Search

Everybody here is kinda right, but there are other factors to consider, and the net result is that it's usually not a case worth bringing.

The "Impossibility" defense says that in most cases, the "factual" impossibility of committing the crime is not a defense, but taking an action that is not a crime is a defense, and if raised must be proved by the prosecution. Even with "Factual," the line gets muddy (the article cites a person whose appeal won after they were convicted of poaching after shooting a stuffed deer). Many jurisdictions have a "reasonable person" standard for that as well, where if the act is the sort of thing that might normally be expected to result in a crime (the most infamous case is two US military personnel who thought they were raping a passed out woman, but really she had died from a heart attack) then you get no benefit, but if no reasonable person would believe that their action would do anything, then it's more likely to succeed. To answer one of your questions, being told the button sets off a bomb would be more problematic for our hypothetical asshole than being told it "just kills" somebody that would be a bigger problem than a Death Note notebook, but it's not a simple yes/no.

So anyway, this then raises some questions. Was this button setup convincing? Who did the convincing? Why did they do so? Other defenses might arise out of these conditions: e.g. they were told that pushing the button would save a bunch of other people, trolley-problem style, or it was the police egging them on and telling them they needed to for XYZ good reason. Many of them will turn on the defendant's thoughts, so in any jurisdiction where they are not obligated to testify (e.g. the United States), our very interesting defendant simply doesn't, and their attorney argues that there's reasonable doubt they thought the button would actually do anything.

Add on top of this prosecutorial discretion. A prosecutor knows all of this, and knows this is a loser of a case, so apart from truly bonkers hypothetical, they will not bring it.

TL;DR: By the letter of the law, very probably yes, but no one will ever get convicted for it.

Depends on your jurisdiction. In Germany, the bar for murder is one of [1]:

• an [inner] desire to kill
• killing for sexual reasons
• greed
• “other despicable motivations”

and one of:

• cruelty
• insidiousness
• using “tools dangerous for public safety”
• the motivation to conceal or enable another crime.

In my layman’s understanding, pressing the button checks the ‘insidious’ box, since it is not at all expectable by the victim.

As for the first set of conditions, it would probably be down to a court ruling if the person checked the ‘desire to kill’ box (as I understand it, they wouldn’t) or the ‘other despicable motivations’ box – is killing for no reason a despicable reason?

[1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__211.html

I don't think/know of a software union

CWA and IATSE are both in the tech industry, CWA represents over 2000 employees in Microsoft alone.

wouldn't know where to start

CWA offers training!

I'm on visa

Labor law protects everyone in the US, not just citizens, but I will be honest and say that risks to you are higher than normal. Aggressive union busting is a risk every organizer has to take, but just remember that Mother Jones, and several union heroes, were immigrants too in an even more hostile environment.

This is probably not at all what this person is like, but the way I read this made me picture someone desperate to prove that they’re cool and hip by being part of the LGBTQIA+ community. I have never heard of anyone like this, though I have heard of someone very European claiming to be native American for the street cred so I wouldn’t say no one would ever do the same with sexuality.

like this

I like this comparison to see how they were right about different facets together.

It’s essentially Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia from 1984 come-to-life. I’m kinda beating this one to death, but I hate how correct George Orwell seems to have been:

I say “I hate” it intentionally, because George Orwell is the same guy who also wrote:

There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.

So maybe not the rosiest of outlooks, if he keeps nailing it.

And they say Canadians are a polite people.

Enjoy then, I guess. 🤷

_{This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0}

"It's not me it's someone I know" reads like "it's a cylinder" 😅

For me it’s easy to imagine an article being linked to two communities that are going to have drastically different takes.

!cars@lemmy.world and !fuckcars@lemmy.world for example.

Now I can see wanting to have a discussion across both communities, but I can also see /c/cars wanting discuss cars without having every conversation devolve into an argument or admonishment.

As I was writing this another problem came to mind. You have a pooled discussion across two or more communities with two or more moderation policies. How could that be reconciled?

A good long form video on Flat Earth and Qanon by Dan Olsen. In case someone is new and curious about what Qanon is.

In Search Of A Flat Earth

If you personally perceive it as spam, feel free to block me. Have a nice day.

_{This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0}

[off topic?]

Since you mentioned fiber, I decided to give a plug for wheat germ.

Just create an alt account and ask on AskLemmyNSFW

Echoing other lemmings, there's basically no difference. There js a certain niche who seem to think that pansexual is more trans inclusive, but that attitude doesn't align with almost all bisexuals opinions on the matter, or with the history of how the bisexual community has been accepting and collaborating with the trans community since pretty much the birth of both communities.

The delightful verilyremovedie, who is both bisexual and trans, has a bunch of good video on the history of bisexuality, trans stuff, and biphobia*. They are defintely worth watching!

/* it's pretty hard to hear 'bisexuals exclude trans people' and not feel like that's an example of biphobia.

Internationally, the wars continue. The US military stockpile is structured so that if there's a full US commitment to a war, the stockpile will last a couple of years while the US transitions to a wartime footing, building and renovating munitions factories to continue the war effort. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the US and the EU started sending their stockpiles to Ukraine, and they ramped up munitions production - but neither power pivoted ro full wartime production. Hell, the European NATO countries were still debating whether to dedicate 2% of their GDP to defence.

With Trump fully in Putin's pocket, the US is going to drastically scale back the supply of arms to Ukraine, and the EU isn't in a position to make up the entire shortfall. Even now, they're talking about giving money and supplying some arms, but I'm not seeing any reports of building new factories or scaling up production at existing ones (it takes a couple years to fully scale up production, so extra arms available now needed to be started 2 years ago, and extra production now won't make a noticable difference until two years from now). So Ukraine is going to be struggling for arms.

The good news for Ukraine is that Russia has also been struggling with both manpower and munitions. Putin is relying on literal cannon fodder from other countries and his own prisoners to make the war palatable to his people. But I think it's possible he may decide to push harder, annex a bunch of Ukraine, then declare that the war is over and spend some time consolidating his gains.

In the meantime, I'd expect the US to be increasingly focused on the war in Israel, both as a distraction from Ukraine and because Trump really wants 'wins' there - in this case, he likely wants to build some hotels, and he'd really like to be able to proclaim that he "brought peace to the Middle East" [the genocide of the Palestinian people being a mere technicality to Trump].

With the US being increasingly unreliable, Europe will focus more on their own affairs (including Russia and Ukraine). The US will go their own way on things, increasingly alone and alienated. It will never be fully trusted again (nor should it be), so accomplishing foreign policy goals is going to be increasingly hard, and accomplishing domestic goals isn't going to be much easier.

The US economy will eventually collapse and the weight of the national debt will come crashing down. That's going to affect other countries as well, though I don't know enough to be able to predict how badly. The US will end up the big loser and Russia can probably chalk up some wins in Ukraine. The Arabic countries will make noises about Israel, but I don't think full-scale war will happen there, just long-simmering tensions with both sides encouraging terrorism.

I think China and India are poised to be the big winners: they're both staying publicly out of things, biding their time, waiting for America to fall and Europe to be more internally-focused. And at some point, human civilization collapses, because we couldn't agree that maybe we should just buy less stuff and all the infrastructure and farmland is swallowed by rising sea levels, extreme drought, floods, wildfires, hurricanes and whatever else is waiting for us.

This is a great video, I havent seen it before.

I like this cited document on the subject as well: https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat

There is a !ketogenic@dubvee.org community here if your interested.

The only expressly illegal crypto technologies are mixers like Tornado cash.

Also, the law doesn’t define morality. Illegality just means that it threatens the parties in power (in this case, the Fed) enough that they have made laws against it.

A list from Suckfeed of things that are illegal but arguably not immoral:

• Ringing up two bananas instead of four to six at the grocery self-checkout. Produce is already inflated.
• Smoking pot outdoors. I use it for pain control and to help me walk. I have to carry it out and about, or I collapse.
• Riding your bike on the sidewalk.
• In at least 68 different countries, it is illegal to be gay.
• leaving your ID at home. POC have been killed for not having ID.
• In New York state, there are laws against 'fortune tellers' that are still on the books. I remember going through my penal code book in school and asking, 'WTF?!' It's just one of those old things that state legislature doesn't have time or incentive to change and goes back culturally to the racial stigma of 'gypsy' scam artists.
• Permits or anything that is punishable by fine just means it's legal for the rich."
• In my country, it's illegal to feed stray animals, which are mostly very friendly. On the other hand, it's perfectly legal, and I see it hundreds of times a day, to litter everywhere you want. Trash, plastic, cigarette butts are everywhere, the air is polluted and so is the water. Anyone can take down a tree or row of trees and destroy a forest, but you can't feed stray puppies and kittens? Seriously?
• Loitering, aka vagrancy, was criminalized as a way to arrest Black people, especially Black men.
• Any sort of consensual crime. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, weird sex. If everyone is consenting, I think it being legal makes it more regulated and much safer.
• what The Adjuster did last year.
• Sex work! It's a consensual transfer of money for services. The only reason it became illegal is because it gave women independence, and the only reason it is dangerous now is because it’s illegal. Legalize it, regulate it, and make people in the industry feel safe to report crimes and abuse.
• Assisted death. Terminally ill people should absolutely have the right to die with dignity on their own terms, instead of drawn-out, painful, oftentimes expensive, slow deaths.
• Downloading college ebooks for free instead of spending $400 on the latest version. Usually, all they did was change the spelling of a few words and called it v87.12458281648391846 of the book, and then they required it for your college class.
• Pirating media that isn't available for purchase in your area. You weren't going to get my money either way.
• Loitering in a park. I've always wondered why this is illegal in some places. The point of a park is to loiter.
• There’s a stoplight on my commute where I need to turn left. The light is a hard red/not on a timer. It’s not motion-detected. So even at 5:30 a.m., when there is zero traffic in the lanes ahead or behind me, I must wait for the timer or risk a photo-triggered ticket. The left turn lane should be a blinking yellow arrow at all times, TBH.
• Jaywalking and crossing the street on a red light, as a pedestrian, when there are no cars around.