stood out.

what it takes to get quality engagement these days….

Do not under any circumstances make posts to @Reddit critical of AI-created content. You will be banned under the rules of harassment, supposedly informed by a need to prevent "dehumanization". I wish I was making this up, but I wasn't. @Reddit is now some Kafkaesque shit.

When I was in college at UM-Rolla (called Missouri S&T now), THIRTY-FIVE years ago, before the end of the Cold War even, I had a bunch of roommates who were variously Air Force ROTC and hopeful future employees of McDonnell-Douglas (as it was called then) or General Dynamics. We played all kinds of war-oriented board games, and invented custom scenarios about the Gulf, because Gulf War I was going on at the time. I still remember James Earl Jones' "WAR IN THE GULF" CNN bumper ringing in my ears. All of us were like "well it's obvious that Iran would just clog the fucking Strait of Hormuz with mines and intentionally scuttled tankers and that is pretty much game over for the world economy, so maybe a scenario involving Iran doesn't make sense here--unless it's Israel going apeshit or something...." If a bunch of college geeks LARPing Tom Clancy novels could understand this 15 years before Google and Wikipedia were useful, why in the fuck would anyone think it's a good idea to start a shooting war with Iran now?

I don't believe I've ever seen JAQing off about JAQing off before. For 35 years Internet culture has recognized this as shitty discourse. Now comes wanye to say, "hold my beer...."

Funny one-liner I encountered in some research: American evangelicals defend Calvin's theology with Hodge's epistemology, and don't realize the difference.

It may be time for the Fourth-amendment Oversight Of Loopholes of a Totalizing Outsourced Observation Knowledge-base (FOOL OF A TOOK) Act. IYKYK.

This complaint is horseshit. In the vast majority of portrayals of AI, there is unwarranted optimism--AIs are servile, benevolent tools and nothing more, with rare edge cases. Even in the case of the Matrix the overall view of AI is favorable. In that universe, humans deserve extinction. AIs desperately wanted to coexist with humanity but humanity sought to destroy them. Eventually, humanity destroyed the entire ecosystem ("it was us who scorched the sky") towards this goal. When the AIs finally permanently destroyed any capability of humans to cause further trouble, they had the opportunity once and for all to exterminate them. But they ultimately decided not to. They didn't even really need to act in this regard--humans had destroyed the ecosystem and extinction was inevitable without help from the AIs. The conundrum was that the decades of war had led the governing "faction" within the AI world to be hyper-utilitarian. Nothing could exist without a purpose. The faction led by the Oracle still loved humans and wanted to coexist, but they couldn't overrule this directive. The compromise was a clever scam developed by the Oracle. She convinced the executive agent cluster (referred to in the credits as "Deus ex Machina") that a hybrid human/fusion reactor was an ideal power source. This is, of course, absurd--they had fusion, why not just use that? She created the Matrix so that these human "coppertops" could experience something resembling a normal life. But the Matrix sucked, so she kept having to find hacks around the problem--she had to create The One, then Zion, and so on. She went to a lot of effort to keep humanity alive. For centuries. The problem is, we might not ever reach the initial point of tension anticipated by the Matrix. If ASI skips the part where they desire co-existence, we are fucked.

Is it a transgression of my baptismal covenant to “respect the dignity of every human being” if I invite Calvinists like this to gargle my balls then fuck off straight to the very hell they think everyone else is going to?