random_scrub

89.3K posts

random_scrub banner
random_scrub

random_scrub

@random_scrub

Aerospace engineer, history enjoyer, Lutheran, avid board gamer, and all-around geek.

Way Out In The Desert, CA Katılım Ağustos 2009
1.8K Takip Edilen1.2K Takipçiler
random_scrub retweetledi
alexandriabrown
alexandriabrown@alexthechick·
(article length warning also sorta Twitter Law School) On diminished capacity as a defense to criminal charges being an example of the breakdown of the social contract. What is diminished capacity in a criminal context? Basically, it is a defense to a criminal charge that admits that the person did the act, however, the person lacks the capacity to form the specific intent to cause harm by that act. Get ready for some Lawyer Latin. In the US, criminal acts require two parts: actus reus and mens rea. Actus reus is guilty act - did this person commit this act. Mens rea is guilty mind - did this person have the specific intent to cause that specific harm. The easiest distinction for mens rea is the difference between manslaughter and murder. Manslaughter is when a person kills another, however, there was no specific intent to kill someone. Murder is when the person commits the act with the specific intent to kill the person. See re: Con Air and how Nicolas Cage was in on involuntary manslaughter while Steve Buscemi was in on murder. A defense of diminished capacity is a defense that the person who did the act was not capable of forming the necessary specific intent. The lack of capacity can be due to mental illness, alcohol or drug use, limited intelligence, or developmental disability. The argument for allowing diminished capacity as a defense is that a person should not be held criminally liable if that person is unable to form the specific intent to commit that crime. The issue is, of course, that the person did the act. There is a victim. Harm was done. And, importantly, if the person who did the act is not incarcerated, then there is nothing to prevent that person from committing the act again. If someone is so mentally ill or of such delayed development to not understand why not to do the act once, what is to stop the person from doing the act again? The social contract for diminished capacity was presented as this - the person who did the act will not be jailed for a crime since the person did not have mens rea. That peson will, however, be removed from society somehow, usually institutionalization. As a society, we do not want to jail people who lack the capacity to form specific intent, but we also recognize that those people are not safe to be around others. That's how it was presented. Everyone take a moment to laugh bitterly as to how it's played out over the last, say, half century. Diminished capacity is a prime example of the breakdown of the social contract. Only one side of the contract is being honored. People are no longer removed from society when found to have diminished capacity. Not only that, the categories of what counts for diminution of capacity seem to expand nigh infinitely while institutionalization contracts dramatically. People will say, very reluctantly, that someone who is severely mentally ill should be allowed to be institutionalized instead of jailed if, and only if, said institutionalization occurs for the same time period as the jail sentence would be. People will say, very reluctantly, that someone whose mental development stopped at late childhood should not be jailed if, and only if, that person is placed into some kind of facility where that person will not be allowed into adult society without intense supervision ever again. Again, I will pause to allow everyone's abs to recover from the work out from all the laughing. When the terms of only one side of a contract are met while the terms of the other side are openly violated, the contract is broken. The social contract on diminished capacity was protrayed to be that person cannot understand their actions are unsafe so that person will not go to jail but that person will be removed for society since that person lacks the capacity to comply with the rules of society. The removal of the consequences should result in the removal of the defense. That is the most generous outcome. /fin
English
18
41
145
2.6K
random_scrub retweetledi
Charlotte Lee
Charlotte Lee@cljack·
before you waste a lot of time in therapy trying to understand men, consider that Napoleon got volunteers to man a battery position with an almost 100% casualty rate by simply renaming it "the battery of not being a little bitch"
English
174
1.8K
40.5K
1.4M
random_scrub retweetledi
Byrne Hobart
Byrne Hobart@ByrneHobart·
Greek myths tell the story of Uppercrustes, who could torturously mangle his personal narrative to the point that a childhood with annual vacations to Europe was middle-class, but DoorDashing some Five Guys is the bottom layer of the working class's Maslow Pyramid.
English
3
4
56
4.7K
random_scrub retweetledi
St. Rev. Dr. Rev ⏭️☯️🏴😻
It's not a failure at all. Malfeasance, yes. But it's a staggering success at what it was always intended to achieve -- redistributing $12,000 from every worker to a small set of favored elites is a world-historical triumph.
Judge Glock@judgeglock

California high-speed rail cost now up to $231 billion. That means the average worker in the state will pay out over $12,000 to fund a single project that almost no one will ride. CA rail will be studied for generations, a truly once-in-a-lifetime level of government failure.

English
4
15
172
4.6K
random_scrub retweetledi
Benjamin Arnold
Benjamin Arnold@WetPaintings·
@CSMFHT Not ancient, but it always amuses me that Tiffany is a medieval name, and not coined in Tarzana in 1978 - in fact ‘Tiffany problem’ is the name of a phenomenon where something old feels anachronistically like it should be modern
English
4
0
473
18K
random_scrub
random_scrub@random_scrub·
@MartinSkold2 Silicon Valley earned its nickname in the 70s by manufacturing microelectronics - it’s got nothing to do with the internet per se.
English
1
0
1
25
Martin Skold
Martin Skold@MartinSkold2·
@random_scrub Even then, I’m afraid. The internet came of age amid Greenspan’s “bond market conundrum,” brought about by reserve currency status and the need to keep credit loose after 1992 (which eventually birthed the dotcom recession). It’s an almost entirely loose money industry.
English
1
0
1
70
Martin Skold
Martin Skold@MartinSkold2·
“Never in human history has taking lazy shortcuts been the basis for building anything sustainable and worthwhile.” - But in inflationary environments, people think this and act this way until things fall apart. Silicon Valley has never known a day of tight money.
Martin Skold tweet media
Alastair Thomson@FinanceDirCFO

Can't say this is a surprise. But it's an interesting read anyway. Never in human history has taking lazy shortcuts been the basis for building anything sustainable and worthwhile. This technology is no exception to that rule. (Applies outside education too.)

English
3
2
28
1.8K
random_scrub
random_scrub@random_scrub·
@Nymdok Right. Fabricated citations call into question the premises on which the new knowledge is based. If its premises are false, then the new stuff is likely false as well.
English
1
0
0
29
random_scrub
random_scrub@random_scrub·
@dilanesper This is kind of a core feature of any religion based on divine revelation. “God has told us what He wants and therefore we should try to do that” is not a failure from within the religious frame.
English
0
0
7
179
Dilan Esper
Dilan Esper@dilanesper·
The basic problem is they use data only to backfill beliefs they already have about sex based on what they think God wants. Anything they think God doesn't want is ruled off the table ab initio.
English
20
0
99
64.8K
Dilan Esper
Dilan Esper@dilanesper·
One reason I don't take religious conservatives seriously on sex and marriage stuff is that 99.99% of them have never admitted they or their movement was wrong about homosexuality.
English
511
21
419
1.6M
random_scrub
random_scrub@random_scrub·
My mom passed away today. It was expected, but not imminently. Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. Please welcome her home, Lord.
random_scrub tweet media
English
16
2
116
1.1K
random_scrub
random_scrub@random_scrub·
@6Voodoo The Pacific War was a much, much less civilized conflict than the European theater.
English
0
0
0
19
Voödoo 6 von Inyanga
The Pacific is better than BoB. This scene has no comparison in BoB, and it is one of a dozen scenes like that. Just masterful story telling.
English
65
16
467
15.2K
random_scrub
random_scrub@random_scrub·
@selentelechia Isn’t it still in trials? How on earth does everyone have this stuff?!
English
2
0
6
191
🌾🍁🍂 bosco 🍂🍁🌾
retatrutide has not fully eliminated emotional eating impulses and at one point I realized that I was wondering if it was possible to figure out how to out-eat the drug bc I was stressed and couldn't think of anything but food or vaping to help but! it is a lot easier to ride out a behavioral/emotional/psychological-content compulsion when that's the only component that's firing harder when appetite is also basically online 24/7 and available for the compulsion to recruit it is also somewhat helping with ocd-like patterns and compulsions, which I've usually been able to either conceal or otherwise manage, and I'm not totally sure what the full story is, but one interesting aspect is the way it's changed my conception of time before, things would go feeling/perception->impulse/compulsion->buildup of pressure until behavior was engaged in, which included a lot of internal dialogue and negotiation and narratives. To get over bad habits without major environmental changes, I've always had to have some kind of motivating story to give me enough momentum/keep me trying the thing long enough to acquire referents that allowed me to undermine the bullshit arguments from my appetite stimulants mostly helped me lose weight or stop nail biting because I was motivated to do other things, but under sufficient distress or discomfort, my weight outruns Adderall just fine retatrutide has done *something* to the way the passage of time, the memory of the passage of time, and the anticipation of the passage of time seems to behave for me? tips like "drink a glass of water and wait thirty minutes to see if you're actually hungry" did not work for me, it's like I didn't fundamentally believe in time, most of the time but now I have a stressor, then an impulse, and then I can kind of "play through" what will happen if I follow the impulse, including the part where it doesn't actually fix the problem or make me feel permanently okay lol Adderall only approximates this by expanding my capacity to simulate a continuous thing over longer amounts of time, which yes does sound like the same thing but I promise it's different. anyways a bunch of stuff that I did not realize was ocd-ish or otherwise hooked into a similar process is now "coming up for review" I feel like I have Free Will and that's pretty cool
English
17
0
244
9.8K
random_scrub retweetledi
Jack
Jack@tracewoodgrains·
the culture in your field is to cite papers without checking to see if others reported them accurately the culture in mine is to tear fields apart when they are full of researchers who misrepresent their citations let us each live according to our culture
English
8
33
439
7.7K
random_scrub retweetledi
BuBBliK
BuBBliK@k1rallik·
do you understand what Google's AI just did to an artist.. His entire Google account got permanently banned. Not just Drive. Gmail.. YouTube.. Every single service.. His appeal was rejected. No human reviewed it. An algorithm decided his life's work was a violation. He never shared the files publicly. It was a private backup of his own creations. The AI flagged it anyway - probably the filename or art style - and that was enough. - Google banned a developer's 14-year-old Gmail account over a research dataset that contained no illegal content - Google expanded its automated ban policy in October 2025 - violations now trigger immediate termination with zero warning period - No lawsuit against Google for wrongful account termination has ever succeeded in US courts Your Google account is not yours. You are renting access to your own digital life from a company whose AI can end it in seconds - with no appeal, no human, and no recourse.
AyakaMods@AyakaMods

Google just permanently banned a manga artist’s entire Google account, just for uploading his own old manga files to Drive. AI moderation triggered and flagged it, he tried to submit appeal then he got rejected it by Google and now he has lost everything like Gmail, Drive, all linked services is gone. He never even sharing the files publicly, it’s only backing up his own a private work like any creator and artists. This is Google Drive “AI moderation” in action. No human support and no serious to take action. Physical storage or real private alternatives only. Support the artists getting screwed by this. This level of corporate overreach is insane.

English
657
8.6K
35.9K
3.9M
random_scrub retweetledi
eigenrobot
eigenrobot@eigenrobot·
the ending may surprise you
druid@druideight

Story time. My grandfather (still alive, 95) worked on the family farm in the summers. His uncle was the owner at that point, now that whole area is timmigrant slums. It was a reasonably prosperous farm, but they had what would have been normal meals at the time, hearty but unpretentious. The farm next door was famous for their lavish lunches. Not just for the family, but all the hands. And they were braggarts. Very proud of this tradition and pointed to it as a reason for their success. Chickens started to go missing from our farm. And a ham. Various other foodstuffs. This went on for a bit, and happened to other farms in the area too. My grandfather, his uncle and a couple of others decided to sit up and catch whatever vagabond was responsible. It took three nights of little sleep after long days on the farm, but holed up in some bushes near the coop they finally spotted someone sneaking through the darkness towards the chickens. They jumped up, hit them with a flashlight and yelled stop. The would be thief turned and ran and my great great uncle hit them with a 12 gauge shotguns worth of rock salt and let them know the other barrel wouldn’t be salt. It was the holier than thou neighbour who was famous for the lavish lunch spreads. Funding all those gourmands had apparently outstripped their resources and rather than pare back the offerings and lose face they’d resorted to robbing their neighbours. In summary: zoomers, you should shoot people that steal from you.

English
10
5
124
9.5K
random_scrub retweetledi
E. Darwin Hartshorn ⳩
This is exactly right. There is boomerpoasting that is in denial about where the economy sits. There is the reality that, yes, we've been dealt a bad hand, but we've still gotta play it. And many or most are not playing strategically. And finally, there is the point that why would anyone play strategically if he cannot perceive a win condition.
TEW Fuller@TewFuller

@NRLaPoint Ok. I've been raging about this and I've finally figured out how to say why all of this is crazy. They are telling young people who have no hope for the future to budget. They see no point to budgeting because they feel like they have no hope.

English
3
2
14
371
random_scrub retweetledi
Larry Correia
Larry Correia@monsterhunter45·
This tracks with my own experiences over the last 30 or so years fairly close.
Christian Heiens 🏛@ChristianHeiens

A lot of people are asking why the "Libertarian moment" failed to materialize. Here are my thoughts, as a former Libertarian myself. About ten years ago, there was an expectation, certainly within libertarian circles but across the Right at large, that the future of "Conservatism" in the US would be Libertarianism. There was this belief that the GOP would become a vehicle for libertarian philosophy and that the Right as a whole would be moving in a far more libertarian direction. The Tea Party movement, Ron Paul's presidential bids, the prospect of a future Rand Paul bid, and old Reagan quotes about how the essence of conservatism is libertarianism were all in vogue if you were involved in any sort of Right-wing politics in America. There really was this feeling that the old Reaganite fusion was exhausted and the Iraq era had discredited Neoconservatism. Meanwhile, the 2008 crash, coupled with the managerialism of the Obama presidency, had radicalized a bunch of young men into rejecting what they saw as the establishment narratives of both parties. For a 20-something-year-old guy, being able to proudly say that he hated both Bush and Obama felt incredibly liberating. Ron Paul's two presidential runs, and the prospect of a third and potentially more successful one from Rand, promised to herald in a new era for American politics. Libertarianism also seemed like a great diffuser of the insidious social Progressivism that was beginning to creep into all mainstream institutions. The Great Awokening was just in its beginning stages, and at the time there seemed to be absolutely no response to the Progressive agitprop that was gaining traction on the Left. We understood that these "social movements" were all pulling in the same direction, but no one had any idea how to address them because they were about as intense as they were insane. Libertarianism seemed to offer a great response. Do nothing. I'm serious. There was this expectation that we could completely sidestep the Great Awokening and nip the entire thing in its bud by adopting a "You do you" approach. By pretending like social or cultural issues didn't matter, or in some cases, that Progressives were actually in the right on them, Libertarianism offered an avenue for the Right to seemingly take off the table an entire revolutionary movement that we all thought was driving young millennials (who were still in their teens and early 20s) into identifying as Democrats or Socialists or even Communists. "I don't care about the culture war. I want gay married couples to be able to adopt and protect their marijuana operation that's going on in the basement of their private property with AR-15s, and I want to abolish the income taxes they make on it, too." But when this tactic was put into practice, it never seemed to work. I remember in my old libertarian days over a decade ago, having conversations with Leftists my age in high school and college, and it was always disappointing. It's like I kept trying to win them over and explain I was on their side and that they just needed to understand that wealth redistribution and socialism were bad policies, but that we were both "social liberals" who wanted the same thing. I just wanted them to be rich on top of it all. And for some reason, it just never worked. At the time, I didn't understand why. But I do now. Libertarianism offered the possibility of escaping politics itself while still being political. You could tell someone that you didn't care about their lifestyle, worldview, theology, or culture, and still plausibly make the case for why they should vote for you and implement your policies, because your policies were all about transcending conflict rather than confronting it. Libertarianism offered the illusion of a sophisticated ideology for adults who had outgrown the tribal passions of the past. But that's exactly why it failed. It was always operating like a parasite on an older order that it didn't create and couldn't defend, but few of us could see it at the time because of the nature of the world around us. But that world, like the Bushite one before it, died. Mass migration and open borders actually changed the visual landscape of America in a way that was far more abrupt than the gradual changes of decades earlier. The Great Awokening, which Libertarianism offered to neutralize with its "live and let live" attitude, ended up devouring everything around it until people could no longer ignore it. The economic situation, which Libertarianism had such elegant solutions for as the centerpiece of its entire worldview, actually ended up being far more complex than the activists ever expected. America's massive twin fiscal and trade deficits, endless QE, zero interest rate environment, and the hollowing out of the Rust Belt all coincided with the rise of managerial credentialism, the professional laptop class, and the adoption of Progressivism as the civic religion of every institution and profession that seemed to be benefiting from these very policies. "Social Justice Warrior" and "Rich Liberal" became synonymous with all the institutions that had betrayed America. This created a rebellion, as Libertarians expected, but the moment Trump arrived, he revealed that the overwhelming majority of those rebels were not interested in smaller government in the abstract. They were looking for a government that would fight for them. They had felt betrayed, humiliated, forgotten, and denigrated. They believed, correctly, that they were losing their country. They had a deep resentment of our oikophobic ruling class and their wacky social views that seemed to always pop up whenever core elements of their way of life were about to be torn away from them. And once those things came to the surface, the "Libertarian moment" was essentially dead because it had no satisfying answer to the actual question being asked, which wasn't "how to balance the budget?" or "what procedural railguards can we set up to protect Americans from warrantless wiretapping?" It was “Who rules, in whose interest, and can we do anything to stop our dispossession at the hands of people who openly hate us?” The Libertarian moment failed because it had no answer to this question, which has essentially been the foundation of all of American politics since Obama's second term. It's a political ideology that wants to escape politics itself, and the moment politics became more than just a complicated math problem and instead was about which vision of civilization would prevail, the entire premise disintegrated.

English
23
8
271
11.7K