TheTechnician27 @ TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world

"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come t

---

Read more

Posts

171

Comments

1,364

Joined

1 yr. ago

I feel like there are massive, unsolvable problems with this idea (besides the considerable cost):

• The Elizabeth line already has a very small space for passengers to wait. Thus, you're severely restricting the amount of available space even if the turnstiles end up quite close to the train, because in your idea, the area beyond the turnstiles shouldn't be occupied until the train is deboarding/boarding.
• The turnstiles would substantially limit throughput solely to prevent this extreme fluke situation. Trains' efficiency lives and dies on their boarding and deboarding times, and this means that both people boarding and deboarding need to go through a turnstile (at best, the people boarding need to).
• If you have the turnstiles too close to the train (which there's a lot of opportunity for in such an enclosed space and assuming you want to maximize the passenger waiting area), then you're encouraging people to hop the turnstiles to catch their train, which could actually be substantially more dangerous through risk of fall, especially if part of your body falls under the train as it's departing ("mind the gap").

Ran into a bit of a snag yesterday, so I'm having to post two in the same day again. I try to do one of these every day instead of maximizing efficiency by making them in bulk, since I think that's more in the spirit of the self-imposed challenge.

"5 ways YouTube is cracking down on clickbait – #3 will make you shid and fard and cum your pants"

Okay, enjoy your subscription seatwarmers, I guess.

So car-centrism is even more ✨ terrible ✨ now? Golly, who could've predicted that relying on and enforcing a single industry for most of our transportation might result in rampant enshittification?

No, I'm not actually suggesting the ridiculous strawman you've just constructed. Of course plenty of prosecutions have continued through more than one administration. That said...

Holy fucking shit, are you actually suggesting that Trump wouldn't direct his corrupt-ass DoJ to immediately drop the case against Gaetz? Is that actually how far in denial the "Um, actually, just charge him lol" camp is now? That they think if Biden charges him now, Trump will see to completion the federal prosecution of one of his cronies who he tried to nominate as the head of the DoJ? That's the argument you're running with? If so, then I'm done here, because that's a delusion well beyond anything that's worth anyone's time.

What you're describing is literally impossible under federal law.

Edit: For those downvoting without reading the link, here's why you're completely, categorically wrong:

"Unless the defendant consents in writing to the contrary, the trial shall not commence less than thirty days from the date on which the defendant first appears through counsel or expressly waives counsel and elects to proceed pro se."

Biden has 28 days, so this is moot in that case, but we'll run with "a month" to mean "31 days". We'll also assume we're in fairytale land where pretrial discovery for a case involving several different federal crimes over a period of 4 to 7 years ago can find all relevant evidence and witnesses within a span of 30 days, that the defendant opts for a bench trial instead of a jury and the prosecution agrees, that all of the witnesses can miraculously be scheduled on the same arbitrary day, and that the defense can't successfully petition to delay the trial (30 days is extremely hasty for this sort of thing, so they probably could in the real world), then @SARGE@startrek.website still needs to explain how, in the span of one day, the trial is supposed to have opening statements, presentation of witnesses and evidence, direct and cross-examination of witnesses, closing arguments, the judge's deliberation, and somehow sentencing??? in the span of a single day.

Yup. Biden and Garland are still shit. If you think I'm excusing their overall conduct, you're wrong, although I do at least agree with some of the points that a9 makes above which temper my criticism. What I'm calling out specifically is the OP's asinine idea to federally prosecute Gaetz at the 11th hour. They've (correctly) pointed out in order to defeat a strawman they constructed that double jeopardy is distinct between state and federal prosecution. What they've failed to point out, however, is that federal double jeopardy is catastrophic for the case because the jurisdiction which would have the authority to prosecute otherwise is the state of Florida. At this point, the damage from Biden's and Garland's decision not to prosecute is done and dusted; their idea makes no sense and only makes things worse. It's like accusing a surgeon of waiting too long to operate (a potentially fair criticsm) and telling them that therefore the best option is to open up the patient and leave them on the table to die.

You're correct that double jeopardy applies separately to state and federal charges. Literally nobody in this thread was disputing that; this is a strawman.

I mean, you seem to think Biden has to charge and finish?

Yes. For a successful federal prosecution started under this term, Biden has to charge and finish. Else you risk double jeopardy at the federal level while accomplishing absolutely nothing. Are you seriously suggesting that the DoJ assemble a case and attempt to bring it to trial in 28 days, then when that does fuck-all, hand this case off to a state AG which would presumably be Florida? You've still refused to answer what possible benefit Biden's DoJ charging Gaetz at the federal level today confers, which tells me that your answer is "I have no good answer and I've backed myself into a corner, so I'm going to refuse to say that and double down instead."

It was changed for political reasons

Correct. It was changed because some random-ass gold prospector in 1896 wanted to promote McKinley's presidential campaign. I'm so glad we're on the same page that changing it for political reasons is wrong and that it should remain what it was prior to the political posturing.

You're completely ignoring the point of my comment. To answer your side-stepping question, I suspected Garland would be a heel-dragging clown the second Biden appointed him. Now back to our regularly scheduled program: you seem to be implying that the DoJ should prosecute Gaetz because they can. What exactly does that accomplish except to risk double jeopardy? Because I know you know this can't be tried in 28 days, and it could barely even be brought to trial in 28 days.

accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt

This was true, but that no longer applies. (at least at the federal level; I have no clue how state courts have ruled on this.)

I just don't think Biden's admin has it in them to do anything about this. They'll ignore it and then later complain when Republicans do the same thing.

Really going to both-sides this? Merrick Garland is a heel-dragging clown, but even if Biden replaced him with the most aggressive and seasoned prosecutor on Earth today, how the absolute fucking fuck would you expect them to try this case in 28 days?

That is a federal thing, and Biden could bring federal charges; good job, cookie for you. What would he be doing by bringing these? Oh, just casually getting him indicted and either not having enough time to start the trial or, if the trial does somehow start, creating jeopardy and thereby disallowing future prosecution when Trump inevitably drops the case. Good thinking. Too bad you're not running the country with this 5D political calculus.

Edit: so actually, there's technically no risk of double jeopardy, because what the OP is describing is completely impossible anyway:

"Unless the defendant consents in writing to the contrary, the trial shall not commence less than thirty days from the date on which the defendant first appears through counsel or expressly waives counsel and elects to proceed pro se."

Thus you'll never reach a jury being impaneled or a witness being sworn, because the trial will never happen. So bravo, I guess; that risk isn't there. What you have instead is a DOA case that simply goes absolutely nowhere.

That's the funny part: fucking do it, and make the world a better place.

People who intentionally DUI (i.e. not "Oh shit, I started this new medication and didn't realize it would make me drowsy") genuinely don't deserve to drive a single inch for the rest of their lives. We punish it way too lightly in the US thanks to rampant car/hyper-individualist culture.

I still remember in 2019 talking about how Elon Musk was a complete piece of narcissistic shit over the cave incident and people rushing to his defense, talking about how he was either in the right, what he did wasn't that bad, what he's done has far outweighed this wrong, etc. Bet/hope at least some of them feel like real dipshits right now.

Always remember something that's categorically false? See, e.g., most FOSS.

I just always assumed they made it back by stealing the absolute shit out of your data (which to be fair, they almost assuredly do).

#justiceforDenny