FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace: where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy. O divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.
User ID: 195
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
To be clear on the arguments for clemency, it seems to be almost entirely based on uncertainty about which man pulled the trigger. This sort of hairsplitting, about who pulled the trigger is the kind of thing that I was referring to in the previous discussion as being about as close to just plain evil as any relatively normal, common policy position could be.
To interrogate this a little: do you think that attempted murder should have the same punishment as accomplished murder?
Historically attempted murder has often drawn a lower penalty than completed murder, with there being an underlying assumption that failure to complete the act indicates some lack of mens rea to do so, or that cosmically it is wrong to execute a man without another body on the other side of the scale. After all, for Hammurabi "An eye for an eye" represented a gentler moderation rather than a harsher extreme, by that logic one cannot execute one's enemies unless they have taken a life.
One can, of course, focus on the mens rea and say that it's the evil intent that is most important.
I'm just curious where you come down on that argument.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
It's interesting to me that even here, we self censor around the use mention distinction.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
When was the last time the last Scottish people wore kilts unselfconsciously or unironically?
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
Please make one. There's some kind of meta point in there about capitalist exploitation of the culture war and enshittification, how we get the crap fakakta version before the raw version, and the decline of cinema as a form generally.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
Reading it recently I was struck by the extent to which the reaction to COVID (lockdown places where it might be transmitted over the objections of libertarians until money shoveled towards vaccination pays off) were what should have been done during AIDS but wasn't.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
Looking back, Katrina was politically and electorally brutal for Republicans, while Sandy clinched re-election for Obama. This despite neither storm primarily impacting swing states. It's all in the optics of the president being in control or out of control.
The takes post hurricane are always hilariously stupid, the kind of weird bourgeois socialism that Trump would love. Insuring beach houses that get flooded every couple years to preserve homeowner value after the private insurance market refuses to play there. Hubristic rebuilding of stuff that'll last another few years. This is right in Trump's wheelhouse, so maybe he'll benefit more than average.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
Why do you assume an Iq advantage for samurai? It seems more likely to be reversed in class terms of we assume the class system existed long enough to have a breeding effect.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
Update. Got 34. My left hand is a traitor. Did it essentially to near failure left to start, then run out the right, get to 17 left, finish right. My right hand didn't let me down. Painful and stupid, but done.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
It's hard to say, but the article seems to be about other PMC professionals he went to high school with in Connecticut, not robber barons. Depending on lifestyle, a nutmegger lawyer or consultant can't stop and grow beets in upstate NY any more than Freddie can.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
I'm going to posit, without any real evidence, that this is just the tip of the iceberg for Eric Adams, and that he was pimping out his offices and the levers of power in the city government for a lot more people than just the Turks. All the corruption here is penny ante shit, if he was willing to do this, he was willing to do a lot more.
This might be what they caught him on, but there's a ton more under the surface that will come out over time, even if it never makes it to an indictment. If he was willing to take obviously corrupt offers like this in exchange for a free flight, he was taking much bigger offers for much bigger jobs.
Discussing the case at this time is probably premature until we at least start to get the rumors of the bigger stories.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
However, not using all the available info (with exception of the exclusionary rule in court) seems indefensible (and I see neither you nor anyone here arguing for it).
I'm confused as to what you're saying here, so I don't want to argue about it too hard until you explain it.
I think you're ignoring the systemic value of finality in verdicts. If we constantly allow convictions and sentences to be paused and altered while we sit and consider whether some new piece of evidence alters the probability of guilt to a degree too great to countenance, we'll never get anything done.
Made up probabilities are all well and good for those of us in the peanut gallery, but for decision makers final decisions must be made, and they must be respected with some degree of certainty.
Freedom of contract includes the freedom to abrogate prior contracts, but binding in the future is something people want to do all the time.
For example, you have an agreement between A and B to purchase B's business. A gets three months of due diligence before he needs to close. B is willing to give A two months extension at a price, but he wants to put it in the contract that there will be no additional extensions of the due diligence after that. B wants it to be binding on both parties that A can't get to the end of the extension period and say he needs more time. Regardless of price, B doesn't want it to go any further than the first extension, after five months A has to close or leave.
But saying that in the contract doesn't really mean anything. A can still come to B at the end of the five months and say, I'm not buying, give me an extension or I'm walking. And the contract in that case doesn't really mean anything if B wants to give in, by mutual agreement they can sign an addendum that gives an extension and specifically states that the clause against additional extensions is stricken from the agreement.
You have to resort to really complicated maneuvers to create a really binding agreement on both future parties, involving third parties. If you put some kind of penalty in, both parties can agree to forgive the penalty. Anything you ban can be abrogated or amended. Unless a party with enforceable rights says no, any contract can be changed with the consent of all parties.
Here though, I haven't studied it in great depth so I could be wrong, I think what we're really talking about is OpenAI making a public promise that it was a non-profit, but the actually binding contractual part of the promise only bound as long as the board kept it binding. OpenAI has been telling everyone it is a non-profit, and pointing to its non-profit status as binding proof that this promise was going to be kept. But the promise wasn't binding, not really, if the parties to whom it was made were willing to release it; which in this case is an insider circle-jerk.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
No, the primary argument against the obese is that obesity is indicative of a character flaw. Lack of discipline is typically the specific one.
Anorexia is indicative of other character flaws.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
I just asked if that same judgment applies to people who have otherwise unappealing or unhealthy bodies.
Yes. Clearly, to an unhealthily skinny person.
Do we consider people with severe eating disorders to be immoral - so long as they keep themselves in that sweet BMI spot?
Absent damaging health problems or mental distress, I actually don't quite know what an eating disorder is. When we were teenagers it was skipping meals, but now most of the informed fit people I know utilize fasting at least some of the time for health reasons, and they function well. At the same time, eating disorders have expanded to include "Orthorexia" which is eating very healthy foods.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
Plenty of people here seem to believe that defense attorneys who try to get guilty clients acquitted are immoral. From that, it is not a huge distance to 'prosecutors who know the defendant is guilty should subvert due process to get a guilty verdict'. I hope that these attitudes are less common among lawyers, though.
We're pretty far outside of ordinary "Defense Attorneys" and a decent distance from ordinary Prosecutors as well. Once you get deep into appeals, you're dealing with ideologues on the defense side who dedicate their lives to this kind of activist anti-death penalty work. These kinds of people are basically anti-death penalty, and often anti LWOP, extremists who take "an unjust law is no law" to heart. They will actively try to overturn what they view as an inherently unjust sentence by any means necessary.
the Guardian mentioned that a prosecutor wanted the case reopened, which would be unusual because prosecutors are rarely anti-death-penalty activists.
This particular prosecutor is running for congress. Not that this means he's wrong, or cynical, but it does mean he has different motivations for public advocacy than most DAs.
Now, to engage with the meat of the post:
You basically say to update away from the 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' verdict, you would require evidence for 'innocent beyond reasonable doubt'.
Not exactly, because you're confusing the logic by trying to smuggle in Bayesian probabilism to a binary based in religious morality. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" began as essentially a theological formula: it was the point of certainty at which even a mistake by the jury that lead to the death of an innocent man would not harm their souls' salvation. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a defense you offer to the Lord on judgment day "Hey look I had doubts but they weren't reasonable;" which hypothetical then becomes a standard for taking action "I'm comfortable with this verdict because I would be comfortable defending this action on judgment day."
I can update toward innocence or a jury mistake in my heart of hearts all I want, the question is at what point we make a binary switch from his legal guilt to his legal innocence (or a legal mistrial, but we'll ignore that for the moment). Moving back from the death penalty for reasons of doubt about his guilt isn't really an option within the legal system, nor should it be, the penalty and guilt phases are separate, either you free him or you kill him. We're not talking about updating Bayesian probabilities, we're talking about taking action. Either killing a murderer or freeing him.
Without diving deeply into the case, I will however not say that the verdict was incorrect.
So you agree with me that the standard for reversing a verdict should be reversed in strength from the standard for reaching it. The burden has shifted.
Now as I keep emphasizing these are not probabilities, but using probabilities to make the point: if you set your decision points at >95% to reach a guilty verdict, and at <50% certainty you overturn the verdict on appeal, any update after the verdict that doesn't get you to 49% is irrelevant. I can update all I want between 95 and 51, the verdict stands, he fries.
Where I object is when people try to smuggle in reasonable doubt after the verdict, so that the standard is >95% to convict, and if at any time afterward any other person involved (judge, prosecutor, etc) gets to <95% the conviction should be overturned.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
It is hard to not see this as a deliberate business-model hack.
It's a constant issue with any kind of contractually based restriction on future behavior. I'm constantly dealing with people trying to put "irrevocable" clauses into their contracts, and it's really hard to pre-commit in such a way that consenting parties can't avoid the penalties.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
I actually just caught him being excerpted approvingly in the "Notable and Quotable" section of the Wall Street Journal. Now that's being close to money.
I am not accusing all public defenders of intentionally committing acts which they believe to be immoral; I’m saying that the moral hazard created by forcing them to do this is a terrible thing.
I actually agree with this, though not with most of your crimestop opinions, but I have a gentler solution to the moral damage done by the public defender system:
Replace DA offices and PD offices with "Public Criminal Law" offices. Lawyers are assigned essentially at random as prosecutors or defenders for any given case.
Right now, becoming a PD is joining the Washington Generals, you're going to lose, all the time, you're at best there to keep the government honest, while the rest of the courthouse has a slight tendency to view you as a speedbump and an obstacle. It attracts only certain temperaments. Becoming a DA conditions you to view the criminals as slime, grist to the mill, just a case number to get through.
Make them switch sides, constantly, and you'll get higher quality defense with a better relationship to the cops and judges. You'll get DAs who are less high handed, because they might find themselves on the other side next week.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
This is especially hard for the Eagles because they had luck with moving on from Andy and Doug, both didn't need to go but it ended up being a good thing for the birds.
I'm a big believer that coaches get stale. You saw it with Andy Reid, with Joe Torre, twice with Joe Girardi. The head coach is only the tip of the iceberg, there are an average of 15 coaches on an NFL staff. When head coaches stay in one place too long, only the really special coaches can avoid ensconcing themselves in layers of friends and associates, calcifying old systems that have trouble responding to changes. Moving on from Andy was good for both parties.
Doug fell victim to the same cycle of a QB with an uncertain talent level somewhere between MVP level franchise cornerstone and unplayable turnover machine: you fire the coach before trading the QB because replacement level coaches are nearly as good as great coaches, while replacement level QBs are essentially useless for a win-now roster. Coaches have minor leagues in the college system they can flow into and out of, producing a reservoir of talent. QBs sink of swim in the NFL.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
That being said, firing a coach with a winning record who's taken you to the Super Bowl and made the playoffs every year a few games into the season because the team looks bad is a bush league move. It's like something Cleveland would do.
The problem for Nick is that he barely hung onto his job after the last seven games of 2023, which was clearly a highly talented team taking a nosedive in organization, motivation, and tactics. He avoided getting fired by blaming the OC and DC, who they've replaced with more proven alternatives. ((There's an interesting conspiracy theory that Howie might have gotten too clever trying to play the Rooney rule in his OC/DC hires in 2023)). So rather than looking at it as the team's 2024 record is a small sample size, you have to look at it as the team's record since 12/1/23. Had they lost in NO, and then probably lost in TB as well, they would have been 2-8 across ten games, a pretty large sample size.
If Hurts can't figure it out, there will be broader implications for the league going forward. The past few years have seen QBs getting huge contracts with a lot of guaranteed money on the theory that it's impossible to win without one and you have to strike when the iron is hot, whatever the cost. But two things have happened since 2020 that have challenged that idea. The first is the sheer number of albatross contracts — Cleveland, the Giants, Jacksonville, Denver, and now possibly Philly are all saddled with them. Arizona is still questionable, as is Dallas. Of the 5 undefeated teams, Seattle, Pittsburgh, and Minnesota are all starting QBs who were considered washed, and Josh Allen is past the point where guaranteed money is an issue. That leaves Kansas City, winners of 3 of the last 4 championships, and Mahomes's contract is more complicated than the others. He's also Patrick Mahomes.
I don't think the QB market will reset to a lower level (as % of cap space accounting for terms) until we see some of those players get traded for reasonable value in consecutive off-seasons. If Hurts and Lawrence, for example, get traded for a package equivalent to a late first round pick and then play competently for their new teams, and the next year we see the same happen with Dak Prescott and Baker Mayfield making similar successful moves at reasonable transaction costs; then teams will start to get the message that worthwhile QBs will be available when needed, and teams won't feel the need to lock down any chance at a Franchise QB.
I don't think the post-Jets reclamation projects or the failures of albatross contracts will radically alter the calculus if there isn't an apparent supply of competent QBs. Retreads and day-2 picks are lottery tickets, it's not easy to identify which ones will succeed and when.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
Not really. A hung jury doesn't return ANY verdict, the prosecution can just try again, which in a murder they would tend to do.
FiveHourMarathon
Listen to Pierre
1mo ago
Sure. And if we iterate a thousand reps with the time and a few thousand bored college students we could assign weights to each. We could run Fat Linda with a degree from a Penn State branch in the Poconos against Fit Louise with an associates, and scrawny John the deacon at my local church against Crossfit Jack who got divorced until we settle on a weight for body weight, where being out of shape is worth about a year of college or $10k/yr in income or such and such level of ability in raising a kid. I can even come up with reverse arguments: a girl who is in too obsessively good of shape may be vain, a slightly pudgy guy might be more relaxed and fun! Maybe that plays in!
And then eventually we would have cohesive metrics to determine just how much to judge someone. But in reality, we'll never exactly get that, so it'll just be informal. If you're arguing that most people assign too much weight to weight, argue that, but that's different from "don't judge people by their bodies!" It's "don't judge people too harshly!"
Fat advocacy is constantly assaulted by the problem of people judging too harshly on one hand, slightly overweight people thrown in with the 600lb life folks and judged as obese wastes of space; and on the other hand 400lb people trying to argue that they're the same as the chubby moms, and don't deserve any critique at all. And there are points where we say don't judge by because it has bad social impacts. Argue that! But we all should agree it's a basis for judgment.
Also it's obvious to judge men to be more dangerous than women! I used to have to get assistant rock climbing coaches to fill out SafeSport background check forms, and consistently it was the teenage girls who got super upset because "I can't remember the address we lived at when I was eight and my mom won't pick up the phone!" And I had to explain to them, it doesn't matter, teenage girls aren't who they are looking out for, it's just civil rights law that they have to make you fill out the form too. Refusing to exercise judgment there creates vastly more paperwork.
To me the use of the term indicates to be that Walter and I are playing Socratics, where you offer an answer to one question and then your interlocutor asks additional questions meant to pull out more information about your original position. By contrasting the answers to similarly situated cases we produce more nuanced rules or better understandings of underlying logic.
In my mind it's the opposite of manipulation, I'm inviting Walt to play the game with me. He can choose not to.
More options
Context Copy link