Generally, yes. You have a right to discovery of anything that they plan to introduce at trial against you, or anything that would cast doubt on your guilt (exculpatory evidence).
Most facts, yes. Non-disclosure is the exception, not the rule, thanks to the Sixth Amendment's right to a fair trial. However, when national security is involved, the Classified Information Protection Act (CIPA) may apply, and some evidence may be reserved for in camera hearings.
Also, if the information would not exculpate the defendant, and the prosecution won't introduce it at trial as evidence of guilt, then the information can be withheld.
I'm on the verge of not trusting the US govt when they prosecute things. Epstein details being proclaimed and then hiding them is just the start. If the large and formerly mostly independent and trustworthy federal law enforcement groups can't disclose info there, what should make you feel like they are honest?
Good point, criminal trial process is not obviously corrupted like the pre-trial. Every day recently there's a story about trump trying to get his political enemies prosecuted, and then he fired people who investigated him from his last term.
Not to take away from your meta comment but there's something to be said about the mind originating content from a place of wandering versus having content blasted at you from an external source.
There's a place for both. Sometimes I listen to music and dance around while I crank out tasks that require some thought, but not a ton.
And other times for really menial tasks like cleaning I'll zone out cause my mind can truly wander during those moments (cause putting the dishes away is full autopilot, where things like... writing some tests might be a bit more... autopilot, a bit of thought, autopilot, etc). There is an absolute ton of value in letting your brain wander.
And finally, for certain tasks, it's either very quiet classical or none at all cause it's just fully focused thought about larger problem spaces that need to be fleshed out.
And I think, if you listen to the same library or playlists a lot, your brain may start to associate it with working. But I really have no idea what I'm talking about, so who knows!
The same library or playlist is good - I used that trick for time tracking when I was training for the marathon.
Had a eclectic playlist where I would start with some quite chill Mozart because I would always start too fast and needed to pace myself for example then after the 2/2.5 hr mark is when I'd usually start to fade and some prog rock would come on to boost my spirits.
Funnily I have banned listening to classical for most coding but that's a me problem because I end up listening too closely and analysing the music and performance too much. But that's just because I'm a classical nerd
As if disabling the issue tracker and stonewalling pull requests wasn't bad enough, seeing how it is built out of multiple layers that communicate via gRPC was what made me instantly lose all trust in Proton. I don't know who's been doing their hiring but just from one look at that kludge it's evident they've lost the plot altogether.
(There's a third-party alternative called Hydroxide, but it's experimental. Haven't been able to send emails through it from Thunderbird yet, though I've only looked into this for a few hours recently.)
Low-level emulators can be legally identical to a virtual machine, but often isn't. Most modern consoles can't be emulated that way, and most require you to dump a bootrom from your own console hardware, alongside game keys and other dubious digital paraphernalia.
Because smart glasses, that flash a light and make a loud noise when taking a picture, are more invasive than phones literally everywhere? Or street billboards with built in cameras?
Or how about dash cams in cars? CCTV cameras on ATMs as you walk down the street?
"why would murder be illegal? people get killed all the time. are you going to outlaw cars because you can run over someone? murder laws make no sense."
The point is, smart glasses (which to be clear only take a picture when a button is pressed, just like any other camera people own) are not different than any other camera.
Also in the US there is no legal expectation of privacy on public streets. Plenty of public facing webcams are available for viewing.
Passing a law regulating the shape of a camera body is just stupid. Outlawing camera glasses makes less sense than outlawing camera flowers.
Reframe this to accommodate for the prevalence and general expectations of where cameras exist.
Many people walk around with a mobile device out, essentially carrying a device with (increasingly) close to a 360 camera view. Cameras are ubiquitous and targeting one niche device is a waste of time and effort.
> 2b. Being disconnected from nature and reality is the #1 cause for such disorder; you don't see any kind of vegetarianism in rural people.
This is just untrue, hundreds of millions of rural South Asians are vegetarian.
> 3. People with a brain realize that eating meat is important.
Everyone has a brain. Both vegetarian and omnivore groups have their share of geniuses and fools. Meat was important as a calorie source but it has many drawbacks in modern society totally unrelated to animal ethics; cancer risk, inefficient land use, methane production, etc.
> 4. People with a bigger brain also realize that that eating other animals is the prerogative of power: humans have simply won the animal kingdom's oldest game and are enjoying its spoils. Things wouldn't (and shouldn't) be different if positions were reversed.
This sounds like manifest destiny rhetoric and deserves just as much consideration.
> Meat was important as a calorie source but it has many drawbacks in modern society totally unrelated to animal ethics; cancer risk, inefficient land use, methane production, etc.
I think the most important drawbacks which actually threaten modern society are deforestation and zoonoses. Both can be largely avoided by raising only insects for meat, which reduces water and land use by 80%, and CO2 emissions even more if feed is mostly food waste. It is however a hard sell and has to be hidden in products in order to be accepted by consumers.
In my understanding it is mostly a cultural thing that makes people reject insects. I am unaware of any objective measure by which are insects are terrible foods.
If I heard somewhere that insects are good people food, I certainly wouldn't go repeating that assertion in public without having tried eating insects at least once.
It is unethical profess a belief in public, especially an unusual belief, but neglect to test that belief when a test would be inexpensive and straightforward.
It is also unethical to propose a radical change to society with only very tenuous basis in reality: people should be able to demonstrate knowledge (and not just knowledge about what beliefs will prove popular or fashionable) before they engage in public policy discussions. If the person I'm discussing with hasn't tried eating insects at least once (preferably a lot more often) he is doing us all a disservice in even engaging in a public discussion of the topic unless perhaps he has deep professional-level knowledge of the nutritional value of insects and the effect of nutrients and anti-nutrients on human health (and "insects are high in protein" alone doesn't begin to be enough knowledge).
Trolling is widely believed to be anti-social. It is approximately just as anti-social to try to whip up a public discussion of some radical social or economic change or some radical change in our daily lives with as little grounding in reality as this discussion of insects as food.
> It is also unethical to propose a radical change to society with only very tenuous basis in reality: people should be able to demonstrate knowledge (and not just knowledge about what beliefs will prove popular or fashionable) before they engage in public policy discussions. If the person I'm discussing with hasn't tried eating insects at least once (preferably a lot more often) he is doing us all a disservice in even engaging in a public discussion of the topic unless perhaps he has deep professional-level knowledge of the nutritional value of insects and the effect of nutrients and anti-nutrients on human health (and "insects are high in protein" alone doesn't begin to be enough knowledge).
That is a strange position. The most that I could contribute is anecdotal evidence anyway. The nutrient composition and the safety of insect-derived food has been rigorously studied, for example in: https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8009
I think it would be nice to have socialized healthcare in my country. I have never been covered by socialized healthcare. Am I trolling by expressing that opinion because I have a PPO plan through my employer?
There are no ways[1] to obtain info relevant to public policy discussions about a nationwide healthcare system anywhere near as easy as, "the net is full of misinformation, so I should at least try eating insects to make sure I even can without getting sick".
[1] Or more precisely I havent been able to think of any ways.
Do you have any actual proof of your assertion? Anthropic in particular has been more willing to walk the walk than the other labs and AI safety was on the minds of many in the space long before money came in.
Anthropic, the company who recently announced you're no longer allowed to hurt the model's feelings because they believe (or rather want you to believe) that it's a real conscious being.
That is not an accurate characterization and you know it. Engaging in bad faith is against HN rules.
Furthermore, not exploring even the mere possibility of pain and suffering in the brain your laboratory is growing is morally reckless. Anthropic is doing the right thing here and they should not listen to the naysayers.
reply