Oh, for sure. And I agree that the death penalty is fundamentally inhumane. I also understand that justice is hard to manage and measure. Idk, I'm drunk and not paid enough to have to make hard decisions like that, and for that I'm very much appreciative. :)
Honestly, I heavily considered going and hunting out case studies on hypoxia, and everything, but honestly, I don't care enough. I've invested too much emotional effort into this already, tbh.
I will point out that Philip Nitschke is actively in favor of execution by nitrogen asphyxiation, and has even personally worked on the design of a containment chamber for that exact purpose. His only complaint was with the Alabama methodology, not the idea itself.
And I disagree with you're assessment that the point is the cruelty, but obviously neither of us will ever convince the other on that score.
Regardless my man, I hope the weekend is treating you well, and you're getting some good rest and finding peace where you're at. I'mma go touch grass, lol. Peace. :)
You're actively mischaracterizing what the experts are saying though. They are saying that testing novel execution methods on a person is torture definitionally. They are asserting that it's torture even if the method is absolutely painless.
And I absolutely don't disagree that the man was thrashing and gasping for 20+ minutes. But I think it's very germaine to point out that he was thrashing and gasping for 20+ minutes the last time they tried to execute him, and they didn't even get a needle in his arm.
I'm sorry my dude, but I really think you're trying to put a spin on the facts. I'm not even arguing that it's not torture. You're literally killing the guy, right? It doesn't mean that it's not painless (physically, not mentally, obviously.) And just because you assert that that is what the experts are saying simply doesn't make it true.
But people die from nitrogen asphyxiation all the time. It's in fact well studied that it is so deadly because it can kill you without you even knowing there is a problem. This is widely accepted as fact.
And we know that animals sense oxygen presence differently than humans. I can't find a single reputable source saying otherwise. All admit that humans don't sense oxygen deprivation the same way many other animals do.
And yes, this man struggled for 20min on a gurney. Just like he did when they tried to give him a lethal injection. They never even got the needle in for that one. Dude didn't want to die, which is super reasonable. Of course he struggled. It doesn't mean the method of execution was painful.
I don't have a belief without evidence. I have a belief based on accounts of people accidentally exposed to high nitrogen environments.
And while I certainly agree that it's unethical to study nitrogen asphyxiation by trying to kill people with it, that's not the only way to study the effects of breathing nitrogen on the human body. We study accidents and suicide attempts after the fact.
We in fact can learn about things that kill people without actively and purposely killing people with them.
How so? Cause the dude was vigorously fighting the guys holding a mask to his face to try and stop them from killing him? I don't think that's evidence that nitrogen asphyxiation is painful. Dude did the same thing with the lethal injection, and they never even managed to get the needle in.
I thought, hmm, maybe this guy is right, and there is some body of research that says nitrogen asphyxiation is actually painful, so I tried to find a source to that fact. I couldn't find a single one.
I found many saying the Alabama protocols for administering it were bad, and could prolong the process.
I found many saying that leakages were dangerous, as the other people in the room might die of nitrogen asphyxiation without even knowing it was happening.
I've read that the man being executed really really would like to not be executed, and is fighting tooth and nail to prevent it, leading to thrashing about on the gurney.
I've found sources saying that testing out novel execution methods on inmates is by definition torture, and cruel and unusual punishment.
But I can't find a single source that claims the process is physically painful. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, I'd love to know. Can you link me something that says so? I mean this very sincerely. I'd like to be corrected if so.
But all I can find are those things listed above. Nothing at all that I can find that implies that nitrogen asphyxiation is anything other than unnoticeable to the person it kills.
If an execution is going to happen, I think doing it in the most humane way possible is better than torturing them to death. That's a positive switch, even if it's still bad.
Humans don't have low oxygen sensitivity. That's pretty well established fact. Nitrogen asphyxiation is basically "little bit dizzy -> pass out -> dead."
It is absolutely, certainly, no question more humane than any other method of execution.
Note, I don't say that it is humane, just that it's more humane. And I'd much prefer that, if an execution is going to happen, it be as humane as possible.
It's more that it's trying to catch people who've changed their names for political purposes.
People who got married and changed their name notionally didn't do so for political purposes, and are therefore excluded from having to report.
It's not that it's to provide blanket history on every candidate for research purposes. It's a catch to ferret out those who would abuse the name change process to avoid accountability. This gives the public the ability to know if that is occuring.
Out of curiosity, would you feel the same if the question was, "If I could snap my fingers and cure everybody on earth who has a terminal illness, would it be unethical to do so?"
Like, you would be modifying their body without their consent. On the other hand, you're literally curing people with terminal illnesses. Seems churlish of them to complain.
I mean, Article 1 Section 2?
The Three Fifths Compromise seems like it's pretty race based to me. I suppose it probably doesn't explicitly outline that it's based on race, just enslavement status of the person, but that's splitting hairs a bit, no?
Desktop vs laptop doesn't matter much for any given CAD software. Just make sure you hit the recommend specs of whatever software you're looking to use.
The bigger thing will be if whatever CAD software that is is Windows exclusive or not. I'd check that before deciding to go the Linux route (which most people on here are going to try to steer you towards.)
Fair on all counts. I guess my counter then would be, what is AI art other than running a bunch of pieces of other art through a computer system, then adding some "stuff you did" (to use your phrase) via a prompt, and then submitting the output as your own art.
That's nearly identical to my fractal example, which I think you're saying would actually be fair use?
I feel like you latched on to one sentence in my post and didn't engage with the rest of it at all.
That sentence, in your defense, was my most poorly articulated, but I feel like you responded devoid of any context.
Am I to take it, from your response, that you think that a fractal image that uses a copywritten image as a seed to it's random number generator would be copyright infringement?
If so, how much do I, as the creator, have to "transform" that base binary string to make it "fair use" in your mind? Are random but flips sufficient?
If so, how is me doing that different than having the machine do that as a tool?
If not, how is that different than me editing the bits using a graphical tool?
Out of curiosity, how far do you extend this logic?
Let's say I'm an artist who does fractal art, and I do a line of images where I take jpegs of copywrite protected art and use the data as a seed to my fractal generation function.
Have I have then, in that instance, taken a copywritten work and simply applied some static algorithm to it and passed it off as my own work, or have I done something truly transformative?
The final image I'm displaying as my own art has no meaningful visual cues to the original image, as it's just lines and colors generated using the image as a seed, but I've also not applied any "human artistry" to it, as I've just run it through an algorithm.
Should I have to pay the original copywrite holder?
If so, what makes that fundamentally different from me looking at the copywritten image and drawing something that it inspired me to draw?
If not, what makes that fundamentally different from AI images?
Oh, for sure. And I agree that the death penalty is fundamentally inhumane. I also understand that justice is hard to manage and measure. Idk, I'm drunk and not paid enough to have to make hard decisions like that, and for that I'm very much appreciative. :)