https://www.youtube.com/live/G5P1xiS27Vs
How dumb are Canadians?
We're the third dumbest people on earth!
How dumb are Canadians?
We're the third dumbest people on earth!
This season the cracks are really starting to show on Crunchyroll. Due to intertia I've been grabbing an annual membership for quite years, but this season is particularly bad -- 80% of the anime that look interesting this season aren't on the service...
A study in contrasts, what each candidate looked like after getting hit with a kill shot
Doesn't matter if he wins the election, he's now president for life of weave nation.
Made it to episode 4 of the anime Viral Hit, and dropped it.
It's about a little nerd who tries to start a youtube channel through learning to fight.
I just found a lot of it kinda cringey and wasn't to my taste. I do think if I had different tastes it would be right at the top of my list -- it seems well made and all, but I just reached a point where I couldn't continue.
It's about a little nerd who tries to start a youtube channel through learning to fight.
I just found a lot of it kinda cringey and wasn't to my taste. I do think if I had different tastes it would be right at the top of my list -- it seems well made and all, but I just reached a point where I couldn't continue.
So a hero in life, and a hero in death. Let us all strive to be as commendable as Mr. Corey Comperatore.
There was an anime in the 90s called "serial experiments lain" which was about a young girl on a cyberpunk future projection of the Internet called The Wired. It asked a lot of questions about what that new world might be like. It's obviously become a cult classic likely in part because it applies so much to our present world.
You're not wrong there -- A lot of the rhetoric about bipartisanship has been with the hope that sane people who have more in common than the whackjobs can get together and agree on sane things, but unfortunately like may good ideas that seems to have been coopted.
Regardless, who the nutjob associates with politically can help people understand the narrative of what happened, and humans understand the world through narrative. If it's a left wing nutjob, we have an idea of why they might have done something so drastic and stupid. If it's a right wing nutjob, we also have an idea of why they might have done something so drastic and stupid. Then maybe it turns out that the person is effectively unaffiliated politically, in that case it leads to an entirely different narrative.
Regardless, who the nutjob associates with politically can help people understand the narrative of what happened, and humans understand the world through narrative. If it's a left wing nutjob, we have an idea of why they might have done something so drastic and stupid. If it's a right wing nutjob, we also have an idea of why they might have done something so drastic and stupid. Then maybe it turns out that the person is effectively unaffiliated politically, in that case it leads to an entirely different narrative.
I do think that the one person who died and the two people who are critically injured aren't remotely funny. I'm trying to keep them in my thoughts because as much fun as it is the fact that Trump wasn't hurt, somebody was.
And keeping my own rules, I don't think anyone should be trying to assassinate Biden, and if anyone did try and a bunch of innocent bystanders were hit in the crossfire, those people should be respected because they're just innocent bystanders, regardless of their political beliefs.
And keeping my own rules, I don't think anyone should be trying to assassinate Biden, and if anyone did try and a bunch of innocent bystanders were hit in the crossfire, those people should be respected because they're just innocent bystanders, regardless of their political beliefs.
https://youtu.be/YCK0LoP0oig
I actually disagree with Legal mindset here. He's saying that all these people making tasteless jokes should be banned because Republicans who made similar jokes would be banned. Maybe it's just because I'm a #darkfedi admin but I think that there's room for jokes I find immensely distasteful on both sides. Now just because I want it to be allowed doesn't mean that I agree with it, but on the other hand, look at all those people telling you exactly who they are. Aren't they doing us all a favor?
Now the cardinal problem most of the so-called jokes that he lists make is that they're just not very funny. If you're going to make a joke about a potential presidential assassin, you got to make it funny. If it's not funny then you're being crass *and* boring.
I also feel like it's pretty funny invoking the name of John Wilkes Booth, who killed the president famous for abolishing slavery, but not in the way they intended.
I actually disagree with Legal mindset here. He's saying that all these people making tasteless jokes should be banned because Republicans who made similar jokes would be banned. Maybe it's just because I'm a #darkfedi admin but I think that there's room for jokes I find immensely distasteful on both sides. Now just because I want it to be allowed doesn't mean that I agree with it, but on the other hand, look at all those people telling you exactly who they are. Aren't they doing us all a favor?
Now the cardinal problem most of the so-called jokes that he lists make is that they're just not very funny. If you're going to make a joke about a potential presidential assassin, you got to make it funny. If it's not funny then you're being crass *and* boring.
I also feel like it's pretty funny invoking the name of John Wilkes Booth, who killed the president famous for abolishing slavery, but not in the way they intended.
https://thehill.com/homenews/4770974-fbi-identifies-suspect-in-trump-rally-shooting/?ipid=promo-link-block1
The identity of the shooter confirmed by the FBI.
At 20 years old it suggests previous reports of his involvement in other events were false.
Registered Republican in 2021, but actually donated to an democratic organization. Keep in mind that there can be reasons to register as something you're not going to vote for. For example, if you want to get into the primary in a lot of states to vote for the presidential candidate, you need to be registered for that party.
And that being said, I'll continue to allow the internet autists to figure it out. I'm sure they're going to find out a lot more than the useless mainstream press can.
The identity of the shooter confirmed by the FBI.
At 20 years old it suggests previous reports of his involvement in other events were false.
Registered Republican in 2021, but actually donated to an democratic organization. Keep in mind that there can be reasons to register as something you're not going to vote for. For example, if you want to get into the primary in a lot of states to vote for the presidential candidate, you need to be registered for that party.
And that being said, I'll continue to allow the internet autists to figure it out. I'm sure they're going to find out a lot more than the useless mainstream press can.
Joking aside, I watched a video on horseshoe crabs and it's interesting seeing this thing that's basically a relic from the era of things like trilobites. I was curious about it.
These things apparently have blue blood that can be used to detect bacteria, and even today they fish for them and take their blood before returning them to the ocean.
These things apparently have blue blood that can be used to detect bacteria, and even today they fish for them and take their blood before returning them to the ocean.
Something a lot of these people don't realize. America in 2024 isn't Stockholm, it isn't Wellington, and to be fair (since I'm a canuckistani) it isn't Ottawa either.
If you're not in the US and you look around and try to judge what's going on there based on the leftists you know, then you're going to make a mistake. "Oh well the people around me are ok" -- yeah, that's great, neither Stockholm, nor Wellington, nor Ottawa are potentially already in a low key civil war. America certainly appears to be. If in any of our countries we had just one of the major political events of the past 8 years it'd be part of our history we talked about forever, but the US keeps getting hit with one after another after another, and the reaction with the US only shows how fractured a society they have -- something insane happens and half of people are actually kinda game. The level of low key civil war is so intense that people in other countries think it's chill to pick sides and say it's ok for you to kill your hated political opponent, which I need to point out isn't normal!
Imagine if any one of our countries had violent riots break out for 6 months in a bunch of our cities, killing dozens of people and causing billions of dollars of property damage. That would be the most defining moment of our generation. If someone tried to shoot Pierre Poilievre, that'd be shocking to the conscience, not something to cheer about! Same with Christopher Luxon, same as if someone tried to kill Magdalena Andersson. But we don't think about that because the toxicity of US politics is so normalized.
So when you go "Well the leftists in our countries are so normal so they wouldn't do that" -- well it's a different country and the Americans have done that repeatedly so stop thinking with your local common sense.
If you're not in the US and you look around and try to judge what's going on there based on the leftists you know, then you're going to make a mistake. "Oh well the people around me are ok" -- yeah, that's great, neither Stockholm, nor Wellington, nor Ottawa are potentially already in a low key civil war. America certainly appears to be. If in any of our countries we had just one of the major political events of the past 8 years it'd be part of our history we talked about forever, but the US keeps getting hit with one after another after another, and the reaction with the US only shows how fractured a society they have -- something insane happens and half of people are actually kinda game. The level of low key civil war is so intense that people in other countries think it's chill to pick sides and say it's ok for you to kill your hated political opponent, which I need to point out isn't normal!
Imagine if any one of our countries had violent riots break out for 6 months in a bunch of our cities, killing dozens of people and causing billions of dollars of property damage. That would be the most defining moment of our generation. If someone tried to shoot Pierre Poilievre, that'd be shocking to the conscience, not something to cheer about! Same with Christopher Luxon, same as if someone tried to kill Magdalena Andersson. But we don't think about that because the toxicity of US politics is so normalized.
So when you go "Well the leftists in our countries are so normal so they wouldn't do that" -- well it's a different country and the Americans have done that repeatedly so stop thinking with your local common sense.
Jeff... You're talking about law here, and law is very specific about a lot of things you're getting wrong.
First, there are two types of law: Civil and Criminal.
Criminal law is where the state accuses you of a crime. Upon the state successfully getting a conviction(which is what it is called in criminal court and only criminal court), you are then going to be punished by the state for that crime. As well, the legal standard must be "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a very high standard of likelihood.
Civil law is for making whole after damages are done to another person. This isn't something where the state accuses you, it's acting as the arbiter between two people, and will find in favor of one party or the other. The judge and jury don't convict anyone of anything, they find someone has caused damages to another and then make restitution. In a civil case, you could lose completely, but nobody is going to "convict" anyone of anything, because you don't get convictions in civil court. As well, the legal standard must be "by a preponderance of the evidence" which is a relatively low standard, 51%.
Criminal cases aren't civil cases and civil cases aren't criminal cases. They have different rules, different methods, different outcomes. You can win one and lose the other, as you can see by when OJ Simpson famously was found "not guilty" in his criminal case but was nonetheless found liable for the deaths in his civil case. Despite losing the civil case, OJ Simpson was not convicted of anything.
Second, the Judge doesn't get to decide facts when there's a jury present (There are trials where the judge is the fact finder. These are called "bench trials", but the trials in question are not bench trials). The jury is the fact finding body, that's why they're there. Therefore, if the jury found that under the jury instructions provided by the judge that one tort was committed (and they did) then that's the tort committed. The idea that it was a different tort because the judge said so is simply wrong, that's not how courts work. Even the Supreme court is extremely wary about ignoring the findings of fact from a jury, and the bar for doing so is incredibly high. You'd basically never get a judge disregarding a jury decision without very good cause.
Finally, you said the judge "corrected the record", but that's a specific term of art for a formal process in law that a judge commenting for an interview is not doing that. There is a court record in law, which is why there is a court reporter writing a court transcript and why everything else is written, because other filings are also part of that court record. Sometimes that record is incorrect and must be corrected, invoking the process of "correcting the record". In this case, giving an interview or answering questions in a news article later is not "correcting the record", it's just giving an opinion on a previous case. It matters a lot when you're talking law because these terms are very specific. A judge correcting the record is a very specific thing that was not done here.
First, there are two types of law: Civil and Criminal.
Criminal law is where the state accuses you of a crime. Upon the state successfully getting a conviction(which is what it is called in criminal court and only criminal court), you are then going to be punished by the state for that crime. As well, the legal standard must be "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a very high standard of likelihood.
Civil law is for making whole after damages are done to another person. This isn't something where the state accuses you, it's acting as the arbiter between two people, and will find in favor of one party or the other. The judge and jury don't convict anyone of anything, they find someone has caused damages to another and then make restitution. In a civil case, you could lose completely, but nobody is going to "convict" anyone of anything, because you don't get convictions in civil court. As well, the legal standard must be "by a preponderance of the evidence" which is a relatively low standard, 51%.
Criminal cases aren't civil cases and civil cases aren't criminal cases. They have different rules, different methods, different outcomes. You can win one and lose the other, as you can see by when OJ Simpson famously was found "not guilty" in his criminal case but was nonetheless found liable for the deaths in his civil case. Despite losing the civil case, OJ Simpson was not convicted of anything.
Second, the Judge doesn't get to decide facts when there's a jury present (There are trials where the judge is the fact finder. These are called "bench trials", but the trials in question are not bench trials). The jury is the fact finding body, that's why they're there. Therefore, if the jury found that under the jury instructions provided by the judge that one tort was committed (and they did) then that's the tort committed. The idea that it was a different tort because the judge said so is simply wrong, that's not how courts work. Even the Supreme court is extremely wary about ignoring the findings of fact from a jury, and the bar for doing so is incredibly high. You'd basically never get a judge disregarding a jury decision without very good cause.
Finally, you said the judge "corrected the record", but that's a specific term of art for a formal process in law that a judge commenting for an interview is not doing that. There is a court record in law, which is why there is a court reporter writing a court transcript and why everything else is written, because other filings are also part of that court record. Sometimes that record is incorrect and must be corrected, invoking the process of "correcting the record". In this case, giving an interview or answering questions in a news article later is not "correcting the record", it's just giving an opinion on a previous case. It matters a lot when you're talking law because these terms are very specific. A judge correcting the record is a very specific thing that was not done here.
Fair enough in that regard. I was thinking of another PM who was unpopular near the end of his career who got the boot and lived out his days comfortably in Florida but I didn't think Florida was a good fit for him.