Reach for the Stars 
@antares@qoto.org
- Pronouns
- It's complicated. IDK. Maybe ze/zim/zir https://pronouns.org/ze-hir
- Degree
- Physics, Cal Poly SLO
- Work
- I fix broken stuff
#Technology, #baseball (Dodgers), #politics, #religion (#Christian)
Joined Apr 2022
Reach for the Stars
boosted
boosted
Now that I have lived through an actual plague, I totally understand why Italian Renaissance paintings are just naked fat people lying on couches.
@leobm How comfortable do you feel with the general idea that type level programming limits the implementation level programming to only those programs that are valid?
One hurdle for me was watching all the type level razzle-dazzle and not understanding what the motivation behind it was. What was helpful to my understanding was starting with the question, "How is this preventing invalid code from type-checking?"
Reach for the Stars
boosted
boosted
There's a lot to unpack here...
Civil trials are not criminal trials, they require only preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt so the question asked to the jury is fundamentally different than something you could lock someone up for.
For defamation, this is a tort, not a crime. The purpose of the lawsuit isn't to fine anyone (a fine would be paid to the government rather than the victim), it is to recover damage done by one party to another, and for the most part the thing courts can grant is money. The elements of defamation are 1. That a statement of fact is said by the person, 2. That statement is false, 3. If the individual is a public figure then the statement is known to be false or is made with a reckless disregard for the truth, 4. That the false statement of fact caused damages.
Typically, the purpose of suing someone is to make yourself whole, not to get the state to punish someone for you. Therefore, for a relative nobody who is claiming to have been lied about, there's going to be a limitation on the amount of damages that can be claimed, since 5 million dollars is already more money than most people will make in their lifetimes.
There is some additional money you can ask for based on stuff like "pain and suffering", but again that's not punishment for the person you're suing, it's just that you want to be made whole and the court can't undo your pain and suffering so you pay money in recompense.
There is also a thing known as punitive damages, which is more money given to the plaintiff who is suing to ensure the defendant doesn't commit the tort again. However, even this element starts to run up against constitutional constraints because excessive punitive damage awards can go beyond what's allowable under the law.
Don't take the Alex Jones defamation case as representative of how the process works, most people aren't on trial for accusing a bunch of dead kids of lying about being dead on national television and so it ended up with an exceptional outcome.
Regardless of the size of anyone's judgement against them in a civil case, it would be a massive injustice to jail anyone over it. That's not what the civil courts are for, that's not their job, that's not how they're set up, and if you jumped from a 51% preponderance of the evidence jury verdict to jailtime that would send a lot of innocent people to jail (and even the rich deserve to be free if you can't prove they did something beyond a reasonable doubt)
As an example of the differences between criminal trials and civil trials, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of the criminal act of murder, but was found to be liable to pay damages to the family in the wrongful death. There was enough found to pay a sum of money, but not enough to deprive O.J. of his rights by jailing him.
Another good example of the difference between criminal and civil proceedings is that the person sued may never even have to pay for the judgement in a civil case -- Insurance may not pay a criminal fine, but it can pay a civil judgement, so it's entirely possible that despite losing the lawsuit, a person who was successfully sued may never personally pay a penny. In fact, a regular homeowner may have a million dollar judgement against them but be protected by the liability insurance portion of their home owners insurance. This really doubles down on the fact that the purpose of a civil case is to make the plaintiff whole, rather than to specifically punish the defendant.
Your heart is in the right place with wanting to make sure punishments for millionaires and billionaires are calibrated such that they are actually painful in ways comparable to a poor person convicted of the same crime, but the facts in this matter are not aligned with that particular cause.
Anyway, I'm sorry... I'm always with the walls of text....
Civil trials are not criminal trials, they require only preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt so the question asked to the jury is fundamentally different than something you could lock someone up for.
For defamation, this is a tort, not a crime. The purpose of the lawsuit isn't to fine anyone (a fine would be paid to the government rather than the victim), it is to recover damage done by one party to another, and for the most part the thing courts can grant is money. The elements of defamation are 1. That a statement of fact is said by the person, 2. That statement is false, 3. If the individual is a public figure then the statement is known to be false or is made with a reckless disregard for the truth, 4. That the false statement of fact caused damages.
Typically, the purpose of suing someone is to make yourself whole, not to get the state to punish someone for you. Therefore, for a relative nobody who is claiming to have been lied about, there's going to be a limitation on the amount of damages that can be claimed, since 5 million dollars is already more money than most people will make in their lifetimes.
There is some additional money you can ask for based on stuff like "pain and suffering", but again that's not punishment for the person you're suing, it's just that you want to be made whole and the court can't undo your pain and suffering so you pay money in recompense.
There is also a thing known as punitive damages, which is more money given to the plaintiff who is suing to ensure the defendant doesn't commit the tort again. However, even this element starts to run up against constitutional constraints because excessive punitive damage awards can go beyond what's allowable under the law.
Don't take the Alex Jones defamation case as representative of how the process works, most people aren't on trial for accusing a bunch of dead kids of lying about being dead on national television and so it ended up with an exceptional outcome.
Regardless of the size of anyone's judgement against them in a civil case, it would be a massive injustice to jail anyone over it. That's not what the civil courts are for, that's not their job, that's not how they're set up, and if you jumped from a 51% preponderance of the evidence jury verdict to jailtime that would send a lot of innocent people to jail (and even the rich deserve to be free if you can't prove they did something beyond a reasonable doubt)
As an example of the differences between criminal trials and civil trials, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of the criminal act of murder, but was found to be liable to pay damages to the family in the wrongful death. There was enough found to pay a sum of money, but not enough to deprive O.J. of his rights by jailing him.
Another good example of the difference between criminal and civil proceedings is that the person sued may never even have to pay for the judgement in a civil case -- Insurance may not pay a criminal fine, but it can pay a civil judgement, so it's entirely possible that despite losing the lawsuit, a person who was successfully sued may never personally pay a penny. In fact, a regular homeowner may have a million dollar judgement against them but be protected by the liability insurance portion of their home owners insurance. This really doubles down on the fact that the purpose of a civil case is to make the plaintiff whole, rather than to specifically punish the defendant.
Your heart is in the right place with wanting to make sure punishments for millionaires and billionaires are calibrated such that they are actually painful in ways comparable to a poor person convicted of the same crime, but the facts in this matter are not aligned with that particular cause.
Anyway, I'm sorry... I'm always with the walls of text....
@cyberman @itnewsbot Yep, large vehicles are just hitting the market this year and there is a large demand for #EV with more cargo capacity.
As an aside, that van repairs SuperChargers not cars, and its existence is one of the big reasons that Tesla has a market dominating position over other fast charging networks. Tesla actually repairs their charging infrastructure.
@qurlyjoe Trump is in essence the Republican incumbent. It would be most useful to compare to Reagan in '84, Bush in '92, Bush in 2004, and Trump in the last primary.
@abesamma it's the "environmentally friendly" part. Substances which kill plants are, almost by definition, not environmentally friendly. The alternatives like DDT and ethyl bromide are all far more hazardous to animals and humans.
That might help, but I don't think it is a full solution.
My observation is that the most important property of good networking events is the casual mingle. The ability to join, expand, break off and most importantly leave interactions without offense. This low social barrier is, in my observation, critical in having the right set of people find each other.
There is also the casual introduction that a formal small group setting doesn't allow. "I don't really know very much about [topic], but I was at at talk with [person on the other side of room] who seemed really into it. Let me introduce you."
I think it would be an interesting exercise to video a social mixer at one of these professional conferences and determine just how random causal encounters actually are. I suspect that they are actually quite structured on a macro level.
@Ulrich_the_Elder@mastodon.social @ktemkin
@Ulrich_the_Elder@mastodon.social @ktemkin I don't feel like anyone has really cracked the networking aspect of remote interactions. Online presentations are functional as good or better than in person, but casual meetups that are a significant function of in person gathering just don't happen the same way.
Perhaps a person wanting to address the resistance to remote gatherings should study how casual interactions happen before and after presentations and suggest how a remote gathering might supply a functional equivalent.
@spinach I guess it depends, does @georgetakei come with a starship?
@John interesting. I would consider voting for her over Biden if the GOP primary voters can pull it off.
@JessTheUnstill @carnage4life I think you are both correct. I wonder however if there is a better way to do layoffs? My dad's union contract specified strict last-in-first-out rules which kept talented people out of the field because time was the only way to advance. My current gig is extremely cyclical and there are attempts to keep "good employees" through downturns, but as you say that is hard to measure and fought with bias.
What would you suggest to a plant that will need to go from <100 to >500 and back a few times each decade?
@seachanger @schrotie Dr. Gandhi's harm reduction views in the realm of Public Health have been getting push back from her peers since the AIDS Epidemic. The controversy is not new.
Having lived through that last one and seen the devastating effect of Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign on HIV positive people and the LGBTQ+ community, I am more inclined to listen to the person who fought against political and public pressure to get the most effective care possible to the LGBTQ+ community in San Francisco.
Public Health has never been a popular job, but Monica Gandhi has understood better that most how to make it work in real world conditions.
@seachanger @schrotie If you want the really long version Gandhi has [an excellent book on the subject](https://bookshop.org/p/books/endemic-a-post-pandemic-playbook-monica-gandhi/18824811?ean=9781945564543). The argument is that even if a sterilizing vaccine for a particular variant is developed and it could be distributed to everyone on earth before the virus mutated, that continued mutation in animal reservoirs would mean that the virus would return.
13 years ago a friend posted something profound which i present with slight modification:
"A thought springs to mind, May your [social media posts] be more dangerous to the builders of violence than violence is to the builders of #peace."
The Social Media tl'dr version has 4 points:
* [Animal Reservoirs](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2795140)
* [Lack of a sterilizing vaccine](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1074761322005581)
* [High mutation rate](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-023-00878-2)
* [Asymptomatic spread](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8654597/)
As a counterpoint, here is Dr. Monica Gandhi an infectious disease specialist at UCSF explaining why Covid-19 is not the type of disease that could be eradicated regardless of what measures were taken:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/21/covid-pandemic-end/
error:: String -> a
by giving error a string it can make any type at all. It does so by stopping the execution of the program the very moment that value is actually needed.
Your function f on the other hand throws out its input without considering its value and so goes on its merry way without ever finding out what its input was.
Interestingly, there is no f you could write that actually not work the way f does because it is not possible to write a function that inspects the value of type of Void. Void is uninhabited so no function can ever force its evaluation.
@freemo We can say with certainty that concert pitch (actually set by A4 being standardized at 440hz today) was higher in the past - as high as A = 401hz. Not every instrument is tunable. Bells and some double reed instruments will never change pitch over their life times. By looking at bells from the 15th and 16th c we can tell that music was in general pitched somewhat higher then today.
The big innovation in modern tuning is equal temperament. All modern digital tuning has an precisely equal ratio between each half step. (about 1.059 to 1) This makes music work like you describe. Start on any pitch and the music will sound the same if the relative intervals are followed.
However much more than absolute pitch, relative pitch is hard without modern measurement methods, Prior to the 1700s the most common tuning was to tune in pure 5ths where every 5th was tuned by ear to a 2/3 ratio. It works pretty well until you get to the point where you go from the end of the circle of fifths back to what should be the note you started on. You find you are off by a scotch less than a quarter tone. This terrible sounding interval is a "wolf fifth" because it howls.
In pure fifths each key had its own flavor and so it was important to play a piece in the key it was written in. The major thirds that define the modern major chords are the most effected by these variations which explains why many pieced before JS Back and company are dominated by 4ths and 5ths that are safer in a pure-fifths tuning.
Bach's innovation which caught on across western music was to "fudge the thirds" to make them all sound similar - giving us the last common tuning the so called well-tempered tuning.
@davidtoddmccarty The Spring field State Journal Register which started publication in Lincoln's home town in 1831 might disagree that there was no news media back then. Regardless of how many people there are, believing that a system cannot be changed is what leads to tyranny, and entrenches ever greater oppression.
- Pronouns
- It's complicated. IDK. Maybe ze/zim/zir https://pronouns.org/ze-hir
- Degree
- Physics, Cal Poly SLO
- Work
- I fix broken stuff
#Technology, #baseball (Dodgers), #politics, #religion (#Christian)
Joined Apr 2022
