NateNate60 @ NateNate60 @lemmy.world

Posts

19

Comments

1,117

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes, they're similar, but from what I've heard, most UK building societies are basically the same as or worse than banks in terms of fees, rates, and service quality. In the US, most credit unions will absolutely spank the big banks on at least two of those, if not all three.

Oops, I didn't see that. My bad. Guess I made a fool of myself here.

Well, you see, that depends on whether you have a team of highly-paid defence lawyers that can get you off if the prosecution makes even the slightest mistake in their case.

Okay, have a good day. I voted for Harris.

You're free to disagree with the way the American legal system is structured. I'm not here to argue with you, and in many ways, I actually agree with you wholeheartedly that Garland would make a terrible judge in my notion of an ideal legal system.

The role of a judge in an inquisitorial system is to answer the questions "Did they do it? Do they deserve to be punished?"

In the traditional English system, this is the role of the jury. The judge is just there to ensure everyone is playing by the rules of the court. And in that role, Garland is pretty suitable. And yes, a sense of fairness and impartiality is not strictly required. Just a sense of logic, which Garland definitely has. You can correctly describe that as a fault of the legal system.

I apologise if you find this insulting.

Think of the judge in My Cousin Vinny. Do you think that he walked into that courtroom every day thinking "these idiots definitely did it"? It's very likely he did. But he also recognised it wasn't his job to broadcast that to the court. He had to put on a mask of neutrality because he recognised that it is the jury's role to determine guilt, not his. He doesn't need to be truly impartial to the defence's case; he just needs to make the correct evidentiary and legal rulings. Which he mostly did.

Contrast that to the role of the prosecutor, which is what the attorney-general is. It's the prosecutor's job to come into court thinking "these guys are guilty" and convince the jury of the same.

Your position and view towards the law is admirable and very worthy of respect, but you are holding him to a standard that is not applicable within a legal system based on the traditions English common law, like the American one. You're describing the role of a judge in an inquisitorial system, not an adversarial system.

The role of a judge in an inquisitorial system is to answer the questions "Did they do it? Do they deserve to be punished?"

In the traditional English system, the is the role of the jury. The judge is just there to ensure everyone is playing by the rules of the court.

Of course, it is impossible for anyone to be truly divested from personal opinion and bias. We are all human, after all. The guiding design principle of an inquisitorial system is that judges are expected to be as neutral as possible, and then the legal system presumed they succeeded. An adversarial system, on the other hand, is aware of the inherent biases of mankind and attempts to design around them.

Which approach is more valid is a long-running topic of debate in philosophy.

You do not need to "pursue justice" as a judge. You just need to allow others to pursue justice through you and possess an ability to apply the law. There are no political repercussions for judges that can harm their career. He acts the way he does because he doesn't want political backlash about it. If he's a judge, he has the ability to not care about others' opinions of his rulings.

The position of attorney-general requires a different skillset and mindset. An effective attorney-general is willing to take risks to pursue justice. Judges play a more passive role. That's why he's not a good attorney-general, but I still maintain he'd be a very good judge.

Lemmy has the tendency to think that because a person is bad in one aspect, they must be bad in every related aspect as well. Of course, nobody will admit they think like that, but I pray you don't.

I will start. I'm in the United States.

Credit unions! Nearly half of all Americans are credit union members. They don't seem to be popular in Europe and Asia. A credit union is a not-for-profit co-operative financial institution that essentially provides all the same services as a bank, except it's run as a democratic institution with directors elected by the customers instead of as a profit maximisation machine for shareholders.

Rule 0 of warfare: don't start a war if you don't want the consequences of war.

Even though the federal Department for Justice has a standing policy against prosecuting election-related offences within two months of an election, there's still the possibility that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania can prosecute him for offences committed under Pennsylvania's state election law.

The governor of Pennsylvania has expressed some openness to this happening.

Oh, hey. They added the Wikipedia credibility rating to the bot.

It's an improvement.

He would have made a decent Supreme Court justice but he's just not cut out to be attorney-general.

It's not really like they were evil about it though. Google attracted customers through its huge (at the time) 1 GB email storage space, which at the time, was unbelievably generous and also impressive in that it was offered for free. Outlook (Hotmail at the time) also drew in customers by offering the service for free, anywhere in the world, without needing to sign up for Internet service. Remember, at the time, e-mail was a service that was bundled with your Internet service provider.

Into the mid-2000s and 2010s, the way that Gmail and Outlook kept customers was through bundle deals for enterprise customers and improvements to their webmail offerings. Gmail had (and arguably, still has) one of the best webmail clients available anywhere. Outlook was not far behind, and it was also usually bundled with enterprise Microsoft Office subscriptions, so most companies just decided, "eh, why not". The price (free) and simplicity is difficult to beat. It was at that point that Microsoft Outlook (the mail client, not the e-mail service) was the "gold standard" for desktop mail clients, at least according to middle-aged office workers who barely knew anything about e-mail to begin with. Today, the G-Suite, as it is called, is one of the most popular enterprise software suites, perhaps second only to Microsoft Office. Most people learned how to use e-mail and the Internet in the 2000s and 2010s through school or work.

You have to compare the offerings of Google and Microsoft with their competitors. AOL mail was popular but the Internet service provided by the same company was not. When people quit AOL Internet service, many switched e-mail providers as well, thinking that if they did not maintain their AOL subscription, they would lose access to their mailbox as well.

Google and Microsoft didn't "kill" the decentralised e-mail of yesteryear. They beat it fair and square by offering a superior product. If you're trying to pick an e-mail service today, Gmail and Outlook are still by far the best options in terms of ease of use, free storage, and the quality of their webmail clients. I would even go so far as to say that the Gmail web client was so good that it single-handedly killed the desktop mail client for casual users. I think that today, there are really only three legitimate players left if you're a rational consumer who is self-interested in picking the best e-mail service for yourself: Proton Mail if you care a lot about privacy, and Gmail or Outlook if you don't.

Baking soda is sodium bicarbonate. Dissolving it in water will increase its pH. I'm not sure if that works for killing bacteria.

Yeah, so It turns out fewer people care about and really want those things than you think...

Because the "US Government" is not a monolithic entity but rather, a large and complex democratic organisation that citizens can influence the composition of through political participation.

The only realistic way I see the situation being better here is if the United States imposes it. Nobody else has the power to do so and keep the peace. The United Nations is losing its credibility every passing day but maybe there is still enough time where Palestine being placed under UN trusteeship with the USA, Israel, and one Arab nation as joint trustees would be acceptable to the key stakeholders here. Eventually, once the situation stabilises, the goal would be to grant the Palestinian state independence from the Trusteeship Council.

The socialists of Lemmy will decry this solution. They'll call it colonialism and an example of Israeli and American imperialism. And it is. But it's better than whatever shit-show is happening now. Israelis today will not accept a sovereign Palestinian state and will devote all their resources to destroy it. Organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah will not accept an Israeli state and will similarly continue to expend their resources to destroy. These are resources that could otherwise be used to rebuild Gaza and the West Bank and to make reparations for those whose lives were destroyed in this decades-long conflict.

Israelis see the situation in reverse—if they don't beat the Palestinians to a pulp every single time without mercy, organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah will overrun Israel and do the same thing to them. It's kind of like the reason why Japanese troops in World War II wouldn't surrender to the Americans; they thought the Americans would treat Japanese POWs like how the Japanese treated American POWs.

Terrorist groups are more likely to form in bad social, political, and economic circumstances. Astute observation.

FiveThirtyEight gives Harris a 16% chance to win Texas. That's over 1 in 7. So it's definitely doable.