ImAnAmateur

It's ultimately a metric that's been gamified by everyone involved. I think the cynics keep it around because it gives customers a voice.

What would you say is an advantage unique to SMS that would be lost if text messages were switched to another model? I'm asking sincerely. There aren't many people arguing in favor of SMS here, so you seem like the right person to ask.

If there is some context I'm missing, then I wish the author had included it. I don't like having a conversation about guessing what the author is upset about.

This, to me, seems to be the hurdle to clear. These cases are complex and have lots of evidence. The Nevada Supreme Court essentially said that the bite mark evidence in his case is not needed to convict him. The author of the article is seemingly only knowledgeable of the use of teeth "evidence".

I don't even know where to go from here. I'm from Arizona, not Nevada so I don't know their laws. I assume that the effort needed will involve going over this individual's court case, arguing the details in front of a court, traveling to the court, filing and responding to court documents... The whole 9 yards. The biggest hurdle is that freeing this man requires a lot of effort from another man. Who's going to go to bat for this man when maybe there's an easier way to free someone else?

The alternative solution is to campaign for Nevada to change their laws. Or perhaps shame/punish the court for this hypocrisy. The judges are surely accountable to someone else.

I also like the ability to be wrong. I am serious about behaving appropriately so that I don't have to fear being revealed online, but there are some previous posts of mine (even here) that I feel embarassed about because they didn't come across right or I was wrong about something. If one person confronts me about that, I'll live with it. If the internet does, then what if I always have to defend myself because there's ten thousand plus people who ask?

Online, it's hard to have a one-on-one conversation. I may speak to one person, but anyone may reply. I'm sure one day the me online will be 1:1, but until then I like the peace and calm.

Here's the best metaphor I can think of on short notice: John moved to a new city recently and he was looking at the houses along his block. He noticed they all had something on their doors. Curious, he asks a neighbor, Alice, what it was for.

Alice replies, "When it rains."

John is confused. "We had a lovely sprinkle just yesterday." He says with an eyebrow raised. "I think you're too worried."

"No," Alice shakes her head. "When it pours. The water can reach up to your waist."

I'm genuinely not going to know what you think the actual problem is if you don't tell me. I promise I tried looking it up before responding.

Edit: I hadn't thought about purity requirements. Helium baloons do require significantly lower purity than medical uses. So how that lower grade stuff is treated as a whole is the part to consider, rather than helium baloon revenue.

I'm in favor, though sad, of a government ban. It should probably happen slowly so that no one's job is to empty canisters into the open air. Opinions?

I suppose there is one thing I want to say the most. It's not often that I read something that makes me reflect back on the lens of Christianity that I view the world through. There are two points that this article raises about widely practiced Christianity that tap on that glass rather well.

The first is "the monkey dance" and what my response should be. There is no computer logic for this-- something I only say for the computer-minded. I am expected to make the best judgement call as I see it, then to reflect on if what I did was right, then make another judgement call. Here is a short list of Christian teachings that crossed my mind: Turn the other cheek, offer your shirt if they take your jacket; Jesus had his deciples buy swords, but later tells them not to live by the sword lest they die by the sword; do not act out in anger; the tongue can be a whip, can kill, and spew evil, but can also heal and lift up; the strongman wins until a greater strongman comes along and binds him; give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and to god what is god's; god does not need to be in power to do his will.

The other is this idea of being superior and more self-righteous by not taking revenge. That's not in the Bible. That's looking down on others in contempt and allowing fellow citizens to experience harm out of a desire to let the unjust be unjust. The law is for the lawless! There are many ways to strike a balance when it comes to how a place is policed. Countries all over the world do it differently and there are pros and cons. California has the money to do a better job is my opinion. It's a hard question to solve and I won't discuss it further without keeping the conversation to specifics. God looks at the heart. If the "right thing" is done for the wrong reasons then that is something the Christian is directly asked to confront within themselves. I'm reminded of two Christian pieces specifically: God loves a cheerful giver; & The people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

I hope this adds to the discussion. I won't take offense to an athiest retort.

I spoke to a 70 year old co-worker yesterday. They talked about a time when plastic wasn't used anywhere beyond Saran Wrap. How much of our modern plastic use is youthful folly? I grew up with it being normal so I didn't question it. Changing away from it would be abnormal! I suspect there will be a sharp turn away from plastics in several years, but I can't really fathom what that will be to instead. Paper? Metals? Wax? Glass?

I'm not gonna quibble about him changing his story, but it's notable.

https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/analysis-superjet-fire...

Made for interesting reading. I think that it's possible that one more life could have been saved without those carry-on bags. That's a responsibility the passangers and crew both share.

Am I reading this right? That posturing is frustrating.

Still... The argument that developing these tools under the assumption that publicly available data is fair use is what allows upstarts to develop LLM AI tools instead of giant companies is very astute. I think it's 100% correct. It makes me understand why LLMs are a battleground for copyright reform.

I appreciate that the article makes the stance of both sides understandable. It's enough to make me begrudgingly say that I'm glad for having read it.

> It could be that, for some, their relationship is akin to a behavioural addiction, but for others their use could be driven by compulsive checking, others may be relying on it to cope with negative life experiences, and others may simply be responding to negative social perceptions about “wasting time” on social media.

Finally! I feel less smart for not having thought of this myself!

I was unable to meaningfully change my own phone habits (despite serious effort and roadblocks) until it clicked that I was coping for something. What that was and what I was doing to cope highlighted parts of my life like nothing else. Instead of simply abstaining from using my phone, I put time into activities that benefited the withered branches of my life. Old habits still die hard, but knowing that I'm coping as I'm coping helped me separate the good social media use from the bad.

Even if all the statistics are put in front of us, interpreting them might require understanding the distribution of the types of crime they were imprisoned for or other factors local to that city, county, or state.

Perhaps after the first year there are other factors that the graduates struggle with that push them towards prison again? Could be as simple as losing hope. I'd expect it to be bad influences in their daily lives or becoming homeless after failing without a safety net.

What's missing is an interview with someone who has graduated the program and the long-term statistics for all people who enter the program.

> “When they get a job, we ask them simple questions. ‘Hey, how’s it going?’ And they’re just like, ‘Oh, my gosh, do we actually care?’ They are so surprised that we’re asking,” she said.

> But it has to be authentic. If Mrs. C and her partner, Michael Contreras, were just playing a role, he said, the incarcerated men would “read right through everything.”

> “They’re going pick out who really wants them to change and who’s just here for a paycheck,” he said.

There's no substitute for someone genuinely caring, or genuinely trying to care, for someone else. :)

I would love to see this. Both the instructions and the outcome. I have no clue what it would-- could!-- look like.

If something cannot continue forever, then it won't. Population decrease may be inevitable and if so then handling it with less panic is smart.