palmetieri2000

Fair points, however at least in Australia is that bartenders are legally supposed to stop serving people that are drunk, (Our Responsible Service of Alcohol laws say 'it is against the law to serve alcohol to an intoxicated customer'. My anecdotal evidence is that you actually have to be too obliterated to verbally get the order out or to stand up for that to happen.

Is a bartender morally obligated to leave because they acknowledge the harm alcohol causes to society?

Is the crypto dev more or less obligated than the bartender?

Really I agree with you, but also feel like this is a thread that people aren't that keen on unravelling or talking about because it leads them to realize that their job probably isn't as 'un-shady' as at first glance.

I really like planning, its the doing that I find much more difficult.

> Do you feel the same way about plumbers? Obviously plumbers don't enforce the law, manage evidence, write legal documents or have legal authority over others. If you can't see the difference in power dynamics between a police officer or lawyer and a member of the public I cant help you.

You're making my point for me, of course police need all of the skills you have listed (except maybe 'how to project authority', whatever that means). All of these skills should be taught to them by other police, while they are learning the job.

They also must know the extent to which they are allowed to use their authority, the situations in which they can use lethal force, the appropriate evidentiary and legal processes for taking a case to court. If they learn this on the job then they are risking making process mistakes, or falsely enforcing the law, or breaching rules of evidence, all on real members of the public. They should be educated in all of these things and the limitations of their power BEFORE they have access to that power.

Education in Justice is not going be focused on contract law, and I reject the assertion that a beat cop doesn't need to know anything about securities fraud. You don't jump in at detective, most police are going to start working the streets and then move to different roles.

I disagree, you highlight a bunch of issues with your university system and then use them to say that police shouldn't need college education. Do you feel the same way about lawyers?

Personally I think the people that actually enforce the law should be some of the most educated on the topic and the justice system, much of which is far too in depth to learn while also being a full time police offer.

The most obvious solution is for police to have degrees in criminal justice or law (as in some non-US countries).

EDIT: reworded for clarity

Great link! Thanks.

Slightly off topic but in Banzi's article (subheading Counterfeits) he mentions the now well known problem of Amazon cohousing different manufacturers products and then effectively sending a random one to the client. I think this is interesting as it still seems to be a problem nearly a decade later.

Just reading the other comments here and you can easily see the quotes others have provided from the relevant emergency people who told this guy to stop, in person, from interfering.

He ignored them and deserves this fine.

Seems pretty clear that they are replying to the 'if he was helpful'...

One of the comments says its a hash collision with some abusive material relating to doxxing.

I wonder how open to manipulation this is...

Hi mate! I'm super interested in this topic.

Why is having a long paddle with fairly low hands beneficial for sea kayaking?

Do you have any resources you think are good quality that I could find somewhere?

Thanks!

The opposition between the poverty and the wealth would be the connection and make it at least relevant. Briefly diverging from an article about a law to make an unrelated, nonsense, sexist jibe is not the same and absolutely indicates a lower quality article.

Not surprise you refuse to say more because what you're saying isn't very sensible.

They pollute his arguments by way of inclusion. Do you think these statements reveal nothing about the quality of his logical processing (at least in this article)?

Right! its like crazy pills. As, yah know, an Australian. It has been a combination of hilarious and revolting watching Americans complain about measures that most Aussies support and use us as an example of depreciating freedoms and declining democracy when we just had a election in which independents and small parties increased their power share significantly.

Quite frankly I think the whining of some 'finfluencer' dickheads about not being able to shill whatever without meeting the legal requirements to provide financial advice in Australia is a dud of an issue that isn't really worth our time and hardly the doomsday of Australian democracy as we know it.

Just actually reading the ASIC infosheet now and the rules are hardly unreasonable, 'The law: Financial product advice is a recommendation or statement of opinion which is intended to influence, or which could reasonably be regarded as being intended to influence, a person making a decision in relation to financial products.

You can share factual information that describes the features or terms and conditions of a financial product (or a class of financial products) without giving financial product advice. However, if you present factual information in a way that conveys a recommendation that someone should (or should not) invest in that product or class of products, you could breach the law by providing unlicensed financial product advice.'

https://asic.gov.au/regulatory-resources/financial-services/...

To me it seems quite clear that a reddit post reviewing facts and details without suggestion to buy, or a youtube video of technical analysis could easily be made in such a way as to not breach these terms.

PS: I briefly read the asic page, feel free to double check!

Legality is not the sole determining factor for making an ethical argument and blanket statements like the commenter you are replying to highlighted adequately demonstrate that the article is more some random guys feelings than any actually sound commentary.

Except that your 'well actually' still exists because you ignored the much more common usage when you made your point and didn't mention anything about your valiant effort to preserve etymological treasures until questioned?

and who was acting blindly?

So does a Drivers License.

Idiotic point

Regardless of how genius your distro is this reeks of self importance and arrogance to an almost satirical level.

This is just outright not true on a global level, maybe in the US, but even then it seems unlikely.

Many of the actions a union will take will do things that do not just 'enrich' its members. Here in Australia, unions will often use their organisational power to lobby government for things like increased safety standards, fair treatment for workers regarding discrimination or after an injury, maternity leave etc. I dont know if you can call keeping your salary during a a time of hardship 'enrichment'.

Further, in Australia we have something called an enterprise agreement (or an 'award' depending), which all workers whom fill the description of the task automatically fall under, this sets the minimum salaries, expected working hours, penalty rates for holiday work, etc. When the government (usually at the behest of an industry or company) wishes to alter the EA, they must negotiate with the union whom will act on behalf of the workers covered by the EA to argue for their desired changes (or things that shouldn't change). These changes are then applied to everyone who works under that EA, union or not. So, here at least, most workers passively benefit from union activity.

Caveat: Probably not 100% correct with minutia of EA and awards, been a while since I took the class that covered this.

Playing devils advocate, they probably strop the edge twice a day with a leather strop or a super fine grit whetstone. This isn't really sharpening as such, very little material will be removed from the blade (as you probably know), but to an observer would appear to be 'sharpening' and would theoretically assist in maintaining the very minor burrs that would occur from daily use on hair, if the scissors have some bypass this may also be desirable as a burred edge can interfere with the bypass action. Caveat, am an Amateur bladesmith, not hairdresser so I don't actually know much about scissors specifically and dont have a frame of reference for how much damage hair does to an edge.

Wow! Really interesting and pretty condemning for the extensive modern use in the US, I just wrote a comment about if some of these stings would or should be considered entrapment replying to another user so I wont repeat myself but thanks for that.

Man... that shit is wild. I'm from a country with a different legal system to the US and I cant help but feel like this would be a form of entrapment here(probably not using the term right from a legal perspective). Is the logic in the US that the individual could/should refuse to participate at each and every step? Ensuring they aren't 'entrapped' despite being presented with a manufactured scenario designed to entice crime because they voluntarily preceded? Especially in the second link where the individual was described as 'dim', if we replace the undercover FBI agent with say, a supportive non-radical religious figure in the Mosque, does this young man go on to try to make a bomb?

Really interesting links thanks!

To be fair that wasn't the user I asked for sources, we should see if they have something still. Also that wiki link was fairly interesting, particularly the Hart case in 2014 in which the Canadian Supreme Court found that using the confession drawn from the Mr. Big technique was inadmissible (although their was a later exception in a relation to a violent case that already had supporting evidence). To me, this would actually support the point the others were making a bit at least... If we can believe that this would have been more common prior to 2014, at least in Canada then MAYBE that could indicate that it was/is commonplace in the US which AFAIK does not have a ruling like in the Hart case.

Not saying you're right or wrong but please provide supporting evidence for the claims you've made. It sounds very armchair espionage to me...

Sweet list and just what I've been looking for lately, thanks so much.

https://github.com/YangPiCui/ErgonomicVerticalKeyboard

This one is hilarious, the design caught my eye with its unique shape and the mandatory pro-Mormon proclamation (which at first I thought was a joke about the shape of the hands on the keyboard being prayer-like) until the creator told me to repent my sins.

Police have beaten people who have called them in Australia, it does not justify me shooting criminals for taking my car parts.

You say 'not as good as the countries you listed.' Yet you dismiss the thoughts of someone from who is trying to explain why people like YOU think we are 'good' countries.

Your last sentence is the summation of the modern American attitude that is so problematic, it is parochial, arrogant and unable learn from the rest of the world unless it is for profit.

And re jury, who do you think the jury is in each of those countries I listed? In Australia my jury is made of my 'peers' too buddy. It just my peers in my system don't believe crime against property justifies summary execution.

The contradiction I see is that (IMO) your property is not you.

If an individual is committing a crime against your property, I do not believe you have the right to kill them. In this thread a lot of people are relying on the logic that stealing your cat converter could lead to you losing your job and spiraling into homelessness.

If someone is doing something that you can reasonably interpret as trying to kill you (or assault you) then you are allowed to defend yourself. This may be shocking to people of your perspective (not a personal attack), but in Australia individuals have been sent to jail for the second punch they have thrown after the first punch had effectively reduced the risk of death or injury to 0 (eg knocked out the criminal, the criminal began fleeing). This is exactly what I am referring to when I said that we grant criminals the same humanity as everybody else. In Australia (and some countries in Europe), Criminals DO expect mercy or pity from their victims, lest the victim risk legal trouble themselves, and if you go and compare the crime rates and violent crime rates of these countries with those that do not practice this philosophy, I think you will find that our harm minimization policy works better.

(little bit confused by your first sentence, I definitely do not support shooting people for stealing ones cat converter, just for clarification)

So if the police are useless and you are beholden to this powerful and highly organized pack of thieves, you think going out there and shooting them is going to make your life any better? What happens if you don't 'get' them all and now you're in a shootout with multiple armed opponents? What about the rest of their organization, reckon they will let you get away with it? Personally, I'd rather have my car temporarily damaged.

What can an average citizen do about their safety net in the US? Probably a whole shitload, anywhere from political participation, union involvement, volunteering, voting for politicians that support a better safety net.