yarr

I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?

If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?

I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?

In the ever-evolving landscape of technology and innovation, both blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) have captured significant attention.

Let's think about blockchain for a bit. Blockchain technology has been met with considerable hype, promising revolution across various industries. However, this enthusiasm has not translated into success for most ventures in this space. Research indicates that approximately 95% of blockchain startups fail within a year of operation. Contributing factors include market volatility, regulatory hurdles, and the lack of clear use cases.

A notable example is the collapse of Terra's LUNA cryptocurrency in 2022. In just one week, $45 billion was lost, illustrating the inherent risks associated with blockchain projects.

AI startups are now experiencing their own wave of excitement and investment. However, they too encounter significant challenges. Over 80% of AI projects fail due to issues like insufficient market demand, operational difficulties, and ethical complexities.

Consider this: approximately 42% of AI startups fail because there is insufficient demand for their products or services. Not to mention, many AI ventures struggle with resource mismanagement, inadequate expertise, and scaling difficulties. You also have the additional challenge of navigating the evolving landscape of AI ethics and regulations adds layers of complexity that can impede progress. There's not exactly decades of history to refer to regarding legal precedent with AI.

A lot of the hype and marketing I see today looks just like what I saw a few years ago, except instead of "blockchain" it says "AI" now. There are consulting firms, integration firms, everything. Is this just a sign the industry is just endless fads with no actual commercial usage?

Bitcoin was hyped as reinventing the world's economy. Sure, it found a few usages, like replacing Western Union, or also by essentially becoming "digital gold" that people can just acquire and sit on, but last time I looked, VISA/Mastercard and the like were still doing 98% of the world's commerce. In other words, Bitcoin fell far short of where many of its proponents said it would land years ago. Looking around at all these AI firms, I wonder how many of them will even exist in 3 years.

There's a sweet homebrew city builder for Game Boy Color / Game Boy advance. It gives vibes like SimCity for SNES. It's also totally free AND works on real hardware.

GBA: https://skylyrac.itch.io/ucity-advance GBC: https://github.com/AntonioND/ucity/

I'm not affiliated with the project -- just a satisfied player. If you like classic city building games at all, this deserves a try from you.

Have fun!

Let's face it folks -- if you've gotta live in a country going through chaos, you might as well have a bit of fun on the way down. One of the few things that perks me up each morning is seeing headlines like "Trump Supporters Worried About Losing Their Federal Jobs" or "Republican Voters Worried They Might Not Get Their Social Security Checks". Well folks, when Trump was promising chaos in the run-up to the election, this is what he was talking about. All these federal departments getting turned over and eviscerated is exactly what he said he'd do. Supposedly, this is what you all wanted!

If you're a multi-millionaire and you voted for Trump, I get it. It seems like a really good idea. If you're working class, or even crazier, dependent on government aid, and you voted for Trump, holy crap... you were swindled.

I hope eventually our country gets back on the track to being sane. It's a shame that it's much, much, much easier to tear down things than it is to create them. I look forward to the mid-terms and I hope the Democrats get their heads out of their asses, because we could really use the help. In the meantime, I'll be drinking up all those delicious "Trump supporter tears" and not feeling bad at all.

Alright, so I’ve been seeing these videos floating around where people are legitimately surprised by things Donald Trump has done—things he actually promised to do during his campaigns. The common thread in all of these reactions is something like, “Well, he said he’d do it, but I didn’t think he’d actually go through with it!”

And here’s the thing: if someone votes for a politician who doesn’t follow through on their promises, isn’t that kinda bad? Like, wouldn’t you want the person you voted for to keep their word? So why is this a thing now? Is this just people messing around and trolling, or did they genuinely think Trump wasn’t going to do what he said he’d do?

I mean, maybe it’s because of how unpredictable Trump was during his presidency. He had a habit of saying things one way but then doing the opposite, which could’ve made some people doubt whether he’d actually follow through on his big promises. But now that he is following through on some of those things, it seems like people are genuinely caught off guard.

So here’s what I’m wondering: is this something to celebrate? Like, is it a good thing that people didn’t think Trump would keep his word? Or is it just another example of how the political landscape has changed in ways no one expected?

In today's political landscape, it's hard not to notice the growing divide and the erosion of informed discourse. As we navigate these turbulent times, I can't help but wonder: Have we reached a tipping point where ignorance has become the norm? Are we so far down the road that the public is ill-equipped to counter the latest governmental abuses?

It seems like the powers that be have successfully convinced many that losing is winning. The erosion of trust in institutions and the rise of misinformation can leave one questioning if we're collectively stuck in a cycle of intellectual stagnation.

Let's unpack this a bit:

• Media Influence: The media plays a crucial role in shaping public perception. However, with the rise of clickbait and sensationalism, the quality of information available has deteriorated. This makes it harder for individuals to discern credible sources from those pushing agendas.
• Historical Context: Looking back, periods of significant change have often been met with resistance and misinformation. The current era isn't unique in this aspect, but the speed at which information spreads today amplifies these challenges.
• Public Engagement: The shift towards more polarized debates can stifle open dialogue. When discussion becomes a battleground of talking points rather than fact-based exploration, it's harder to foster understanding.
• Intellectual curiosity: Encouraging critical thinking is essential. Without it, individuals risk being swayed by narratives that don't hold up under scrutiny.

So, while the situation seems dire, there's still room for hope. The challenge lies in recognizing our role as participants in shaping the narrative. We can choose to engage thoughtfully, seek out diverse perspectives, and remain curious.

Let's not lose sight of the power we hold in our collective intellect. By fostering critical thinking and a commitment to understanding, we can navigate these challenges and find our way back to a more informed public discourse.

In news that surprises absolutely no one, the makers of the infamous Humane AI Pin—a device that was overpriced, underwhelming, and widely returned—have been acquired by HP.

As expected, this acquisition effectively bricks existing AI Pins. According to the press release, some features will still work, such as checking the battery level. Incredible.

The real kicker? The people behind this spectacular failure are getting a massive payday from HP. Meanwhile, customers who dropped $700+ (plus a monthly fee!) on this glorified paperweight are left in the dust.

HP has a long history of acquiring pointless companies, so this doesn’t redeem the AI Pin in any way. If anything, it just reinforces that the product was as worthless as everyone suspected.

I was hoping this saga would end in Humane going bankrupt—not them cashing out. But here we are.

IT'S OFFICIAL, FOLKS! Trump thinks he can just slap tariffs on our friends abroad and watch us 'compete' again? Newsflash: this only hurts the little guy (and the planet). Just got word from Acer CEO that those tariffs have already led to a 10% price hike for laptops in the US. That's right, we're paying more for the very devices that are supposed to help us succeed in an era of 'American greatness'. Meanwhile, Trump is too busy coddling his corporate pals to care about the real American people. Wake up, sheeple! It's time to stop voting for politicians who only look out for their buddies on Wall Street.

I'm baffled by this whole Crisco/shortening candle-in-contraptions meme circulating around. You've got folks shoving these things in everything from copper pots to elaborate sand enclosures, claiming superior heat output and somehow making a case for off-grid energy.

Let's unpack the physics, because frankly, it doesn't add up:

Combustion 101: A candle (or our Crisco-fied iteration) works by burning the fuel source (fat in this case), releasing heat and light through a chemical reaction with oxygen. The material surrounding it doesn't inherently influence this combustion process. Copper, terracotta, or sand won't magically accelerate the burning rate or somehow trap more heat.

Radiation & Conduction: Sure, these materials might hold and radiate a BIT more heat absorbed from the flame compared to open air. But the difference is negligible. Convection (hot air rising) is the primary heat transfer mechanism, and the enclosure doesn't significantly enhance it.

Scaling Up Fallacy: If this contraption truly held the key to efficient off-grid heating, wouldn't we be ditching fuel oil and natural gas entirely? Imagine a skyscraper-sized Crisco candle in a cosmic copper pot - it wouldn't magically solve our energy needs. The heat output wouldn't scale proportionally due to limitations in combustion itself.

In short -- why are people so fascinated with this? A simple test will show that it is not more effective than a simple candle, yet people seem to be continually fascinated by it.

Some people are saying these are either UFOs or a foreign country. I believe that these HAVE to be domestic. Look -- if China/Russia/etc can overfly our most sensitive military bases and our Air Force, etc. doesn't respond, the USA has gotten PUNKED. What is actually happening is you are seeing some sanctioned activity either by a commercial contractor of the Federal government, or you are seeing some secret Air Force tech. The Army, etc will just deny, deny, deny, because they know in a couple of days this will fall out of the news cycle.

I'd be curious to hear people's theories to see if I'm alone in my line of thinking or not.

President Biden's hypocrisy on full display: Pardons his own son after making a point about 'independent' justice"

In a move that's being hailed as a "full and unconditional" pardon, President Joe Biden has announced that he's granting his son Hunter Biden a free pass for all federal charges related to his time between 2014-2024. Just 50 days before leaving office, Biden had previously declared that he wouldn't be making the move, stating he'd abide by the jury's decision. But now, it seems he was just playing a different tune.

TL;DR

President Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden, who was facing up to 25 years in prison for lying on a federal form about his drug addiction. This comes after months of saying he wouldn't make the move, and is being met with criticism from politicians and others who called him out on his earlier stance. A case of "my family is more important than I am" - how about keeping your promises for once?

In today’s fast-paced digital world, we often rely on various online platforms to quench our thirst for knowledge, information, and entertainment. Among these platforms, news websites hold a significant position as they allow us to stay updated about current events across the globe. However, despite their essential role in delivering crucial content, many of these sites have resorted to irritating tactics that negatively impact user experience. One such tactic is the automatic playback of videos accompanied by full audio when one opens their webpage.

This practice has become increasingly common among news sites due to the belief that users prefer a multimedia experience over plain text articles. However, there is no empirical evidence to support this assumption. On the contrary, many have raised concerns over these autoplaying videos. These concerns range from audio intrusion into private spaces, lack of control over sound output, to the consumption of data and battery life on mobile devices. The most prominent criticism against this practice stems from the mismatch between the video’s subject matter and the article itself. In other words, these videos are unrelated to the content of the page and often serve solely as advertisements, disruptive interfaces, or attempts at misleading engagement metrics.

Does ANYONE actually like these videos? I typically scramble to find the close and/or mute button as soon as I can. Infuriating.