I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which my buttocks is too narrow to contain
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 68
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 68
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
I think they're saying that an increase in school funding doesn't necessarily lead to an increase or decrease in quality of education. Like maybe it's essentially uncorrelated above a minimum amount to fund basics (lights, desks, teachers, etc.). There's a lot more factors than money at play here. In other words, a poorly-run school with bad policies, teachers, etc. is crap whether it has X million dollars or 2X million, and a well-run school is good even with a small budget.
I think it's one of the flaws with representative democracy. When faced with a choice between what's good for the country/state vs. what's popular (or just good for their district), what should an elected official pick? If they go with the former, they will eventually be replaced by someone who votes the other way, and we'll end up with a government of elected officials who only vote selfishly (to get reelected by supporting public opinion, I mean).
Maybe proportional voting would help with legislatures to avoid that, but I don't see a great fix for executives. And proportional voting can also have its own flaws by making parties more influential. The best is trying to elect people who can convince the public/their constituents that what's good for the country (or state) is also good for the people, and change public opinion on the topic. Obama (preceded by VP Biden) coming out in favor of gay marriage worked pretty well on that front. So I guess we're just back to trying to elect the best people, or at least the most influential. But that's also why Trump has been successful politically and that sucks, so I don't know.
Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
No, no, it was originally "Taking God's name in vein," as saying the name of God out loud would allow Him into your blood. If you say the name of God, you allow him to inhabit your blood, gain your power, and become even more mighty. The ancient Hebrews feared God gaining too much power, as He would be able to destroy the world. Then Christians figured out that if they took Communion and instead drank the blood of Christ, they could reverse the Hebrew God's power and slowly increase their own until they could ascend to the heavens and do battle with the Almighty, empowered by His blood in their veins, rather than weakened by taking His name in vein. In this seventeen-part essay, I will describe how we can defeat God by
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Handmade puzzles, i.e., puzzles crafted intentionally by a real person almost never require guessing. However, a lot of "extreme" difficulty puzzles (or similar difficulty terms) in apps, newspapers, puzzle books, etc. are not handmade by a real person, but computer generated. There's probably a logic chain that's like 15 steps long that humans couldn't reasonably follow, but a guess is likely faster and more enjoyable.
Someone else recommended Cracking the Cryptic on YouTube, which is a great source - the daily puzzles are nice because you can follow along in the video if you're stuck, but they also have lots of apps with Sudokus that never require guessing. Another good source is Logic Masters Germany, which has lots of handmade Sudoku and other puzzles: https://logic-masters.de/
I do want to highlight the dangers of just using translation, because I read this recipe and thought: Aligot doesn't have cheese?!? That's like half the dish! How do they get that cheese stretch with just cream?
To be fair to you, the site you linked does have a link on the words "fresh volume" in the recipe, which goes into more detail about the cheese. So with that info as well, I could probably work it out.
But just in text format, one of the most critical ingredients is missing. So I understand OP's need for French recipes written in English, as sometimes translations just don't work. I don't have a good recipe site, so I'd love the same thing.
Side note: Aligot is delicious, although I've only ever had it with hot spiced wine at a Christmas market, so not sure about other applications.
We apologize for this inappropriate comment. Those responsible have been sacked.
I replied to the other thread before you, but it's a good point that atrociously unjust laws are good targets for jury nullification. Bathroom laws are a good example, although I fear that we wouldn't necessarily be on a jury where all other 11 members agree with us that it is an obvious violation of a trans person's rights, sadly. Especially in the states where those laws exist. A hung jury, where not everybody agrees is better than a conviction, but a "not guilty" verdict can't be re-tried (in almost all circumstances).
Okay, that's fair. I was thinking more along the lines of when the law is questionable, not patently unjust , as you put it.
And Jim Crow laws are a good example, as are sodomy laws that essentially outlawed gay relationships for a long time in many states (struck down by Lawrence v. Texas, but not until 2003!). Usually when people think of jury nullification (outside of the more recent obvious case), they're thinking along the lines of drug laws, which are often grey. Both of those examples probably DO warrant nullification.
That being said, I think it's unlikely that a case which can get
912 jurors to oppose it based on an unjust law would occur in a state where that law exists. Those sodomy laws I referenced were mostly only present in conservative states by 2003. However, federal laws might be more susceptible, as a state that's the opposite political ideology of the current US government could have a jury like that.But I'll concede the point that atrociously immoral or unjust laws could and should be targets for jury nullification. It's a good addition.
This is really important. You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.
In addition, sentencing is (usually) separate from conviction and is the judge's decision, although a jury can recommend a sentence. If someone is found guilty of theft for stealing a loaf of bread, they're not going to get 20 years in jail except in musicals.
IMO, nullification should be used as an absolute last resort. Have a sympathetic defendant accused of second degree murder? Knock it down to a lower-level manslaughter and find them guilty. The sentencing of that might have a low maximum.
There are only a few rare problems that actually need nullification. It (generally) shouldn't just be used for laws that you disagree with. One such problem is mandatory sentencing minimums. If someone steals that load of bread and they've already been convicted twice for theft or other crimes, they may be subject to things like 3-strike laws and get a sentence that is WAY more than they deserve, and the judge can't do anything about it. The judge might feel that they deserve to give only 20 hours of community service as a sentence, but they legally have to sentence the convicted to 6 months in prison. Nullification is probably warranted there. Someone found with 1.25 ounces of marijuana in a state where only 1 ounce is legal, so they get charged with a drug distribution felony? And the judge/prosecutor refuses to lower the charge? Maybe find them not guilty. But it should be the last resort, not the first option.
Yeah, hopefully there was a control done with just water (no tea) at the same temperature also passed through the second filter. I can't seem to get the whole paper without a subscription (or school/work/library account). Anyone have access and can confirm the details?
"Suck, suck, suck!"
Walter White really took a different criminal path in this alternate universe
You're absolutely right. I just signed up on .ml because I was a reddit refugee and it was one of the largest instances, and it got the fastest updates. Like a year later, suddenly everyone's talking about me like I'm part of some crazy cult. I bet well over half of .ml users don't even come close to the extreme stereotype, but are considering going to another instance just so we don't get bullied any more. It's likely going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Before I realized and came out as bi, I was in the GSA (gay-straight alliance) in high school as a "straight." My state was voting to ban gay marriage at the time, and we campaigned against it. I got just as much if not more hate from people than the LGBT members. Maybe because they viewed them as a lost cause? It was usually adults yelling at a 17-year-old kid for being a "betrayer" and a "pervert lover" (I liked that one), just because I supported two consenting adults marrying regardless of gender. Staunch allies definitely earn the title.
Damn that FDA and their suppression of...*checks list...sunshine?
Was the solar eclipse an inside job?!?
Hoover, to himself: He should see what I wear in private...
It's just a rainbow, Michael. What could it cost, ten dollars?