You don’t accept it, because that’s bullshit. You also don’t accept that it’s somehow your fault that society (and your employer) is okay with that kind of injustice.

I think there are two sane choices, you named one that’s really a good idea cause you do not have to take that shit.

The other one would be sharing this situation with other nurses, forming a union or joining one, and going on strike. Letting the hospital see how well it functions when only those lazy doctors doing 1% of the necessary work and getting 2 thirds of the cake show up.

I think he said fuck

A year ago I would have said climate change for sure, but now WWIII is making a comeback so it’s up for debate.

Really you’re not from the US? I was so positive. Sorry for assuming

Of course you regulate software in the abstract. Have you ever heard of the regulations concerning onboard navigation software in planes? It’s really strict, and mechanics and engineers that work on that are monitored.

Better exemple: do you think people who work on the targeting algorithms in missiles are allowed to chat about the specifics of their algorithms with chat gpt? Because they aren’t.

Do they really? Carving into people’s flesh causes controversy? The US sure is wild.

Even if some of my examples do cause controversy in the US sometimes (I do realize you lot tend to fantasize free speech as an absolute rather than a freedom that - although very important - is always weighed against all the other very important rights like security and body autonomy) they do stand as examples of limits to free speech that are generally accepted by the large majority. Enough that those controversies don’t generally end up in blanket decriminalization of mutilation and vandalism. So I still refute that my stance is not “the default opinion”. It may be rarely formulated this way, but I posit that the absolutism you defend is, in actuality, the rarer opinion of the two.

The example of restriction of free speech your initial comment develops upon is a fringe consequence of the law in question and doesn’t even restrict the information from circulating, only the tools you can use to write it. My point is that this is not at all uncommon in law, even in american law, and that it does not, in fact, prevent information from circulating.

The fact that you fail to describe why circulation of information is important for a healthy society makes your answer really vague. The single example you give doesn’t help : if scientific and tech-related information were free to circulate scientists wouldn’t use sci-hub. And if it were the main idea, universities would be free in the US (the country that values free speech the most) rather than in European countries that have a much more relative viewpoint on it. The well known “everything is political” is the reason why you don’t restrict free speech to explicitly political statements. How would you draw the line by law? It’s easier and more efficient to make the right general, and then create exceptions on a case-by-case basis (confidential information, hate speech, calls for violence, threats of murder…)

Should confidential information be allowed to circulate to Putin from your ex-President then?

Oh yeah? And which restriction of free speech illustrating my previous comment would is even remotely controversial, do you think?

I’ve actually stated explicitly before why I believe it is a thing: to protect political dissent from being criminalized. Why do you think it is a thing?

Yeah, a bunch of speech is restricted. Restricting speech isn’t in itself bad, it’s generally only a problem when it’s used to oppress political opposition. But copyrights, hate speech, death threats, doxxing, personal data, defense related confidentiality… Those are all kinds of speech that are strictly regulated when they’re not outright banned, for the express purpose of guaranteeing safety, and it’s generally accepted.

In this case it’s not even restricting the content of speech. Only a very special kind of medium that consists in generating speech through an unreliably understood method of rock carving is restricted, and only when applied to what is argued as a sensitive subject. The content of the speech isn’t even in question. You can’t carve a cyber security text in the flesh of an unwilling human either, or even paint it on someone’s property, but you can just generate exactly the same speech with a pen and paper and it’s a-okay.

If your point isn’t that the unrelated scenarios in your original comment are somehow the next step, I still don’t see how that’s bad.

I guess let’s deregulate guns then. Oh wait.

Not everything is a slippery slope. In this case the scenario where learning about cybersecurity is even slightly hinderedby this law doesn’t sound particularly convincing in your comment.

I think I just got it! Pi is very close to 5 dB (~4.9714 dB)

The sphynx comes with health concerns as well. And discrimination from other cats which is less the breeder’s fault but can’t be fun.

I actually heard something about that in class not long ago

The story is that Android’s security heavily relies on the compartmentalization of apps that lives in the android layer, over the Linux kernel. Apparently, that functionality works in part because only this layer can perform operations that require root access, no app or user can. So software that allows you to root your phone apparently breaks this requirement, and makes the whole OS insecure. He even heavily implied that one should never root their phone with ‘free’ software found on the internet because that was usually a front for some nefarious shit regarding your data.

I’m just parroting a half-understood and half-remebered speech from a security expert. His credentials were impressive but I have no ability to judge that critically, if anyone knows more about this feel free to correct me.

Well they probably know what they put in the CPUs they export to the US and Europe, so why would they?

deleted by creator

The thing is the motion to be tried as an adult comes before the trial, so it comes before you ascertain anything about motivations, intent, psychological expertise…

I think this whole thing goes with the whole drinking, enlisting in the army, voting… You guys have a legal definition of childhood that’s way fuzzier that I’m used to. In my head, a motivation isn’t mature or not intrinsically, it’s mature or not depending on who has it : if it’s a child it’s not, if it’s an adult it should be so it’s considered as such.

I guess having a hard limit on the eighteenth birthday is weird in its own right… Maybe it’s because I’m old but in my head it should be fuzzy in the other direction: 18 year olds are definitely still kids in most aspects and should get a chance to be tried as children.

Oh good!

Alright then, I guess it’s a bit less cruel with decades or life in prison.

Still an unfathomable decision to me but at least they’re not angling for an infanticide

Why though ? They’re not an adult, and rape is depressingly common in children.

Edit: maybe instead I should focus on the core absurdity of it all: isn’t saying “a 17 year old rapist should be tried as an adult” the same as saying “the laws concerning rape in children 17 and above should be the same as the laws concerning adult rapists”?

Because in this second case you ensure that all children be given the same rights under the law and you get the same severity for 17 year olds for crimes you decide warrant it, rather than a shoddy “hmmm I think this crime is heinous enough to preemptively strip this person from their rights before we even decide on guilt and stuff and maybe the judge will agree”.

Alright I can see how culturally you end up going in that direction.

Still, though, I can’t fathom someone being smart enough to go through all that education to become a state prosecutor, then seeing a terrible story about a kid have access to a gun when they clearly shouldn’t and killing their own mother through sheer childish stupidity and then coming to the conclusion that “you know what would reestablish justice in this situation? Injecting poison into that kid and watching him die.”

Who’s that person? What happened in their life to make them think like that?

Wow, you guys must have a very shallow understanding of what “childhood” and “justice” mean if the culprit being less responsible for their actions make the case more ironclad.

Edit: nvm I’ve looked at your profile after seeing some of your unhinged comments here ; I now fully believe you are eleven yourself and under the delusion that you are, in fact, an adult.