YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
12hr ago
That might be your argument now, but I think HaG2 has you right on the money: You got hung up on the terminology but you basically can't admit it. You also seem to be going for maximum belligerence for no reason. Now I standby my earlier comment with the addition that being this places whipping boy has rotted your brain. You've somehow lost the plot of this forum.
you're not some smartiepants
No I'm actually a retarded midwit, as are you, as is probably the majority on this board. We all like to huff delusions of grandeur. So let me have my opinion and stay in your glass house nursing the apparent misanthropic grudge you've developed after catching a recent ban. I've sure this current behavioral track is super healthy and very conducive to not getting a ban again.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
18hr ago
you would not need to be humbled
Right, so this is actually the real reason. You want to humble me. You took 1 word, mentioned 1 time in my 2,485 word train-of-thought pseudo-diary entry, submitted without proof-reading, spell-check, or LLM-proofing, after midnight because I couldn't sleep as I was brooding about the preceding several days, and decided to raise a massive stink about it. You might want to do some soul searching to determine if you are really the arrogant one, and this is all just a massive amount of projection.
yourself as an enlightened individual
Yes because being a pedantic wordcell is the height of enlightenment. Of course! How did I not know in whose steps I needed to tread. I'm sure being a great lawyer or english teacher results in the best governance!
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
1d ago
Yeah you'll love this, her response to part under questioning was "I love him and I didn't want him to suffer!!!". As if being forced to stay on the boat and be served 3 meals a day was suffering.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
1d ago
That's the problem
Yeah, I understand that better than anything. People never want to restrict suffrage in a way that would hurt them or their allies, and always want to target their enemies. I said in another comment in this chain, that the problem is in exclusionary systems, a motivated set of agents will try to exploit the rules in a way that is always more detrimental to the system than exploits that are available to blanket systems. I'm unsure if it's a solvable problem, creating a strictly fair system of suffrage the isolates voting towards agents with a sense of duty to their fellow man and an intelligent long term view towards the prospering of the country and its people. Universal Suffrage is a lot like a market in this regard. It creates price signals for peoples political desires. Shockingly most of those signals are very self-serving, short term benefits, but not all, and its hard to parse the good from the bad.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
1d ago
The difference is between fraud charges and fraud claims is pedantic and not how I think. I reject your dichotomy as I reject most dichotomies. This could have been an informative post with you correcting me and explaining the difference. Instead you decided to be an ass as your the default. I suppose that is good evidence against future behavior that you do. MKC's default behavior is to find any disagreement and try to be right no matter what, without helping anyone learn anything.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
1d ago
No, you don't get to acknowledge you used the wrong terminology in another comment
I acknowledged that I could be using less precise terminology, because I'm not an asshole. You seem to want to be seen as one instead.
I'm not mistaken, I'm just not pedantic af about syntax. Which apparently you are. Good to know.
Pretty much, the problem with lots of exclusionary systems is that a motivated set of agents can exploit them in a way that is more harmful than a blanket system approach. Someone is always looking to break your edge case for personal gain. I'm not sure what the best way to fix that problem is, I just am losing faith in the ability of universal suffrage to adequately allow governance in an increasingly polarized and mercenary society.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
1d ago
There was an independent family court case so money for the children was not in our purview. We were strictly about the civil claims.
If I was on the jury I’d be one of the “sellouts”
What's the limit? Would you "sell out" on a murder case, a million dollar lawsuit, a rape case. What is your line, where letting injustice happen rather than be personally inconvenienced for a couple days? Do you think if you are even in the court as a plaintiff or a defendant, you'd personally agree that it's good that half the jury is going to give you a harmful judgment because you've inconvenienced them? I guess I just find this opinion the equivalent of burning the commons for personal benefit in a way that is very short sighted.
The real sad story of democracy is seeing how many people, faced with the smallest perceived injustices, want to tear it down.
I don't want to tear democracy down. I want to remove universal suffrage and try and find a better form of suffrage. I don't yet know if one exists, hence it's an inchoate thesis.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
1d ago
Looks like juries can be fairly high variance then. I hope the next one I serve on is better, and I can just chalk this up to a bad combination of personalities.
I assume you're referring to this comment.
Yes
A civil jury would not be deciding criminal charges for fraud, thus we have the two options.
You are just wrong, it was you who claimed fraud can only be criminal. I never claimed such, I claimed the charge was fraud in civil court. Go read the link in this comment, NC allows Fraud under a Miscellaneous Tort in civil court.
Edit: if you want to be super pedantic about the use of "charge" vs "accuse" then sure, have your bagel. Everyone else seemed to understand what I meant colloquially, so I guess you can pick bullshit fights without being clear. But you are strictly wrong that fraud is not also a civil court tort.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
1d ago
there is always a new broad willing to run his life for him and pay his way, I have no reason to think that Baby Number Seven isn't on the way.
Unfortunately I would not be willing to bet against you on this. What I expect a normal person to see as a wake up call, probably went over his head. I imagine woman #4 will help pay for his legal fees against woman #3 (this one), until at which point he is living the barracks again because all of his money is going to a recursive loop of legal expenses and child support.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
1d ago
Specifically for Unjust Enrichment it is called Quantum Merit in NC, @ToaKraka has a link to the jury instructions here, this looks slightly similar to the instructions we received for Quantum Merit. It was only applied for the divorce funds
I can't seem to find the Breach of Contract instructions, but it wasn't applied to the whole relationship but to individual elements. Essentially sets of offers and agreements. Like the hospital/birth costs, there was an offer of "paying half" and agreement to do so with both testifying under oath that they agreed to it. The terms were never specified but the jury instructions had a statement about a reasonable repayment schedule. Sorta the same for the credit card on deployment. He got sunk because his own testimony had him saying that she'd be paid back, realistically she didn't provide evidence that he did/didn't do so, especially when she had access to his accounts... but most of the jury went with the idea that he didn't and had agreed to do so.
Here's my response to the fraud, looks like its just a misc tort.
I think a bunch of this case rested on the fact that nobody on the jury (including me) had a good opinion of the defendant and no one thought he actually followed through on his commitments. He was demonstrably a man-child. Unfortunately not all of the jury considered the the plaintiff might not be telling the truth 100% and might be omitting the fact that she repaid herself from his accounts, with his implied consent, and was now just suing him for extra.
Weeeeelll... guy has demonstrated he has the sense of personal responsibility and reliability of a wet paper bag,
No disagreement.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
1d ago
The worst part is she could have just easily paused the card, we had a juror with the same exact card going on and on about it.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
1d ago
You said he was a gunnery sergeant. I know there are jokes about Marines being crayon eaters, but this guy was being sent on deployment for active service, and unless he was a desk wallah in the quartermaster's stores or something, he has to have some technical knowledge. Especially if he's in the stores, he would need to know how to open up a browser.
I was probably being a bit exasperated. He probably knows how to open a browser. He just seemed to make really stupid decisions one after the other without any seeming idea that they were stupid.
So it's either he didn't understand (or at least failed to properly explain his understanding) what is going on (as they weren't deliberating fraud charges, they would have been deliberating civil liability fraud) or the story was fake.
Or maybe you don't really know as much as you think you do. And/or are not understanding what was going on.
There was no prosecutor, I never said there was. It was a plaintiff (Becky) suing the Defendant (Chad), the charges/accusations/laws-broken what ever you want to call it were: Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment, and Fraud. If your first response to improper legal terminology is accuse me of fabrication, I think the internet has ruined your mind.
the standard of evidence for a civil trial is not beyond reasonable doubt but instead "more likely"
"More likely than not" that the plaintiff had to prove, which she seemed to fail to submit evidence to do so. Meaning the lack of evidence would fall on her, giving a default judgement to the defendant.
when one side is bringing evidence
Partial, very cherry picked evidence. For example we did not get raw bank statements, we got an excel spreadsheet with her claims of the transactions (which conflicted with the following) + a heavily filtered set of bank statements that only showed transfers from 4 places: Her account -> Joint, His -> Her, Her -> His, Joint -> Her, for a set time period which was not the full relationship length. We got screenshots from another camera looking at the screen of the phone with cropping applied. We got a credit card statement with plenty of charges that she made (due to the location, he was in Turkye and Europe) but the final amount was stated as what he owed her.
So I guess if your stance is that bad biased evidence is more believable than no evidence, thats definitely a stance, though I'm not sure you'd like that applied to your interlocutors in the future.
Why would a civil trial jury bring fraud charges
North Carolina allows for civil fraud. Not sure what to tell you. If you want to type it into an LLM it will tell you the exact same thing. I tried to find the exact statue but ChatGPT seems to suck at that for some reason (probably indexing the page). All I can say is that I got instructions from the judge with the rest of the jury and fraud was one of the charges we were to consider.
perhaps the story itself is fabricated.
What's my motivation for writing out a 3 page essay on my jury trial experiences when I hate writing, and I hate looking at my writing. Skepticism is never an unfounded trait on the internet, but if you are banking on your layman-legal knowledge as the critical support pillar, then I think you should recalibrate how much you think you actually know.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
1d ago
This actually help assuage my consciousness that I had participated in some small injustice for failing to hold my ground. I can easily recognize that I have my own internal biases towards people displaying overt emotion in situations that construe to me as manipulative, which i think occurred in this case. And following the bank statements towards the 22k + seeing her as manipulative likely lead me to the conclusion I did.
I think its useful to get context that the lack of evidence might have been a strategy from the defense attorney to try and hang heavily on the burden of proof being on the plaintiff. I just think the plaintiff cut a far more sympathetic figure to large swaths of the jury, and the defense needed something more to push the needle.
Problem is that we were strictly instructed that we could not charge the plaintiff with anything. There was a legal form we had to fill out. It's strictly Chad -> Becky damages and charges affecting Chad only. I agree that Becky probably committed criminal forgery but based on our instructions there was nothing we could charge her with. He'd have to counter sue, which I don't think would be our jury.
Likely criminal theft or wire fraud. 5k awarded from Becky to Chad.
Not if she was listed on the personal account and given access with his permission would be my guess. Don't give people your bank accounts sounds like a pretty basic common sense idea.
It indeed sounds like a gift. Without further context, “benefit” doesn’t necessarily imply “financial” benefit, so it’s not a promise of investment returns. However, given the ambiguity, I'll still award half of the amount, 3.5k from Chad to Becky.
This was actually my stance. The "benefit" bit he said under oath sounded suspiciously like something you get tithing church members to say. They don't believe God/Church will literally under contract pay them back, but the good deed of doing this act with benefit them. I wanted to award her half, I think she benefited from the divorce, I think he did too, sounds like a fair split. This was a very contentious argument, the karens wanted to give her 100% and refused to compromise on 75% at all.
Also sounds like a series of gifts and her possibly committing perjury. No money awarded from Chad to Becky.
I was able to talk them into this. but once they circled back to giving her a flat percentage of what she was asking for it essentially abrogated this.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
1d ago
I for some reason remember it as a line from A Few Good Men. But apparently thats a Mandela effect, it was never actually said. The other jury members said it showed up in legal dramas.
We all found it amusing, and it was pretty apt. The plaintiff was actively arguing with the defendant's lawyer while on the stand and avoiding answering his questions.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
2d ago
do we think Chad would put any time, effort, or consideration into hiring a lawyer?
I'm pretty sure he hired the same firm that did his divorce. The Plaintiff alleged it and had this really annoying habit of calling the defense attorney by his first name with a lot of attitude whenever he (the attorney) didn't let her off easy. She was fighting with the attorney on the stand.
I told her to do what she liked
He pretty much said this. And that was sort of my problem. She was clearly doing what she liked. I really find it hard to believe that she didn't withdraw money from his account to make herself whole. Was she expecting him to directly transfer it with a note? I struggle to think if this man could open up an internet browser.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
2d ago
I have to agree that you seem to be doing a reverse-karen
For every action I guess there must be an equal and opposite reaction. The rise of the Male-Karen is upon us. Woe be to non-men! I'll take that into consideration. To be clear I did not like the defendant at all. Morally I think he should have to pay 100%. Legally though, I think the plaintiff really failed to demonstrate that she never took money from his account to make herself whole, and that the relationship was setup in such a way that it was transactional, so that every payment she made was part of an implied contact.
The legal charges were:
- Breach of Contract
- Unjust Enrichment
- Fraud
BoC pretty much requires and offer, acceptance, and mutual agreement on terms. There was not a lot of offering being made, and it was not an implied contract. UE, requires that the plaintiff expect to paid back at the time of the payments, it was very unclear. Fraud required deceit which was never even demonstrated.
Notably they were also in child court for much of the other stuff, she was also just concurrently suing him in civil court for what appeared to be a vindictive last attempt at controlling him. That's why my stance is that she was entitled to 35k - 22k = 12k roughly. That's not escaping responsibility but its not also punishing him for her equally bad decisions.
YoungAchamian
We walk conditioned ground and name our folly civilization.
2d ago
I was trying to head off HBD assertions that this is just Black underclass behavior 101. He was from Miami. He had quite dark skin, not very white. His last name was (and I checked that this wouldn't dox him) Albert.
As one of the proponents of the critique that Rationalist AI fans are "writing science fiction", allow me to specify my particular view of it. There is a difference between what Gwern is attempting here and the general Rationalist discourse around things like paper clip maximizers, singularities, basilisks, etc. If I had to put it to words it would be something like:
The scientific and engineering breakthroughs to achieve the technological level where the afore mentioned conceptual ideas becomes embodied and realizable are to word, amorphous, nebulous, underspecified, not defined at any level of scientific or engineering rigor. The end state is the assumed outcome and the pathway to achieve it is handwaved away analogous to a professor putting a hard math problem on the board, stating the solution, and saying the solution is trivial and an exercise to the reader. In this case replace trivial with some dismissive word for "let the shape rotators solve it"
The difference here is that Gwern is taking existing technology and proposing a pathway from it, because of that, the starting breakthroughs needed to achieve it are easier to define because its not an infinite span of starting states that lead to this one eventuality.
He essentially needs to prove these things are possible (at least):
These breakthroughs do break down into further breakthroughs but they are all on the cutting edge of current research not the distant futures research like a lot of Rationalist AI ideas.
Alignment is an impossible boogeyman, it's not possible to "align" a sentient being, so if you view eventual AIs as sentient you should just accept they will do what they want. If you view AIs as a tool without sentience, then "alignment" is better specified from control theory, and your actual research would be in quantifying the systemic signal an AI provides and applying classic control algorithms to it. The systemic signal is the hard part bordering on Sci-fi because its underspecified, amorphous, and not rigorously defined.
More options
Context Copy link