Sage the Lawyer @ Sage_the_Lawyer @lemmy.world

Lawyer in Wisconsin focusing on traffic law and criminal defense, with an i

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

59

Joined

2 yr. ago

It is now, but you used to get a free one each day, iirc. So while this is definitely cringe, there's a chance, depending on when it happened (if it happened), that it's slightly less than max cringe.

Edit: I looked closer, this is apparently from 2016, you still got free super likes back then.

The meme says to denounce US sanctions. I think this commenter was pointing out that would also mean opposing the sanctions currently on the Russian oligarchs.

That might be a limited (sealed/draft) tournament, where you have to build your deck out of cards you get from packs at the start of the tournament. To this day, those tournaments have 40 card deck minimums and no 4 card limits.

Oh zombie hunt. That was the first deck I ever built on mtgo. And then in my first game trying it some guy ragequit because I wasn't playing a meta deck but was still winning. Sorry you can't beat a meme bro, I have no regrets.

Interesting. Hilarious. And annoying. Thanks for the info, that analogy helped a lot. I don't think TCG players will ever cease to amaze me with some of the shit they pull, I love it.

I guess I don't really understand Yu-Gi-Oh all that well. I know in Magic there's a bit of a meme deck based around the card Battle of Wits, which basically says if you have over 200 cards in your library at the start of your turn you win the game. But it was never truly competitive because other decks would run it over before they could find and play one of those 4 cards in their 300 card deck or whatever. The synergies in other decks were just too strong for it to survive long enough. People occasionally got lucky enough to place well in a tourney here and there, but it was never a meta deck in competitive play.

Kinda figured that same problem would exist in Yu-Gi-Oh but yeah, I don't really know enough to say.

I see what you're saying about the shuffling, that would be annoying as hell. Do Yu-Gi-Oh rounds not have time limits?

It doesn't apply to just basic lands, yeah. But any special lands you can only have 4. It's been a rule for as long as I've played (since 2017), but I do know it wasn't a rule at the start of the game. I think they added it pretty early on though, as a response to people making decks out of just channel and fireball for instant wins.

And, sure, you could keep the ratio of card types the same, but while I don't play Yu-Gi-Oh, I have to imagine there are some cards better than other cards. So to make a deck that big, you'd have to include cards that just aren't as good. Playable, sure, but I can't imagine it finding its best cards consistently enough to be competitive.

According to a quick google, you can only have up to three of the same cards in a Yu-Gi-Oh deck. So you can't keep the ratios the same.

I don't play Yu-Gi-Oh, but I play Magic, and it's similar there, but you can have up to four of any card.

I imagine most trading card games are like this, otherwise you could just make a deck of only the most OP card or something. Not exactly fun to build, or play, or play against.

It was once a crime for black people to sit at the front of a bus in America. Guess that means Rosa Parks is responsible for the Holocaust.

Thank the gods we had you to point it out.

I get the feeling (I wouldn't really know, haven't been there in months) that Reddit is still significantly better. Sure, it's worse now, but it still has active communities on pretty much any topic imaginable. Lemmy is on its way, but won't be there for a few years I think.

And is the issue of whether Republicans should invoke the Comstock Act to ban abortion going to be directly voted on? Because if not, it's not in a literal sense.

I certainly agree that it's a very important issue to understand, but we will not be voting, directly, literally, on whether or not to ban abortion nationwide. We will be voting on candidates who might try to do that though.

This is good advice, I appreciate it. But I should clarify, I definitely won't be launching my practice before I'm comfortable with the OS. I'm probably going to take some other user's suggestions and do some test runs on my home machine to figure things out. I'm not launching tomorrow, there's no real rush. My current contract runs until May 2024. So I've got 6 months ahead of me to figure things out.

Oh I'm aware the OS is free. The affordability I was asking for was for the actual computer to run it. I guess that part wasn't Linux-specific. Mostly just looking for a good option for a work computer that will last a while. Will probably just get some kind of refurb laptop, I've always had good success with those.

But if someone has a specific recommendation I'm all ears.

Yes, mostly paperwork and email for sure. Some basic spreadsheet stuff for tracking clients and payments and whatnot, but there's also programs for that.

One less common, yet essential, thing I haven't gotten a specific response on yet, is converting word docs to PDFs with searchable text. Not sure if you know things about that, but it popped into my head while responding here so hopefully someone who sees this knows something.

And, a generic thank you to everyone who has responded, this has all been very helpful. Even if I don't respond to you specifically, I appreciate it.

Yeah some counties use pointlessly complicated programs to distribute videos. I often have to try a few different players on windows to find one that works. If VLC has trouble with something, are there others you'd recommend as well?

This is a great tip, I'll definitely do some test runs, thanks!

This seems like a good thread to ask this.. I'm sure I could find the answers I need myself but frankly I trust the userbase here more than most online articles.

As my username hints at, I'm a lawyer. I'm considering starting my own firm as a solo practitioner. I need a computer and/or laptop for it, and as a new business my budget would be pretty tight. I've mostly only ever used windows, but I'm getting fed up with the bullshit, so I'm considering going with Linux.

I assume Linux is capable of doing everything I need, which is primarily handling word documents, viewing PDFs, watching evidence videos, and online research. But my concern is that some of the more commonly used video types might have trouble on Linux, or that some of the word document templates I use in Windows might have compatibility issues.

I'm also nervous about using an OS I'm not familiar with for business purposes right away.

So I guess I'm asking a few questions. What is a reliable yet affordable option to get started? Are my concerns based in reality or is Linux going to be able to handle everything windows does without issues? What else might I need to know to use Linux comfortably from the get go? Is it going to take a lot of time and effort to get Linux running how I need it to?

For reference, I do consider myself to be somewhat tech-savvy. I don't code or anything, but I've built my last two home computers myself and I'm not scared of general software management, I just don't make it myself.

So, yeah, sell me on Linux, please.

Hmm. I'm annoyed at my lawyer brain, all I can think about is how this would actually be a very interesting case. At least, based on my understanding of U.S. Torts law, which is not my practice area (but which is bar tested and a required law scool course). Don't take any of this as real legal advice.

But, there's a concept known as the eggshell plaintiff rule/doctrine. Basically, it states that if the person you injured is unusually fragile, you're on the hook for their injuries regardless of whether they're a typical result of the action you took. So, here, while the typical result of pulling a finger would be a fart, the puller may be on the hook for the entire damages of a lost arm.

However, undercutting that is the defense of consent. The "victim" here clearly consented to the activity which led to the injury, and should have known that the action may likely result in the loss of an arm, based on the lack of tendons/muscles/skin/everything.

I'm gonna have to save this to show at conventions and see how people think this would play out. I'll totally be the coolest kid in school then. In your face, Mark.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I don't think there's really a number of years to put on it to make it appropriate. But I'm sure the lawyers discussed all the points you raised in negotiating this sentence. These numbers aren't pulled out of our asses, there are guidelines (almost certainly, again, not barred in NY) which help ensure similarly situated defendants are sentenced similarly.

What I'd like to hear more about, is whether the judge also ordered some kind of anger management counseling. I think that's what she needs more than a longer sentence.

If we truly want to balance the goals of protecting the public, adequately punishing the defendant, and also rehabilitating her, I don't think a few more years either way is what makes the biggest difference. I think it more depends on what she does with that time. I'm not sure what the situation is like within New York prisons as far as counseling goes, but if they have good programs, it's hard for me to imagine, if she takes it seriously, that 8.5 years of good counseling wouldn't be helpful to her, and to society at large.

I also think she could make all those gains in counseling, again, if she truly takes it seriously, within a couple of years. But then, I could probably be convinced that 2-3 years isn't long enough for causing someone's death. I've seen people get that for having the wrong amount of weed on them.

But then we get into the larger discussion about the entire prison industrial complex. We need some kind of change with how our prisons operate. Exactly how that looks isn't the point here. I'm just trying to point out that there's a bigger picture in play, and hope that people will consider that in the future.

In the end, nothing we say here has any impact on her life or the issued sentence. But it might have a difference in how people perceive and talk about the system as a whole in the future, so I think it's important to not lose sight of that.

Defense lawyer here, though not in New York so take this all with a grain of salt, I just felt I should put my 2 cents in based on the vibes in this comment thread.

It is weird for a judge to go against a joint recommendation, which seems to have happened here. It takes something extraordinary. The article indicates that the judge felt she didn't truly feel remorse for her actions, which could do it, but doesn't always do it. But, to me, just the fact that the judge went against a joint recommendation will always raise an eyebrow. Usually, if the sentence isn't harsh enough, the prosecutor won't agree to it, and if it's too harsh, the defense won't agree to it. So joint recommendations are almost always followed.

Yes, it's "only" 6 more months, but that's really not insignificant.

Now, to all the people screaming about how it's not enough (and especially to the one person saying she should have her citizenship revoked (????)), I wonder, how many of you are also against the prison industrial complex we have here in America? I challenge you to think beyond your initial emotions. Is this death tragic? Yes, absolutely it is. It was senseless violence for no good reason. So I agree, it deserves a harsh punishment.

But everyone keeps calling it murder. Not every killing is a murder. I also want to challenge people to watch their language. Murder carries with it an intent to kill. A shove does not intend death, regardless of who is being shoved. No, it shouldn't have happened, yes, it's tragic, but it was not a murder.

Now, all of you calling for 20+ years, really think about what you're saying. Do you think this person has no chance of rehabilitation? Those are the people we put away for life. I don't think that's the case here. She fucked up. Obviously. She deserves to be punished harshly, and make no mistake, she is. 8.5 years is a LONG time. Think back to where you were 8.5 years ago. Were you the same person? I doubt it. Now, do you think she might better herself in those 8.5 years? I think it's very likely, though again, the prison industrial complex makes that less guaranteed.

Sentences have many goals. Some of the primary goals are punishment, protection of the public, and rehabilitation of the defendant. Does this sentence punish her? Yes, a lot. Does this sentence give her a chance for rehabilitation? I'm not sure on that one, but that's because it may, if anything, be too long, and cause her to get too used to life in prison, and increase her likelihood of recidivism. But that's not her fault, that's the fault of the prison industry. Does this sentence protect the public? I say yes. She lost her temper once and it's now going to cost her 9 years of her life (if you include the duration of the case). That's a hell of an incentive not to repeat.

Alright, I think that's all I really want to say. But please, everyone, in the future, try to think about how our prison system really works, and how much you support it, when you're discussing individual crimes, not just when you're talking about the system as a whole. I think most people on this site lean left, and therefore should support reducing the prison populations, but this comment section has me worried with everyone here frothing at the mouth to give MORE prison time, when the sentenced amount should be enough to satisfy our sentencing goals.