ricecake @ ricecake @sh.itjust.works

Posts

4

Comments

1,553

Joined

2 yr. ago

Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it.
No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions.

It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted.

Jessica Gattuso, the victim’s right attorney that worked with Pelkey’s family, told 404 Media that Arizona’s laws made the AI testimony possible. “We have a victim’s bill of rights,” she said. “[Victims] have the discretion to pick what format they’d like to give the statement. So I didn’t see any issues with the AI and there was no objection. I don’t believe anyone thought there was an issue with it.”

Gattuso said she understood the concerns, but felt that Pelkey’s AI avatar was handled deftly. “Stacey was up front and the video itself…said it was AI generated. We were very careful to make sure it was clear that these were the words that the family believed Christopher would have to say,” she said. “At no point did anyone try to pass it off as Chris’ own words.”

The prosecution against Horcasitas was only seeking nine years for the killing. The maximum was 10 and a half years. Stacey had asked the judge for the full sentence during her own impact statement. The judge granted her request, something Stacey credits—in part—to the AI video.

From a different article quoting a former judge in the court:

"There are going to be critics, but they picked the right forum to do it. In a trial with a jury you couldn't do it, but with sentencing, everything is open, hearsay is admissible, both sides can get up and express what they want to do," McDonald said.

"The power of it was that the judge had to see the gentleness, the kindness, the feeling of sincerity and having his sister say, 'Well we don't agree with it, this is what he would've wanted the court to know'," he said.

I don't like it, and it feels dirty to me, but since the law allows them to express basically whatever they want in whatever format they want during this phase, it doesn't seem harmful in this case, just gross.

I actually think it's a little more gross that the family was able to be that forthright and say that the victim would not want what they were asking for, and still ask for it.

Fair. Not intending to convey sympathy for companies and the people in them that supported Nazism, to be clear.
They're not people that can have opinions to flip-flop. They're legal fictions made of people who are now dead.

It's precisely a good bell-weather! It means that the cold money monsters think gay people and their supporters have more money, and hate doesn't have the power to punish them. It also means that good people who work for the company feel safe saying "donating resources to LGBT teen suicide prevention would be great.... Advertising?" And the money monsters don't disagree, and the bad people don't have enough sway to squash it.

Rainbow capitalism is a parasite that feeds on social tolerance. It's gross that it showed up, but it couldn't unless society was in an at least moderately healthy place.

Just don't fall into the trap of personifying the companies that do many people do.

Oh, I'm not defending BMW or any company in specific regarding Nazism. I'm saying the actions and beliefs of dead people who used to run the company are the wrong reasons for cynicism, particularly in the context of a violent and coercive regime.
A company doesn't have opinions so it can't support anything, good or evil. It makes as much sense to be cynical of "posters" because there have also been evil posters.

While it's not wrong to be cynical about it, this isn't exactly the right reason. The Nazis would just take over companies and install new leadership if they were inadequately supportive.
It's not even "if I don't do it, someone else will, so I may as well do it". A lot of people did refuse to do it and were arrested or fired.
Beyond that, everyone involved in the decision is dead now. They could have all been Nazis and that would have little bearing on if the people who work there now were.

The reason to be cynical is because companies can't care about things, so if they say they do it's a lie.
People inside the company might care, and might find a way to get the company to do something good, but that's a person finding a way to use the company for good, not the company caring or being good.

Unlike the Nazis, no one is forcing them to embrace pride. They do it because they think it's a profitable demographic.

Chromes decision actually makes a lot of sense, from a security perspective. When we model how people read URLs, they tend to be "lazy" and accept two URLs as equal if they're similar enough. Removing or taking focus away from less critical parts makes users focus more on the part that matters and helps reduce phishing. It's easier to miss problems with https://www.bankotamerica.com/login_new/existing/login_portal.asp?etc=etc&etc=etc than it is with bankotamerica, with the com in a subdued grey and the path and subdomain hidden until you click in the address bar.
It's the same reason why they ended up moving away from the lock icon. Certs are easy to get now, and every piece that matches makes it more likely for a user to skip a warning sign.

The final piece is that often each of those services would be on a different computer entirely, each with a different public IP address. Otherwise the port is sufficient to sperate most services on a common domain.

There was a good long while where IP addresses were still unutilized enough that there was no reason to even try being conservative.

I would describe need to proactively go out of your way to ensure a program is simple, minimal, and carefully constructed to avoid interactions potentially outside of a restricted security scope as a "security nightmare".

Being possible to do right or being necessary in some cases at the moment doesn't erase the downsides.

It's the opposite of secure by default. It throws the door wide open and leaves it to the developer and distro maintainer to make sure there's nothing dangerous in the room and that only the right doors are opened. Since these are usually not coordinated, it's entirely possible for a change or oversight by the developer to open a hole in multiple distros.
In a less nightmarish system a program starting to do something it wasn't before that should be restricted is for the user to get denied, not for it to fail open.

https://www.cve.org/CVERecord/SearchResults?query=Setuid

It may be possible, but it's got the hallmarks of a nightmare too.

I've tried, but they don't do wrong often enough for me to keep track of the bottle, so by the time I've found it, it would just be a punishment for some random thing and useless.

I personally don't use violence as a punishment, but a gentle ear flick is fine because it's not causing pain and, as you say, it'll communicate "don't" in a way they get without being likely to make them afraid of you.

I opt for a "tsst" sound instead.

If you had any tact

Tact? I've been extremely tactful you twit. You've been obtuse the the point of incredulity.
Yes, I sent a collection of EPA references. Who do you think oversaw most of the studies?

My entire point has been the toxicity issue which you seem incapable of understanding. You'll have to forgive me for invoking the chlorine issue so much, since you started this whole thing with implying I drink pool water and saying that "poison is poison" in contradiction to "dosage matters".

You still haven't answered me. If a toxic substance is toxic no matter what, "poison is poison", would you consider water to be a poison?

You'll just have disregard me because we aren't communicating on the same level.

Clearly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity

Maybe reading it somewhere else will help you get it.

A central concept of toxicology is that the effects of a toxicant are dose-dependent; even water can lead to water intoxication when taken in too high a dose, whereas for even a very toxic substance such as snake venom there is a dose below which there is no detectable toxic effect.

Yes, lower concentrations of a poison make it not a poison.

Do you think pure water is toxic because it can kill you if you drink too much?

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/dwchloramine.pdf

The first phase of this study (Zierler et al., 1986) looked at the patterns of cancer mortality among 43 communities using either chlorine or chloramine since 1938. All resident Massachusetts deaths among those 45 years and older and occurring during 1969-1983 were eligible for the study. Deaths were selected for inclusion if the last residence listed on the death certificate was in a community using chlorine or chloramine for disinfection. Cancers of the bladder, colon, kidney, pancreas, rectum, stomach, lung and female breast were thought to be related to chlorinated by-products of disinfection and were therefore treated as cases for a mortality odds ratio (MOR) analysis. Deaths from cardiovascular and cerebravascular disease, chronic obstructive lung disease and lymphatic cancer (N=214,988), considered to be unrelated to chlorinated by-products, were used for comparison. In general, cancer mortality was not associated with type of disinfectant in the MOR analysis. There was a slight association (MOR=1.05) for chlorine use noted only with bladder cancer that increased slightly (MOR=1.15, 95% confidence interval = 1.06-1.26) when lung cancer deaths were used for controls. Standardized mortality ratio analysis of the data set were generally unremarkable. There was a small increase in mortality (SMR=118, 95% confidence interval = 116-120) from influenza and pneumonia in the chloraminated communities. CLORAMIN.6 VI-5 03/08/94

https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/related-research-chloramines-drinking-water

That's from just basic googling, so yeah, I'd say it's pretty easy to find at least moderately compelling evidence.

Don't forget some studies on the benefits:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15782893/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10176376/

As well as on general chlorine safety: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK598756/

It's quite inaccurate to say that "poison is poison", because it's entirely a matter of the effect it has in the body. Is water poisonous? It doesn't take a huge amount to disrupt bodily functions and kill you. Ironically for the conversation, one of the key things disrupted by water poisoning is the balance of chlorine ions in nerves.

So is water poisonous even though we rarely consume it in toxic amounts?
Is chlorine not poisonous because we require a quantity of it to live?

Or, maybe, poison is better used for a substance that is or will cause disruption to functions if introduced to the body. A glass of water isn't poisonous, but a 5 gallon jug is. A full fox glove plant is poisonous, but a trace of the digitalis it contains is medicine.

I'm not sure why we would need a blind study of chlorine in water. We can just look at aggregate health trends in several populations. A blind is necessary when researchers are performing an intervention, but if you're not intervening you don't need one, just a way to deal with possible confounding variables. A typical one is "observational populations large enough to cover almost all variables", like you get by looking at population aggregated health data across entire countries.
It how we gauge the effectiveness of things like flossing and brushing your teeth where it's considered unethical to require a subject to forgo a procedure believed to be beneficial. It's not like you learn nothing just because your methodology didn't eliminate every confounder.

Nono, not acknowledging the sacrifices of the first people to forage a wild hot pocket and try it, blind to the knowledge of if it was edible or thermally safe is immoral.

When you eat a bowl of berries you're relying on the sacrifices of unpaid and forgotten people who tried them first and didn't die.
When you eat a heaping bowl of pop tarts ™ you're relying on the sacrifices of paid and forgotten people who tried them first and didn't die in legally actionable numbers.

The key to solving the immorality of exploiting these people is money, because money solves morality.

Much like the image, my comment is a joke, so I'd be genuinely worried if it held up particularly well.

Okay?

People disagreeing on the boundaries or details of a definition doesn't make it not an objective definition.

It seems pretty clear to me that tea would fall into the ultra processed category, since it's an extraction of a highly processed ingredient. Home baking, fermentation and cheese making would all be processed because they're a transformation of unprocessed foods or processed food ingredients like flour. I'm not incredibly familiar with the classification system so I'm not sure where a piece of uncured beef, an unprocessed food, cooked with salt, a processed food ingredient, would go. I'm thinking it would be processed, like bread, but I'm not sure where seasoning falls.

Disagreement in the boundary conditions is pretty normal. Geologists disagree on exactly where different types of rock fall on the classification scales. Biologists disagree on a wide array of animal taxonomic boundaries.
You wouldn't say that geology lacks an objective definition of what is or isn't limestone, you'd just note that some people would disagree with the classification of some samples.

I don't know what to say other than, maybe, poison is poison.

I feel like I was pretty resoundingly disputing that bit, because it's not a true statement. Concentration matters. A substance not being readily eliminated from the body is just one way for a concentration to become high enough to do harm.

Yes. Sometimes science misses an outcome. It's entirely about balancing risks with benefits. The risk of chlorine as a water additive is low, because we've studied it, there's no theoretical mechanism, and it's been in use for several generations with no ill effects. The benefits are cost effective clean drinking water.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10260459/

Cheese, fermented and baked goods are typically processed, but can be ultra processed depending on the specifics of production.

The image should provide a more concise feel.
Basically:

• pick it up off the ground and wash it.
• crush it, chop it, toast it
• crush, chop, toast and mix things from the previous two categories
• the refined or reconstituted constituent portions of the above, optionally with other addictive not typically considered food in isolation.

Unprocessed, minimally processed, processed and ultra processed, respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification

It's not like this is a weird health nutter concept. It's also not like these foods are necessarily as bad as some people like to act. But it is definitively objectively definable.

Yes. People have conflated the term "processed food" with the higher end processing that some foods get, more correctly called ultra processed foods.

Processing food is transforming it from one state to another. Bread is a processed food because you've milled the wheat. Acme® Fued lewps™ are ultra processed because the corn was dissolved in acid, reconstituted into a fiberless slurry, fortified with enough vitamins to be legally referred to as nutrition, fortified with enough sugar, salt and fats to make your body demand you eat more, then bulked with milk protein concentrates to make you feel like you're eating something substantial and also qualify as a dairy product for tax purposes.

The conversation would often be much clearer if people didn't use the term for "almost all food" when thet mean the more chemistry oriented type of food.

Even within the category of ultra processed foods there are items that are perfectly benign. Breakfast cereals can be perfectly healthy, but they're necessarily ultra processed since you need at least minimal shelf stability.

Processing isn't intrinsically bad, it's just that the worst foods are ultra processed because that's how they did the things that make them bad, and every transformation destroys some portion of the food, and eventually you need to start adding things back in to make it keep being food, or at least appearing to be food.