Poor/cryptic documentation sucks for sure. It means you have to risk your device which just increases the difficulty to start with that kind of hobby for sure. The only alleviation I can think of is to again hit the forums. Ask about the risks involved and how to mitigate them if possible.
I mean yeah disclaiming risks is important, but googling what you're messing with is as important.
If I'm messing with a core component of something I'll google until I'm 100% certain of the effect of what I'm about to do.
If someone were to tell me to replace some part in the engine of my car, I'm for sure gonna google everything about that even if I trust that person completely before I even pop the hood of my car.
Why do we need a different word for equal access to resources? There are different types of equalities, equity in my mind is the difference between what's owned minus what's owed.
Szemeredis regularity lemma is really cool. Basically if you desire a certain structure in your graph, you just have to make it really really (really) big and then you're sure to find it. Or in other words you can find a really regular graph up to any positive error percentage as long as you make it really really (really really) big.
Is there a way to report communities such as this one? One commenter suggested via posts on the community would this be the best way? Is there even a need to report these communities?
I'm saying the evidence doesn't just have to be "ironclad" enough for a guilty verdict, it has to be so overwhelming that the outcome of the trial can be reasonably certain before a case is made. Why would I argue for the standard for evidence in a trial to be lessened? That doesn't make sense.
I think Heard is an excellent example because Depp lost the UK trial, but won the US one which got so much more attention. Plus despite the claim Depp's side put forth that "the abuse was a hoax" being found libelous, as in the jury decided it wasn't a hoax, this didn't get any attention and Heard is made out to be the sole villain in the story and having made it all up to hurt Johnny Depp.
This will make victims think thrice before even speaking up against (much less sue) celebrities as they risk being vilified if the case isn't ironclad.
Why are some of these charges brought decades later?
If the case isn't iron clad you'll have to defend against libel and it gets ugly fast. See for example the case of Evan Rachel Wood or Amber Heard, who had to not only defend herself once, but twice losing once and having her reputation utterly ruined because the one time she lost got so much more media attention.
Its one of those shows that's better remembered than rewatched though