Copernican @ Copernican @lemmy.world

Posts

14

Comments

567

Joined

2 yr. ago

The distinction is (or should be) about the mental capacity of the perpetrator. Prosecutors just love to do it so they appear to be “tough on crime” for the next election.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Yes, but objectively applied criteria should used. And what is the mental responsibility of a child vs an adult should probably be about the age. What's the purpose of this distinction if the measure of heinous the crime is trumps the mental capacity. And in this case, it seems like this kid also had mental health issues. Yet he him as an adult despite being a child that has mental instability.

I think the PBS documentary on Kip Kinkel is also interesting: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kinkel/

There's no parents to charge because they were murdered, but the sister wants him to have an option for release after identifying the mental health issues and rehabilitation. But he has 111 years without parole. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kinkel/trial/letter.html

I think these are the types of cases that make liberal leaning folks take a really ironic position. We talk about ending the prison industrial complex, focusing on rehabilitation, etc... But school shooting that in some way is predicated on right wing 2nd amendement rights, let's lock up as many people as we can for as long as we can, and screw juvenile courts for juveniles while we're at it.

Yeah, but it's weird when you 2 adults are tried for basically parental negligence of a minor, but that minor was tried as an adult. So if the minor is being tried as an adult, how can the parents be tried for not taking care of their minor? If the kid was tried as a kid this would make more sense to me.

Then how do you charge the kid as an adult? If you treat the kid as a child it makes sense to me to look at the parents for negligence. But if you think the kid is legally responsible to be tried as an adult, how do the prosecutors also go after the parents?

So what do you do when you have stock in a private company while still working at it. I imagine if you are heavily compensated with equity you will take going public as an opportunity to offload and diversity.

I agree. Google and double click were a trojan horse for a lot of print media orgs trying to do digital. What looked like the gift of added revenue cheaply made these news orgs completely dependent on Google. The news publishers became a cheap commodity for delivering ad space all flowing through Google.

The defense is free content. There's operating costs for running papers. And they usually aren't there to make a profit. So the combined income of subs and ad revenue need to cover the operational cost. If the content is free, then there's going to be lots of ads. But even in print news, there were a lot of ads. Some full page ads. Fun front page stories that continued on Section C page 5 which forced you to flip through more ads to find it. User experience needs to be cleaned in digital to not drive users away because of the ads, but they will necessarily have to be there if folks aren't paying for subscriptions.

If they won’t accept responsibility or accountability for the material they are serving and effectively endorsing then it’s only prudent for the users to protect themselves.

Who is the "they" in this. Google destroyed local news papers. All these smaller players can afford to do is open their sites up to google exchanges. It's a viscous cycle where the leaner your journalist team gets, the more you need click bait pages to drive ad views on those exchanges. I don't know what the solution to this looks like to raise journalistic standards and ensure they are funded, but I think that whatever it looks like will require readers to pay subscriptions and/or tolerate ads in their news.

The value of ad space includes things like viewability, interactivity, attribution. You can't make ads harder to see and easier to skip without lowering the value of the ads and what the site takes in. It's hard line to balance between maximizing value for your ad space and user experience.

They read, but only if posted on archive links with client side ad blockers to make sure the papers don't make a cent.

So what stops my lemmy content from being used by Google to train ai?

Mods should stop working as mods. But they don't. 193 million maybe sounds fair for a person able to convince people to volunteer to free, and not quit despite this being obvious.

Default to subscribed communities views.

This whole fuck show seems to be a series of firewalls and checks not being done because a series of people had KPIs not to do the checks or respond to the results of checks with urgency. Sometimes it is better to have more antagonistic and adversarial parties involved in these processes that have different KPIs.

I believe the article. My junior coworkers that are young fresh out of college grads landing 100k salary feel behind. Median us household income is like 78k. The article is about the psychological impact. Although I don't doubt that there's people struggling and inflation and wage stagnation are real, I think we shouldn't doubt that what this article describes as money dysmorphia isn't also real.

The U.S. lawmakers say ByteDance may be using the app to collect data on Americans and pass it on to the Chinese government. The app’s algorithms also are capable of influencing public opinion in the United States, where the platform has about 150 million users

That's not a selling data concern.

I don't understand. Are you saying that this outcome is the outcome a fair legal system would produce? Or is the fair legal system the treatment the rich get?

Don't try to overthink the market. If you are wanting to invest with no plans to spend that money within say 3 to 5 years, just by low expense ratio S&P500 tracking ETFs. My goal isn't to beat the market, just ride with the market benchmarks as best as possible.