litchralee @ litchralee @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

380

Joined

2 yr. ago

As you correctly observed, English is tricky and there aren't too many hard rules with the language, which is aggravating for English learners but also highlights its flexibility, which is an important quality for the de facto language of science, aviation, international trade, etc. So to answer the question, I think there are multiple aspects which make a combined word more likely, including: 1) the constituent words are different parts-of-speech being combined into a new part-of-speech, 2) a contraction whose spelling happens to be very similar to an existing word but is still mostly unambiguous, and 3) how likely the combined word appears in colloquial or subject-matter specific speech and writing.

Even a combo word that meets all three of those points is not guaranteed to be universally accepted as a new word, but some combo words get accepted even if they don't meet most of those points. Starting with your examples, "greenhouse" certainly meets point #1, since "green" is an adjective and "house" is a noun, which combined form the new noun "greenhouse". "login" does the same, although it also meets point #2, since it's a contraction of "log in" (v.), meaning to sign into a web service. The same goes for "work out" (v) and workout (n, an exercise program for each day of week).

I personally always write "log in" when I mean the verb, and "login" (n.) to refer to the credentials needed to sign in. But that's my CS degree showing. As such, I'm of the opinion that "login" as a verb is a typo, since it's the wrong part-of-speech (a noun when a verb is needed). Same goes for "alot" (IMO, a typo) and "allot" (v, to allocate). Whether such typos are permissible depends on the quality of the writing, as "takecare" and "ofcourse" would be unacceptable in a dissertation but perfectly fine for an IRC chatroom for die-hard fans of British cooking shows. But I think most people in the latter group, if asked, would probably agree that "ofcourse" is a typo. Basic English literacy means we're not going to hapazardly throwawaythewhitespace andtryto pretendthatitdoesnt matter.

Finally, prevalence, which is considered by many linguists to be the ultimate test of neologisms: if people use it and it's understood, then it's a word. But that rule needs to be viewed from the lens of the intended audience. For example, years and years ago, I understood the legal term "housecar" in the California Vehicle Code to mean something akin to a family saloon car, meaning a car suitable for transporting a whole family or household. This would contrast with a pick-up trucks, sports cars, and commercial vehicles. But my naivete was to not look up the actual definition, and I just wrongly assumed that definition because it made sense for "house" and "car" to combine in that way. The real definition is a car that is also a house, meaning an RV or motorhome. That just goes to show that -- since I'm not a lawyer -- I was not the audience to gauge whether "housecar" is a valid combo word or not. Whereas California-based lawyers would have likely recognized the meaning in short order.

Basically, each combo word is unique in its circumstances, but perhaps those three points I mentioned have a lot (haha) to do with whether a combo word achieves universal adoption. "alot" does not seem to have met the full acceptance test.

Can you be more precise about what level of automation these trucks should have? Other forms of transport like trains and aircraft have automation, but it's not full automation and they accept that limitation as the technology develops.

SAE has a classification system for automation of the driving task, but this wouldn't necessarily include the task of loading and unloading cargo, nor the paperwork management for consignments, all of which are part of the commercial truck driving job.

Answering the question as written and without any particular comment on the example given, yes, it can be manipulative to respond to allegations with a counter that the allegations are slanderous, but it's not always manipulative. Though it does highlight the gap between what someone says and what they mean.

Some folks will argue that the term "slander" has lost its original meaning but I still ascribe to the legal definition which says it's a form of defamation. That is, a falsehood being perpetuated about someone, regarding something that can be proved one way or another. Without defining the term, no one could sensibly answer the question here.

So does this mean when person X asserts slander, they're saying they have a potential lawsuit? Possibly, but that's the rub: "slander" is now colloquial shorthand for "all those things they said about me are lies" rather than "I now have cause to sue". It's natural to refute unsavory descriptions about oneself, even in spite of attached evidence, so sometimes calling something as slanderous is a knee-jerk reaction, akin to saying "ow!" after stubbing one's toe on the bed post.

But that's the most charitable view. "Slander" can also be a rejection of the validity of the evidence, and that's more a symptom of the "post-truth" era we're currently in, where controversies are more newsworthy than the truth they purport to stand upon. In that sense, labeling allegations as slanderous is manipulative because it serves the purpose of misleading the audience, or encouraging them to not bother vetting or even looking at the evidence at all. And sometimes you can't blame the audience: fact checking is difficult and boring.

I bemoan the use of legal terms in colloquial speech, as terms of law must be exact and precise, while colloquialisms must be free to express broad thoughts and ideas. But since laypeople are rarely asked to consider if a comment is actually legally actionable, and most off-the-cuff commentary isn't, I won't dwell on that aspect.

Sometimes it's the original allegations which are genuinely manipulative, and it's not manipulative to point out manipulation. Other times, no possible reading of the facts can save the remaining reputation of a genuinely awful person.

But what I will say is that a simple response of "it's slander!" alone is not persuasive, IMO. If someone wants to be believed, they'll have to put more effort into their defense than that, insofar as public perception is concerned. But if the evidence is bad, this shouldn't be very hard to do.

The public and media might also bear some responsibility, if they will so easily equate "both sides" as having valid points when there's an avalanche of evidence on one side and only bad evidence on the other. But other times, a factual question can be reasonably interpreted differently, and that's fair too.

So I'm sorry to say that there's no clear cut answer, whether it's always or never manipulative. I'm not a lawyer, but their common adage is "it depends".

My German is non-existent, but it seems to me that those two references can agree with this form for the lowercase d:

Of course, your second reference shows an initial stroke towards the top of the circle, but the rest of the stroke is one motion where the ascender double-backs on itself, completing the circle in a counterclockwise move that also starts the ascender. That is to say, the circle and ascender are naturally attached.

I could find only one reference which explicitly starts a new stroke for the ascender after completing the circle, but this example is from cursive, not from standard form:

If I had to guess, the impetus for not doubling back is to prevent the ascender from becoming messy, since writing over the same part of the page can cause smudging. And perhaps in hurried writing, this form lends itself to detaching the circle from the ascender. But I personally draw my cursive d with the ascender more akin to how cursive l is drawn, with a looping ascender, which preserves the attachment:

There is no ambiguity in cursive doing it this way, and for standard form, it saves a lift from the paper.

Seeing as drawing the d with its circle separated from the ascender requires a lift, and also becomes ambiguous from an O and an L, I'm not entirely sure how that form would be clearer to read. Context of the language means there's usually no issue of confusion between a D or OL, but that doesn't necessarily mean the drawn form is clear to read, which is going to mess up any OCR system prior to performing spell checking.

But some pathologal examples might include "olay" vs "day" vs "0 day".

I read this, and thought it was kind of all over the place. Even the first "falsehood" about always immediately crashing is answered as "true for some languages but not some others". Even the motion of superlatives in CS like "always" and "never" rarely hold, including this very sentence and almost certainly when talking about multiple programming languages.

And on that point, it's a minor quibble, but while Go's nil pointers are similar to C null pointers and Rust's null raw pointers, it's a strange thing to have the title be about falsehoods about null pointers.

But then much of the other supposed falsehoods are addressed only for the C language, such as null deference being UB or not.

9. On platforms where the null pointer has address 0, C objects may not be placed at address 0.

I would like to see a (C)itation [pun intended] for this being a supposed falsehood, since my understanding is that if an implementation uses 0x0 as the null pointer, then the check for a null pointer is to check if it's equal to 0x0, which would require that no "thing" in C use that address.

A few months ago, we had a question about what would happen if necromancy was possible and an undead was called as a court witness. I gave a rather fun-to-write, tongue-in-cheek answer, which might be germane to your question too. Here's just a snippet:

So now we come back to zombies. Would a jury be able to set aside their shock, horror, and awe about a zombie in court that they could focus on being the finder of fact? If a zombie says they’re an eye-witness to a mugging, would their lack of actual eyeballs confuse the jury? Even more confusing would be a zombie that is testifying as an expert witness. Does their subject matter need to be recent? What if the case needs an expert on 17th Century Parisian fashion and the undead is from that era and worked in haute couture? Are there no fashion historians who could provide similar expert opinions?

Can't Python be translated into machine code

Yes, and that's basically what the CPython interpreter does when you call a Python script. It sometimes even leaves the result laying in your filesystem, with the extension .pyc . This is the byte code (aka machine code) for CPython's implementation of the Python Virtual Machine (PVM).

and packaged into a binary?

Almost. The .pyc file is meant to run with the appropriate PVM, not for x86 or ARM64, for example. But if you did copy that .pyc to another computer that has a CPython PVM, then you can run that byte code and the Python code should work.

To create an actual x86 or ARM64 binary, you might use a Python compiler like cython, which compiles to x86 or ARM64 by first translating to C, and then compiling that. The result is a very inefficient and slow binary, but it is functional. You probably shouldn't do this though.

While I get your point that Python is often not the most appropriate language to write certain parts of an OS, I have to object to the supposed necessity of C. In particular, the bolded claim that an OS not written in C is still going to have C involved.

Such an OS could instead have written its non-native parts using assembly. And while C was intentionally designed to be similar to assembly, it is not synonymous with assembly. OS authors can and do write assembly when even the C language cannot do what they need, and I gave an example of this in my comment.

The primacy of C is not universal, and has a strong dependency on the CPU architecture. Indeed, there's a history of building machines which are intended for a specific high-level language, with Lisp Machines being one of the most complex -- since Lisp still has to be compiled down to some sort of hardware instructions. A modern example would be Java, which defines the programming language as well as the ISA and byte code: embedded Java processors were built, and thus there would have been zero need for C apart from legacy convenience.

As it happens, this is strikingly similar to an interview question I sometimes ask: what parts of a multitasking OS cannot be written wholly in C. As one might expect, the question is intentionally open-ended so as to query a candidate's understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the C language. Your question asks about Python, but I posit that some OS requirement which a low-level language like C cannot accomplish would be equally intractable for Python.

Cutting straight to the chase, C is insufficient for initializing the stack pointer. Sure, C itself might not technically require a working stack, but a multitasking operating system written in C must have a stack by the time it starts running user code. So most will do that initialization much earlier, so that the OS's startup functions can utilize the stack.

Thjs is normay done by the bootloader code, which is typically written in assembly and runs when the CPU is taken out of reset, and then will jump into the OS's C code. The C functions will allocate local variables on the stack, and everything will work just fine, even rewriting the stack pointer using intrinsics to cause a context switch (although this code is often -- but not always -- written in assembly too).

The crux of the issue is that the initial value of the stack pointer cannot be set using C code. Some hardware like the Cortex M0 family will initialize the stack pointer register by copying the value from 0x00 in program memory, but that doesn't change the fact that C cannot set the stack pointer on its own, because invoking a C function may require a working stack in the first place.

In Python, I think it would be much the same: how could Python itself initialize the stack pointer necessary to start running Python code? You would need a hardware mechanism like with the Cortex M0 to overcome this same problem.

The reason the Cortex M0 added that feature is precisely to enable developers to never be forced to write assembly for that architecture. They can if they want to, but the architecture was designed to be developed with C exclusively, including interrupt handlers.

If you have hardware that natively executes Python bytecode, then your OS could work. But for x86 platforms or most other targets, I don't think an all-Python, no-assembly OS is possible.

Constant Speed is probably what I was thinking of. And speaking of multi engine failure, you've just reminded me of the demise of TransAsia Airways Flight 235 where the right engine feathered itself erroneously, but then the crew misdiagnosed the situation and shut down the left engine. Mentour Pilot made a video on that particular accident.

I like this answer. The only thing I would add is that when the fan blades are all stalled, it might seem then that drag and energy consumption should reduce, since there's not much air moving. But in a cruel twist (fan pun intended) of aerodynamics, the useless spinning of stalled fan blades still causes parasitic drag. So not only does the fan not move air, it's also consuming more energy than spinning a solid disk of the same moment-of-inertia.

When the engine fails for certain single-propeller aircraft, there's sometimes a mechanism to lock the propeller to make it stop rotating, since it would otherwise "windmill" in the air and waste the precious kinetic energy that's keeping the plane aloft. Or so I'm told.

I also want to note that in the year 2025, GitHub still does not support IPv6. Folks behind CGNAT in IPv4-starved geos suffer, as does everyone developing for all-IPv6 networks. And it's not like they can't do it, seeing as their various subdomains like pages.github.com have working IPv6 already.

I guess your nephew can start studying to become a network engineer now lol

In all seriousness, a 16 port managed switch exposes enough complexity to develop a detailed understanding of Ethernet and Layer 2 concepts, while not having to commit to learning illogical CLI commands to achieve basic functionality. 16 ports is also enough to wire up a non-trivial network, with ports to spare for exercising loop detection/protection or STP, but doesn't consume a lot of electricity.

I would pair that switch with a copy of The All-New Switch Book, 2nd Edition to go over the networking theory. Yes, that book is a bit dated but networking fundamentals have not changed that much in 15 years. Plus, it can be found cheap, or on the high seas. It's certainly not something to read cover-to-cover, since you can skip anything about ATM networks.

Then again, I think students might just simulate switch behaviors and topologies in something like GNS3, so no hardware needed at all.

The other comments correctly mention aspects like managing terrain and the width of railroads vs roadways. What I want to highlight is the development of road building methods at around the same time that metal-on-metal rail developed.

The 1800s were a wild time. Some clever folks figured out that they could put a contemporary steam engine -- invented early 1700s; used only for stationary uses in lieu of water power -- onto a wagonway. Wagonways are basically wooden or metal guides/flanges so that a horse-drawn wagon could be pulled along and stay perfectly centered on the path.

Up until this point in history, the construction of graded, flattened surfaces for moving goods didn't change very much compared to what the Romans were doing with their roads. That is, a road had to be dug down and some soil removed, then backfilled with coarse material (usually large stones), and then a layer of smaller stones to try to approximate a smooth surface. The innovations the Roman introduced included a keen eye for drainage -- freeze/thaw cycles destroy roads -- and surveying methods (also to build things like aqueducts and canals). And concrete, of course.

But even the best built roads of that era were still prone to rutting, where each passing wagon slowly wears a groove into the road. Wooden wagons wider or narrower than the groove would suffer poor performance or outright break down. The wagonways sought to solve that issue by: 1) forcing all wagons to fit within the fixed guides on the sides, and 2) concentrate the grooves to exactly within the guides. The modern steel-on-steel railway takes this idea to its logical end.

An adhesive railroad seeks to be: all-weather, heavy duty, and efficient. Like Roman roads before it, all railways (except maybe on-street tramways) need to excavate the soil and build it up, usually being higher and wider than the rest of the land. It also minimizes the width of the earthworks, by being so compact and building upward. This sturdy base also provides a strong foundation to support heavy loads, preventing the steel rails from sinking or "rutting". And finally, putting the wheel atop the rail makes for low-friction operation. Early wooden plateways sort-of did this, but they didn't manage curves like how modern rails do.

All the while, instead of trying to support heavy wagons, another clever person sought to reinvent road building outright, postulating that if a surface could just spread out the load from light/medium traffic, then the soil beneath could be used as-is, saving a lot of earthworks. A gravel surface would meet this criteria, but gravel is not all-weather and can develop rutting. The key innovation was the use of binder (basically glue) to hold the surface together, such as tar. This sealing process meant the surface wouldn't shift underneath traffic. This neatly avoided the issue of dust, made the surface water impermeable, and reduced road maintenance. So famous is this surfacing process that the inventor's name can still be found in the surface for airport runways, despite runways always being excavated down to a significant depth.

So on one hand, rail technology developed to avoid all the pitfalls of 1700s roads. On the other hand, road surfacing developed to allow light/medium traffic roads to be economically paved for all-weather conditions. Both developments led to increased speed and efficiency in their domain, and networks of both would be built out.

Rail networks made it possible to develop the "streetcar suburbs" around major historical cities in the late 1800s. But on the same token, cheap road surfacing made it possible to build 1950s American suburbs, with wide, pedestrian-hostile streets sprawling in serpentine patterns. The fact that sealed roads are water impermeable has also substantially contributed to water pollution, due to increased rain runoff rather than absorbing into the underlying soil.

I'm personally very cautious about damage to/around batteries, due to !spicypillows@lemmy.world . At the very least, a photo might help depict the scale of the dent.

And while it might not be a spicy pillow right now, a damaged battery is more likely to turn spicy spontaneously. Replacement of the battery is, of course, the most risk-reducing move.

I once read a theory on an electricians forum about how the USA electrical code's mandated maximum distance between adjacent outlets on a wall, coupled with the typical bedroom layout, as well as home builders trying to be as cheap as possible, led to only a single outlet being placed directly in the middle of the longest wall. This is also the most logical position for a bed, so the theory is that the bed pressing against the outlet over time was a contributing factor to electrical-related house fires.

I cannot find where I read that originally, and certainly the granularity of nationally-reported fire data is not sufficient to prove that theory. And while the electrical code's distance requirements haven't changed, more homes will now put enough outlets so the only one isn't behind the bed.

I'm not trying to be ignorant, I'm just curious.

I think you're in the right community! Don't let anyone tell you to shy away from asking curious questions. (well, unless the question is also bigoted, illegal, baiting, sealioning, or otherwise disingenuous)

I'm not an electrician in any jurisdiction, but one answer for why two 2-meter (~6 ft) extension cords in series is inadvisable compared to a single 4 meter cord is that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Longer cords necessarily have to be built differently than shorter cords, not only because of electrical codes (eg the NEC in USA) or product safety specs (eg UL, CSA) but also being well-designed for their expected use. There's also the human aspect, which all good designs must account for as well.

Here in the USA, common extension cord lengths are 2 m (6 ft), ~7.5 m (25 ft), ~15 m (50 ft), and ~30 m (100 ft). Of those cords, the common wire gauge used might be 18 AWG (1 mm^{2), 14 AWG (~2 mm}2), 16 AWG (_{1.5 mm^2), and 12 AWG (}3.5 mm^2). I've intentionally rounded the metric units so they're more analogous to common wire gauges outside the USA. Finally, the insulation used can be anything from "thin, indoor only" to "heavy, abrasion and sunlight resistant". And while the USA technically has a boat-load of AC connectors, the grand majority will use the standard 2-pin or 3-pin 120v connector, formally known as NEMA 1-15 and NEMA 5-15 respectively. What this means is that chaining extension cords is both possible and somewhat common. The problem is one of mismatched designs.

From a cursory search on the website of a major USA home improvement store, the smallest wire gauge used for a 100 ft cable is 16 AWG. The largest is 10 AWG (nb: smaller numbers mean bigger wire). That thinner cable is marketed for outdoor use. The thicker cable indicates its use "indoor/outdoor" and for heavy-duty applications. It is also branded with a major power-tool company, which would be appropriate as power tools often draw high current.

Whereas looking at 6 ft extension cords, most are 16 AWG but a few were 18 AWG (thinner than 16) or 14 AWG (thicker). But I could not find any thicker cables than that, certainly nothing that uses 10 AWG (~6 mm^2). The "heavy duty" cables of this length also used only 16 AWG wire.

Because electrical resistance is additive in series, and because Ohm's Law governs the voltage lost at the end of a cord, the use of insufficiently large conductors can cause voltage issues for high-current appliances. Appliances for USA-spec generally require 120 Volts +/- 10%, with utilities aiming to provide 120 Volts +/- 5% from the outlets. This means a "sufficient" power cord should not have a voltage drop of more than 6 volts, give or take. Of course, a high-current appliance will also cause a larger voltage drop than a low-current device, so we only consider the former case.

For a machine that draws 12 Amps attached to a 100 ft extension cord made of 18 AWG wire, the voltage drop would be 15 volts. This is bad for the machine, which now sees a lower voltage than expected. Had the cord been made of 12 AWG wire, the drop is an acceptable 3 volts.

So if you're operating construction tools, it would be a terrible idea to use three random 6-ft cables, and you should instead use a single 25-ft cable. Even though it's longer than you need, the fact is that most 25 ft cables use thicker conductors, which reduces the voltage drop overall.

But there's also that peaky human factor. Sure, there would also be more connectors which could come loose, but the really pressing issue with daisy chained cords is when people do that indoors, because they only have light-duty 6 ft cables handy. And for that Christmas tree, they need to use attach three cables together to go beneath the hallway rug.

This is essentially the worst-case scenario: using thin conductor cords, with thin insulation, underneath very flammable household surfaces, which are also trodden upon by foot traffic. Every step on that cord weakens the insulation and fatigues the conductors. Over time, the conductor becomes thinner where it's being fatigued, and this increases the voltage drop. An unfortunate result of a voltage drop is that it generates heat. For a cable which is uniformly thin, this heat is spread over the whole length. But for localized conductor damage, the heat is pin-point... directly under a flammable rug.

In the USA, some 3300 house fires started from an extension cord. Because these cords are not within the walls, they are usually beyond the control of often-strict building/electrical codes, something that's been critiqued by a prominent YouTuber. The US CPSC even goes so far as to create memes to promote their messaging that space heaters -- a common, high-current appliance -- should not be used with extension cords or strips.

Of course, from an electrical perspective, even a ten-long chain of dinky extension cords would have no problem powering just a single LED night light. But it's reasonable to ask: 1) is this just asking to be struck down by fate, 2) are there better alternatives like thicker/longer cords, and 3) why isn't there an outlet where you need it?

(There's also a scenario where too long or thin of an extension cord can cause a circuit breaker to fail to trip during a short circuit, but it's fairly esoteric and this post is quite long now)

In short, the blanket recommendation to avoid daisy-chaining cords is to avoid the nasty and sometimes fatal results when that can go wrong, even with it might not always play out that way. There's almost always something safer than can be done than daisy chaining.

IANAL, and lawsuits almost always end up being very fact-intensive, which means that the specifics of the case often make the difference. So it'll depend. But broadly speaking, if there isn't a specific law -- eg ADA -- that specifically assigns liability, then the most typical claim someone would try to make is a theory of negligence. That is, failure of the laundromat to behave with a reasonable degree of care.

In the absence of signage or disclaimers or waivers (like in some amusement park rides), the jury will have to assess whether this laundromat's environment suggested some heightened sense of security (eg security cameras, even fake ones) or that management implied or leaned into marketing that made it sound like clothes wouldn't be stolen there. But a typical coin-op laundromat has people going in and out at all times of day, so it's not reasonable to think it's akin to Fort Knox, even without a sign indicating that management disclaims liability for clothes theft.

As for posting that sign, it won't change the general lack of liability on the laundromat in a case where someone snatches clothing. But the equation is different if, say, a patron asked a staff member to watch their laundry for 5 minutes as they make a phone call, and that staff member agreed but then went out for a smoke, resulting in an opportunistic thief stealing the $80 bras from the dryer. Here, the laundromat would carry liability, because although they don't normally watch the clothes, they agreed to do it this once and did it so badly that the clothes were stolen. That's negligence, despite the sign.

That said, posting a warning sign is generally encouraged, since a core principle of liability is that avoidance of harms is always going to be preferable than litigating after they've already happened. So if the sign causes patrons to stay near their clothes in the machine, then some amount of theft has been outright avoided. For this reason, courts seldom will punish a business for having an overzealous sign, unless the sign itself is materially false or the sign itself causes a hazard (eg a loose "Gusty Winds" highway warning sign that falls over in a light breeze, injuring a middle school student).

But to muddy the waters some more, another core principle of liability is that liability should fall upon the person whose behavior if changed will prevent future harms. For stolen clothes, it's quite clear that the thief should be liable for the value of the stolen bras. If a court instead holds the laundromat liable, then that creates a perverse incentive where rather than spending money on more/better washers, the laundromat must spend that money on cameras and private security, raising the cost of the laundry machines. In additional to absolving civil liability on the thief. All for something which would be more cheaply solved by patrons just watching their laundry, or perhaps installing hasps on the machines so patrons can bring their own locks.

On the flip side, denying liability means the patron has lost the value of their clothes. Perhaps they now have to spend more on "clothes insurance", which only serves to benefit an insurance company rather than affording more bras. Adjudicating liability -- in any legal system -- is a thankless job and there are never perfect answers to the delicate balancing act. Life is messy, and even the best civil tribunals struggle to make sense in all of the turbulent circumstances.

TL;DR: it depends

There is truth in this, but it needs a little bit more context. If a civil lawsuit -- eg personal injury claim -- goes to trial and either party requests a jury, then yes, the jury is mostly unrestrained in what sort of damages (or none at all) they find. But they don't have absolute authority.

The caveat is that some jurisdictions have hard caps on the type of damages. Texas limits punitive damages (meant as punishment to ward off copycats from causing the same harms) to 2x the economic damages (loss of money or value; excludes emotional suffering) plus $750k. This was raised as an issue in the lawsuit brought in Texas against Alex Jones where the jury awarded approximately $50 million, although the judge did not determine that the Texas cap would apply, and so it didn't. Jones could have appealed that decision, but I couldn't find news articles suggesting he did.

There's also a court's inherent duty to deliver due process, which would allow a judge to cut down a jury award which is so outlandish that it is not supported by the evidence. This is similar to throwing out a criminal guilty verdict when no shred of evidence supported guilt. The opposite is rare, as a judge usually doesn't increase a jury award; judges might add sanctions instead though.

The odd quirk is that the fickleness of juries -- both criminal or civil -- is often used to broker a settlement or plea deal. When Dominion Voting Systems sued Fox News, their suit requested $1.4 billion in compensation. But a jury could have found more damages than that. But it could also have been much lower. To avoid that gamble, the parties agreed to settle for $787.5 million. A settlement cannot be appealed and permanently terminates the lawsuit, which provides some peace to all parties. As for the merits of criminal plea deals, the pros and cons are better described here: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/plea-bargaining-necessary-evil

that a law firm thinks it can make money

This is unfortunately rather common in the USA, specifically the issue of nuisance-value lawsuits: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/351/

So even without a meritorious lawsuit, a law firm can extract what is essential a ransom, because for a targeted business or individual, they would have to pay their own way for a defense attorney, taking time to go to court, and all sorts of other headaches. It can indeed seem reasonable to just pay a few thousand dollars to the attacking law firm just to make them go away.

Even if one jurisdiction were to implement some of those proposed solutions to nuisance-value lawsuits, there are 50 US States and the federal courts, so pernicious law firms can just go forum shopping.

For the specific issue of SLAPP lawsuits -- frivolous lawsuits claiming defamation, as a means to drain the target of their time and money to mount a defense, typically targeting critics -- the solution is fairly clear: anti-SLAPP laws that would make the plaintiffs of such garbage lawsuits pay the defendant's expenses. California and Texas have excellent anti-SLAPP suits, and so do almost a majority of states, but not the federal judiciary. We need a federal anti-SLAPP law ASAP.