At least for me and many others I spoke to.

Go and use books to train AI.

Just don't fucking destroy them afterwards! Many of these are out of print, impossible to replace! How much of a douchebag do you have to be to destroy them ?

You are so wrong. The country I live in now has it. It's not called the same, but it amounts to the same. Near impossible to sue the police here.

I'm pretty sure most countries have something similar on the books.

Presumably somebody told them hiking is a thing. That person did not tell them how to do prepare for longer hikes.

However, I don't think this points to a systemic failure. There are thousands of teens hiking in the woods at any time and most of them have no trouble.

Just looking at the map is deceiving too. The trails are not always drawn with the right level of detail to see how long it is. If you look at a diagram of the small intestines you wouldn't guess that it's three times longer than your entire body.

I'm fairly sure at least one entire department at MS is tasked with making sure people don't switch to other formats, that despite on-paper "open" XML it remains incompatible and no competitor software can flawlessly read and write it.

So no, unless you can hire a dozen people full-time to counter that, you don't have a chance to break through that.

Qualified immunity is a reasonable concept that I agree is needed for police work.

It's just being completely overdone, used to cover up clear abuse. The basic idea of "when in doubt, police still needs to be able to act" is sound. The actual practice "unless you can prove to criminal standards and beyond, that the police officer knew at that exact moment, that what they were doing was totally definitely illegal and they intentionally decided to break a law. That's quite a bit too much of "err on the side of caution".

What a complete and utter surprise... to the three people who are so high their brain stopped working but miraculously didn't kill them.

For everyone else, this was literally the first thing we thought about, right? Please tell me I'm not the last sane person on planet Earth. Nobody expected that this would NOT be abused in such ways, right?

Protein intake increases thermogenesis. This FGF21 is probably being released when protein is low because more body heat is needed when digestion and absorption aren't producing it, but we know protein-rich diets result in more total thermogenesis.

Yep, and that makes all of the complaints about social consequences completely moot. You can just use real photos of a bomb crater next to a Gaza hospital.

Which is why you never answer "yes" to anything a prosecutor asks you. It's always a trap. In this case, asking if this is your account and not asking if you sent those messages is the trap.

Hard disagree.

There are mistakes that can happen - getting a phone number wrong, knocking on the wrong street number, stuff like that, sure.

But all of those mistakes need to be found and fixed DURING the investigation. This is the duty of the police officiers.

Not finding any evidence and STILL going to trial - that's on the prosecution. But I doubt that there would have been a conviction if police had not omitted things or outright lied in court. I doubt any courd would hand down a guilty verdict if all the police involved said that they found no evidence of anything.

The death penalty should be points based. Only people who commit multiple serious crimes should receive it.

If the chances of you being wrongfully convicted once is 5%, then the chances of you being wrongfully convicted 3 times is 0.0125%.

Of course the chances of being wrongfully convicted 5% of the time is still a travesty. The deprivation of a significant portion of their life in prison is only a few degrees different from deprivation of their entire rest of their life. We should aim for 0.5% or less. Then the chances of being wrongfully convicted 3 times is 0.0000125% (1 in 8 million).

There's options besides jury and no jury.

You can have a selection process where the prospective juror has to pass a quiz with some basic deductive reasoning questions. You can have professional jurors who have to take a class. You can have a panel of judges acting as a jury.

Pleading the 5th will harm you. The prosecution will bring somebody to weave a story in front of the jury. If you don't take the stand, their version of the story becomes much more believable. I suspect there is something innate about believing people who claim to have experienced it talking directly to you. You have to be extremely analytical to look at the physical evidence that contradicts the narrative and actually believe that over your gut feelings.

It's the same type of legal fiction as pretending every person knows every law.

If you want it to work properly, you have to stop allowing anyone to take the stand. Letting people take the stand, especially victims, create an emotional bias and unfairly helps people who are good actors.

I think another 20 years probably. People don't really want to be jurors. The moment they can hand it off to a good enough AI, they'll go for it.

He was probably told by the board to get on board with AI.