Research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and related studies shows glyphosate negatively impacts bees by disrupting their gut microbiota, weakening immune responses, impairing learning/memory, affecting foraging behavior, and increasing mortality, with effects seen from both pure chemical and commercial formulations at environmentally relevant levels, impacting both adult bees and larval development.
"“All five nucleobases used to construct both DNA and RNA, along with phosphates, have already been found in the Bennu samples brought to Earth by OSIRIS-REx,” said Furukawa. “The new discovery of ribose means that all of the components to form the molecule RNA are present in Bennu.”"
[The message here is very clear: the people who make online communities safe are not welcome in the United States. Trust and safety is a very wide field, which encompasses the policies, processes, and technologies online platforms use to protect users from harm, ensure a secure environment, and maintain user trust. Compliance ensures that safety rules are adhered to. None of these activities constitute censorship.]
I welcome this rule. In fact, I could imagine many more. I don't want people here that don't share our values.
I can’t do a standing backflip. This is a true statement and contributes the same amount to a discussion about higher education in the US as “I know a kid that can do algebra”
what does it add to the conversation? The fact that incoming UCSD freshman cannot solve the problem is being brought up as a failure. That this six year old can solve it does nothing to address the issue of UCSD students being unable to solve a problem that we all expect them to. It it as if you are a stoichastic parrot, bringing up a fact that, yes, it happens to be true, because it is nearby on some vector space. Hence the downvotes.
If aliens land in Germany on a field and a peasant shoots them with his shotgun, he would have committed no crime in my opinion. No murder, since Aliens are not humans. It would not be illegal hunting, since aliens are not animals. Illegal discharge of a firearm?
That is definitely not how German law would deal with the situation in practice. Aliens would certainly be considered people and protected by the law, even if they weren't humans, and they would definitely still be animals.
Shooting an alien robot though, then you would have something legally problematic. Ownership? Is it so advanced it's a person? But you'd probably get something like those Star Trek episodes with legal weirdness rather than any no-crime-without-law reasoning.
You don't understand the problem. If we encounter aliens, they would likely make a law to protect them. In the situation I came up with, this is their first encounter with us, and they would NOT be protected.
You are very optimistic that they will be considered animals. For example they would have to live on organic matter. And they would have to have a spine to get more protection since living things with a spine are considered more valuable (Wirbeltiere).
GROK (And using all the Roman law principles on what German law is based):
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (Art. 103 Abs. 2 Grundgesetz + § 1 StGB) is the decisive wall that the prosecution would smash into in a real first-contact case under current German law.
This principle has four sub-requirements (all must be fulfilled for a conviction):
Lex scripta – there must be a written statute
→ Yes, §§ 211, 212 StGB exist.
Lex certa – the statute must be sufficiently precise
→ “Mensch” is precise if you are Homo sapiens. It is not precise (in fact completely indeterminate) when the victim is an unknown extraterrestrial species.
Lex stricta – no punishment by analogy, no extension to the detriment of the defendant
→ This is the killer.
→ Extending the word “Mensch” in §§ 211/212 to include extraterrestrials would be a clear case of forbidden analogy that worsens the legal position of the accused.
→ German courts are constitutionally barred from doing this in criminal law (unlike in civil law or constitutional law, where they sometimes stretch concepts to protect victims).
Lex praevia – the law must have existed before the act
→ Also fulfilled, but irrelevant here.
Ah. Yes. You are right. I had to read the law. I can understand the choice to write 'human' there, it becomes very clear, assuming there will be no aliens.
You don't understand the problem. If we encounter aliens, they would likely make a law to protect them. In the situation I came up with, this is their first encounter with us, and they would NOT be protected.
You are very optimistic that they will be considered animals. For example they would have to live on organic matter. And they would have to have a spine to get more protection since living things with a spine are considered more valuable (Wirbeltiere).
GROK (And using all the Roman law principles on what German law is based):
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (Art. 103 Abs. 2 Grundgesetz + § 1 StGB) is the decisive wall that the prosecution would smash into in a real first-contact case under current German law. This principle has four sub-requirements (all must be fulfilled for a conviction):
Lex scripta – there must be a written statute → Yes, §§ 211, 212 StGB exist.
Lex certa – the statute must be sufficiently precise → “Mensch” is precise if you are Homo sapiens. It is not precise (in fact completely indeterminate) when the victim is an unknown extraterrestrial species.
Lex stricta – no punishment by analogy, no extension to the detriment of the defendant → This is the killer. → Extending the word “Mensch” in §§ 211/212 to include extraterrestrials would be a clear case of forbidden analogy that worsens the legal position of the accused. → German courts are constitutionally barred from doing this in criminal law (unlike in civil law or constitutional law, where they sometimes stretch concepts to protect victims).
Lex praevia – the law must have existed before the act → Also fulfilled, but irrelevant here.
You can't write a law for every possible situation. And many laws were introduced because they were committed, and they realized, there is no law to punish the person.
English common law had many good ideas. The US criminal system may be a mess, but the underlying ideas are good. Not everybody can be Norway.... ;-)
