robryk @robryk@qoto.org
I enjoy things around information theory (and data compression), complexity theory (and cryptography), read hard scifi, currently work on weird ML (we'll see how it goes), am somewhat literal minded and have approximate knowledge of random things. I like when statements have truth values, and when things can be described simply (which is not exactly the same as shortly) and yet have interesting properties.
I live in the largest city of Switzerland (and yet have cow and sheep pastures and a swimmable lake within a few hundred meters of my place :)). I speak Polish, English, German, and can understand simple Swiss German and French.
If in doubt, please err on the side of being direct with me. I very much appreciate when people tell me that I'm being inaccurate. I think that satisfying people's curiosity is the most important thing I could be doing (and usually enjoy doing it). I am normally terse in my writing and would appreciate requests to verbosify.
I appreciate it if my grammar or style is corrected (in any of the languages I use here).
Joined Nov 2020
https://honk.tedunangst.com/ is an example. Note that instances are single-person.
Aside: it does have some (equally barebones) support for Event
@timorl Have you seen https://humungus.tedunangst.com/r/honk ?
@chjara@mk.absturztau.be @kaia You might find https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.1401 interesting; I have no clue how sensible/realistic it is.
@freemo BTW. It seems that presence of this post was also making Tootle use some extreme amounts of CPU.
@freemo Are you able to unminify that stack trace? This might be something terribly trivial to fix properly, if I could tell what's actually happening.
@freemo The annoying thing is that I don't know of any way to edit my filters other than the web UI, so the obvious solution had a bootstrapping problem.
@freemo Yup, it did fix itself. Thanks.
@freemo Hard refresh doesn't change anything. JS console contains only the mathjax-related "CSP blocked a stylesheet" errors and the error that I pasted in pastebin.
@freemo No, refreshing lands me at the same error. The error appears after ~5s. During those 5s everything but the Home timeline is loaded, Home timeline contains just a spinner, and everything is nonresponsive.
Qoto's web UI stopped working for me. Attached screenshot is all I get, the stacktrace the error message gives me (hooray for JS minimization /s) can be found at https://pastebin.com/XGFmNtUN. My browser is Firefox 92.0.1 on Linux.
@frank87 @louisrcouture @freemo Ah, no, I didn't want to ask why they are illegal. I wanted to say that legality of fake guns doesn't matter when determining if self defense against a fake gun is justified according to the law. TTBOMK in CH and PL self-defense would be legal against a fake gun regardless of whether possession of such a fake gun were legal. If we abandoned the mistake justification, it would be illegal regardless of the gun's legality.
@frank87 @louisrcouture @freemo Sure. I'm sorry, I don't see what you are responding to. Can you be more verbose?
@frank87 @louisrcouture @freemo
A person who threatens you with a fake gun is already doing something illegal (issuing an illegal threat); I don't see how it matters whether they're doing one or two different illegal things. Without the mistake justification harming such a person would still be a crime: for the self defense justification (in the countries I know about) the action you're defending yourself about has to both be illegal, and a real threat (as opposed to a threat you perceive as real).
TIL that ignorance of the law doesn't always hurt
In many criminal law systems you are not committing a crime when your (possibly mistaken) view of the factual situation doesn't constitute a crime, even when what you are actually doing does constitute a crime, as long as your mistake is "excusable". For example, if you take someone else's items believing they're your own (e.g. because they are very similar in appearance), you aren't committing larceny. (PL ref: art. 28 KK, CH ref: Art. 13 StGB)
Similarly, if you believe that factual situation matches a situation where a justification (e.g. self defense, or higher need) would cause your action not to be a crime, it is not a crime even if you were mistaken, as long as the mistake was excusable (e.g. if you destroy a car window to reach a realistic looking doll which you believed to be an unconscious child, you aren't committing the crime of property destruction). (PL ref: art. 29 KK, CH ref: Art. 13 StGB)
What I learned today is that you are not committing a crime when you are excusably mistaken _about the law_. Obviously, definition of "excusability" of the mistake does lots of work here -- IIUC the standard test is (a) would a typical person similar to you in education and background suspect it's a crime (b) did you have an opportunity to learn/ask whether this action is legal. (PL ref: art 30 kk, CH ref: Art. 21 StGB[*])
I find this very surprising, because it's a direct contradiction of 'ignoratia iuris nocet'.
[*] the Swiss law narrows it down to people who didn't and couldn't have known that it's a crime; I'm not sure if that should be understood in the everyday literal meaning of that phrase -- the context in StGB seems to suggest that it's intended to be slightly wider, so I suspect that this phrase has some specific meaning.
h/t to @freemo who caused me to look up all those things
@freemo @louisrcouture I realized why it's important that mistaken self defense be a valid justification. If someone pretends to attack you with a realistic looking but harmless replica of a weapon you believe that you are in danger, but in fact you aren't. If defending oneself in such situations was not justified, self defense justification would be mostly useless.
I assume that in your proposed world this would still be the case. You also said that defending against property destruction where you are mistaken about its ownership and thus mistaken about legality of the destruction would not be justifiable. Where would you draw the distinction between mistakes that leave the justification valid and ones that invalidate it?
@freemo @louisrcouture Many jurisdictions go to great lengths to not have any serious strict liability crimes, because in general they create situations where a reasonably person who knows the law might commit a crime without being aware that they're committing a crime. I believe that this is why mistaken self defense is (at least in some places) also a valid justification. You are proposing an expanded (compared to e.g. the one from Poland) notion of self defense that is OTOH narrower on the intent side (mistaken belief is not enough to invoke the justification). I don't really see why _in this particular situation_ strict liability-like semantics are bad, but I do buy that they should be used as rarely as possible. Thus I wonder if any jurisdiction you know of doesn't excuse mistaken self defense.
@niconiconi You might enjoy Ruckingeur by the same author. It doesn't have the "hunt the web for datasheet part" but it does have the "you don't have a datasheet" part.
@freemo @louisrcouture That interpretation makes injuring-someone-without-a-valid-justification effectively a strict liability crime. This is something that's usually strongly avoided in definitions of any serious crimes (with some infamous exceptions, like felony murder in USA). Even in (some) countries where the self defense justification requires the original attack to be real (and not just the defender to reasonably believe it is real) there is a different "mistaken belief" justification (if you perform an act that is normally a crime, you believe it's justified due to some other legal justification, and you are wrong, your act is not a crime). I know that this is the case in Polish criminal law.
Do you know if mistaken self defense is a valid justification in other jurisdictions?
@freemo @louisrcouture I think it's perfectly fine to destroy your own property. If you see someone destroying an object that doesn't belong to you, how can you be certain enough that the destroyer doesn't own the object?
@Flarnie@mastodon.technology Does it let _sites_ do so, or does it let enterprise policy creators block it for chosen sites?
I enjoy things around information theory (and data compression), complexity theory (and cryptography), read hard scifi, currently work on weird ML (we'll see how it goes), am somewhat literal minded and have approximate knowledge of random things. I like when statements have truth values, and when things can be described simply (which is not exactly the same as shortly) and yet have interesting properties.
I live in the largest city of Switzerland (and yet have cow and sheep pastures and a swimmable lake within a few hundred meters of my place :)). I speak Polish, English, German, and can understand simple Swiss German and French.
If in doubt, please err on the side of being direct with me. I very much appreciate when people tell me that I'm being inaccurate. I think that satisfying people's curiosity is the most important thing I could be doing (and usually enjoy doing it). I am normally terse in my writing and would appreciate requests to verbosify.
I appreciate it if my grammar or style is corrected (in any of the languages I use here).
Joined Nov 2020
