Do you care to explain how I'm wrong? All you did was post a link to the article. I read the article and it does not say anywhere that I can find that I'm wrong. Maybe if you want to use a source to make an argument you should, you know, actually make the argument.

The article does say:

which agrees to what I said. It also explains that it took 7 months for the officer to be charged, whereas Waddy was charged immediately.

Now, as to the other charges against Waddy, they included assault charges, but it is very hard to find much about the precise nature of those charges. This case is cited in a number of places as a case where someone was charged for actions of non-accomplices that harmed bystanders, but it is hard to find precise confirmation. None of the news articles go into enough detail and the major search engines are steaming heaps of garbage that just regurgitate news articles now. I tried going back to news articles right around the time of the original arrest and shooting. Same problem of course with detail, plus all of the articles at the time seemed to be credulously repeating what later turned out to be pretty much outright lies from the police.

So, it is cited as an example, but it is unclear. What is clear is that there were assault charges. Now, it is possible that those were instead about the fist fight that the police were originally called about, but the only victims named by any of the articles are the ones who were shot. Basically, while it still seems likely that this was an example of what we were talking about, there are no reliable primary sources immediately available to demonstrate it. At one point I would have searched harder and looked for court filings, etc. but the return is just so low since you seem unlikely to accept even absolute proof.

There are plenty of other examples though of police shootings leading to the person the police were after being charged for the indirect killing, even though the killer was not an accomplice. Try looking up Donald Sahota in Washington. He was an off duty police officer from Vancouver who was chasing a burglary suspect with his gun out. He was shot and killed by a Sheriff's deputy who thought he was the burglar. The burglary suspect was charged for murder as a result. That one seems like a pretty clear cut example meeting the criteria. The person killed was killed by a police officer (unless we want to nitpick on the differences between a deputy and a police officer). They were not an accomplice to the suspect the police were responding to. The suspect who they were responding to was charged with the death of someone they did not directly kill and who was killed by police.

Not that it invalidates what you are saying, I just want to be clear the 30 miles deep is underground. No water to displace there. The deepest part of the ocean is about 7 miles deep.

That is true, but that is not the point. I was not responding specifically to that very specific example. I was responding to the part about:

Which was frankly surreal since that category or spectrum obviously already exists (not under their made up name, of course) and it is truly bizarre to encounter anyone who does not know that. It's like talking to someone who does not know that there are different kinds and severity and causes of diabetes and that people with diabetes just need to "stop eating like pigs". Or people who don't believe that allergies exist and intentionally put things into people's food that they say they're allergic to. Etc., etc. Those, and others, by the way are real examples. Actual people I have met in real life. They really think that allergies are made up. As in, they think there is literally no such thing and that they're entirely made up. It's basically right up there with flat Earthers and people who think the moon landings were faked. You just feel like, somehow, they're not living in the same universe as you.

Regarding Waddy. If the charges were dropped, that means that he was being prosecuted on those charges, so what I said is correct. Also, just worth noting that the officer shot 7 people and got probation whereas Waddy went to prison for 2 1/2 years on a firearms possession charge. This was after pleading guilty to the possession charge. In other words, a plea deal. The prosecution over assault charges for the shootings was not dropped because of the prosecution of the officer, it was dropped because he took a deal.

The very simple fact is that it is indeed the case that someone can be charged for shootings by a third party who is explicitly not their accomplice if they commit a crime that leads to the shooting. I am making no claim on whether this is right or wrong, or what a jury will decide in court, or how prosecutors might decide to handle it, or any other point. I am saying only that it can, and does happen and that my statement is demonstrably true due to recent court cases.

Certainly the data aggregation is a real one. In theory, it is a separate issue from people doing their own private filming and photography in public though. Now, modern technology and the relentless corporate push to make all data produced by everyone corporate property stored on public servers instead of kept privately certainly bridges those two issues. Regardless though, we should not conflate them.

Oof. You really seem to have it bad on this trying to pretend that you're actually politically neutral/both sides thing. I'm not a partisan. I have political leanings and preferences of course. I simply recognize the extreme limitations of the US system of elections. I am basically very much against one of the two major parties because of a pretty long list of the ways they are completely against the majority of my principles. Until the broken system is fixed (which does not seem likely any time soon, since the vast majority of people don't really seem to grasp the most severe problems with it), that means that I have to weigh the lesser evil. As it stands at the moment, there is, from my perspective, a clear greater evil, so the choice is pretty much a default. I am not some sort of fan or zealot. Frankly though, I think you know all this. I don't think you're calling me "partisan slime" because you believe it. I think you're doing it because you know that I am not, but you also think that calling me something I am not will trigger me, so it's just a cheap trick on your part.

$100/MWh isn't remotely competitive any more, mostly, but because of the "base-load" need, you might get that much. If it can't produce power cheaper than that, though, it won't fly.

Nuclear dreams are now in a race with batteries, basically - if batteries get down to $20/kWh as the CAPEX, keeping around enough batteries for a dunkelflaute every few years, starts to compete with $100/MWh of baseload.

And then there's geothermal, just a big question mark right now, but the chancers doing pilot plants are definitely aiming for less than $100/MWh - and for power that may not just be base-load, but have some storage capability so it can flex up more power at night, hold it back during the day. If they make that happen, nuclear has to beat them or die.

The OpenSSL library implements TLS protocols. It's not like you have to rename the library when you add support for new protocols and ciphers.

You needed a handbook for that?

Anyone who ever went to a business meeting could've told you that.

By my experience, it takes only 4 things to make a meeting productive: a) someone is in charge of the meeting and moderation, b) that someone had time to prepare, c) everyone in the meeting has received an agenda with enough lead time to have read it and (if necessary) prepare their part, at least a bit and finally d) there is at least a simple protocol of the meeting for those who couldn't attend, those who dozed off in the middle, and those who claim next week that something else was agreed on.

For starters, the compromise of 1877 is still really just a theory. Whether there was or was not a secret compromise is irrelevant to the slates of electors though (although clearly relevant to the general voter suppression discussion). I suggest however that we just talk about the contested Presidential election of 1876.

As far as the slates of electors go, we have four disputed states: Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon each with two slates of alternate electors. In Florida, the state canvassing (returning) board produced one slate of electors. The incoming Governor produced the other slate. In Louisiana the returning board produced one slate of electors and a candidate for governor produced the other. In South Carolina, the returning board produced one slate and the Democratic party produced the other slate. In Oregon, the two slates of electors were a bit confusing, there was an original slate of electors that effectively had authority from the governor and the secretary of state, but the governor tried to disqualify one and that have that one replace the others and that slate was also effectively originally produced by the governer and the secretary of state.

So, basically, the authority of the the slates of electors varied in legitimacy, but for all of them, there was some real question about the legitimacy of of the election. In three of those cases, the returning board produced electors based on decisions about illegitimate votes that were disputed. In Oregon, there was an eligibility dispute. In the 2020 election, while there were recounts and lawsuits, etc. none of them put the actual outcome of the elections in any of those states in any real doubt. Also, no state officials actually backed or certified any of those alternate slates of electors. Aside from that, in 1876, the certification was handled by a commission formed by Congress to deal with the crisis and none of the alternate slates of electors were trying to be electors after that as I said. Sure, there was a less concrete and defined process for certification (and the electoral college has always been a stupid idea for this and other reasons) at the time, but it was sorted out and then there was certification and, after certification, no more alternate slates of electors. Those are some of the critical differences, between 1876 and 2020.

You certainly do have a point about the rules not actually being very well defined and relying on good faith. I don't need to concede that, I already agree quite wholeheartedly that's a serious problem the US has. I have often, for example, pointed out that the problem with the Constitution is that, despite its principals, it has no teeth. Anyway, the ambiguity and reliance on good faith does mean that we're really picking at nits here. So, to be clear, there were other slates of electors in the past, I would not class all of those as legitimate though. Some appear to have been legitimate alternates created by state officials in relative good faith. Others were created by entities with no official state position at the time and really just qualify as fake electors. I mean, we're just nitpicking over an irrelevancy here. Fake electors were fake back in 1876 and fake electors were fake in 2020. Some alternate slates of electors have been legit. The ones in 2020 were not.

Potato, topato. In a de facto two party system it works out to more or less the same thing. Not giving someone being chased by a polar bear a ride on your snowmobile does not imply feeding them to a polar bear, except that they, you know, get eaten by a polar bear because you didn't.

I think I have been clear that I support the Democrats over the Republicans certainly. If that's a side, then I suppose you could say I have a side. If there were an alternate party whose goals aligned more with my own though, I would drop the Democrats in a heartbeat provided that they actually had a chance to win (which, in the present system, they would not because de facto two party system). So, in that sense. The one that I meant, I do not have a "side". So you can not believe me if you want, but it's just a matter of semantics, not reality. I don't have loyalty to sides, I am simply pragmatic in my choice.

Also:

Say what? That's a bit out of nowhere.

What rhetorical goals am I supposedly trying to hide? I stated my position pretty clearly. You're kind of reminding me of politicians, speaking of their opponents declaring that "they have an agenda!" as if it's something sinister and that politicians do, in fact have agendas and normally publish them.

Not really. While some pharmaceutical reps may still find ways to provide monetary rewards to some psychiatrists for prescriptions, the majority of psychiatrists don't have a path to profit by prescribing medication. Then there's the fact that psychiatrists are outnumbered by psychologists, who can't prescribe drugs by about two to one. Also, if the drugs are effective, that can mean less paying work for either. People whose conditions are handled by medications tend to be less likely to come in for therapy.

Except that psychologists are not MDs and can not prescribe medications.

Most of that testing is not done by contract professionals unless the school refers them though. Schools actually have a financial incentive for students not to be diagnosed with any sort of condition that requires accommodation. IEPs are expensive.

Well, I would say through new patients since there's frankly a shortage of such professionals compared to people who need treatment.

Sure, I see your point despite my rebuttals in this post. I would refer you to the APA's ethical code of conduct though. While certainly some in the profession can violate those rules, many practicing in the profession seem to care about the rules

Right, so:

Is not an absolute statement, so that's all I was saying.

Ugh. That would be a scary incentive for the government to introduce contract police who are totally government officials, but somehow magically skirt around the requirement. No, what you are proposing would, one way or another, be a slippery slope towards losing the ability to record police. Also, although that is a compelling reason to not take away the right to film in public, it is hardly the only reason. There are other areas of public good. Lots of them. What about recording criminals, for example. Or any sort of reporting? Taking family photos in public places? Any of hundreds of other reasons people find cameras desirable inventions in the first place?

That doesn't sound like a great entertainment proposition to me. Maybe if you do some actual interesting work with constructing things out of diamond that you can showcase...

Sorry, I am not sure what any of your comment has to do with my comment. I was pointing out that it's incredibly unrealistic to claim that, if the Russians hit the Chernobyl dome it most likely purely accidental or that it wasn't even the Russians, but a fragment of a Ukrainian anti-air missile. The reason is big sky theory. There are no valid targets remotely near the site of the strike. So, if it was a completely random hit from something many, many miles off course, it would have been an amazing coincidence.

Maybe you meant that hitting the dam was also some sort of coincidental hit? It does not seem likely though. That seems like it hit the target it aimed at, just like it seems that the drone that hit the Chornobyl dome hit the target it was aimed at.