fine_sandy_bottom @ fine_sandy_bottom @lemmy.federate.cc

Posts

7

Comments

853

Joined

1 yr. ago

You're absolutely correct, but I don't think really anything can be done about this community nor others with similar problems.

There just aren't enough users who actually care about this type of nuance.

There's no point trying to uphold an ideal that just isn't relevant to most users.

Drug cartels.

Most countries just regulate the content of baby formula.

There's loads of ways you can monetise being the window through which billions of hours of attention are spent every day.

It's not working for Firefox because they just don't have many users any more. I haven't checked recently but it's less than 5% market share or something.

I absolutely agree with you, but it just doesn't seem viable at this point.

I think you're right about affordability.

There's a subset of the population who will pursue VR for gaming et cetera, but it's a limited subset. While the same hardware or tech might be able to be used for casual AR / VR helpful type things like meetings or informational things those applications just aren't beneficial enough to make it worth the cost of the hardware.

If there was more content, more useful applications, and the cost was negligible, then sure it will take off.

In my 20s I would've been interested in VR for gaming and would've been excited about the potential applications of AR. Now in my 40s it's clear that tech doesn't bring me joy, and I'd like to diminish it's role in my life. As in, I want tech to improve my well being and quality of life rather than consume my time and limit my experience of life.

20 years from now, I can imagine myself as a reluctant late-adopter of AR. I just absolutely will not tolerate ads in this regard. I'd rather forage for twigs and berries in the wilderness than allow adverts to be injected into my experience of realiity.

Dude it's a book.

"Gladiators would be popular because there's this movie called Gladiator that everyone loves and that has heaps of Gladiators."

Do any of these applications really require AR / VR though?

I had assumed the metaverse was more about augmented reality than an alternate reality. I don't really know anything about it though.

It's not "outsourcing" in the common use of the term, but it's establishing plausible deniability between the brand and the practice, which is "outsourcing" in an ironic sense.

That said, I find the deniability completely implausible. BYD would be intimately aware of the progress and happenings on that site.

The french company thought the project was an upfront full payout, but the state had it set up as a piecemeal payment system based on hitting specific objectives.

I pretty much just don't believe you.

"How & when will we get paid" is a core component of tenders even for contracts worth a few thousand dollars. I'm incredulous that a contract worth many millions could be awarded without anyone realising that payments were provided in stages.

What you're describing sounds much more like a disagreement over a variation. Whatever aspect of the project was going to cost more than anticipated so the contract needs to be varied. Service acquirer refuses to vary, contractor refuses to absorb the cost.

But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check

You said intentional.

It’s entirely based on the case it’s used in

Perhaps, but if it's ever used to support justice then it's inevitable that it would also be used to undermine justice.

A jury's role is to determine whether a defendant committed the acts of which they are charged.

Allowing a jury to determine whether the law ought to apply to a given defendant undermines the judicial system. Why bother having laws if you can simply convene a jury of citizens to determine an appropriate punishment?

inherent protections the judicial system gives people

Like the right to an attorney? Sure.

Jury nullification is not an "intentional feature" of the justice process. It's corruption.

A jury does not decide someone's fate.

They determine whether a person is guilty of the charges against them beyond any reasonable doubt.

A jury refusing to find a defendant guilty despite their obvious guilt simply because their actions might be understandable is corruption.

This sounds like a very just system but how can it be achieved? How would you restructure the existing system to achieve these outcomes?

The comment I originally responded to suggested that juries could just dispense justice based on the vibe of the case before them. IMO such a system would be more or less guaranteed to fail to produce any of the outcomes on your list.

The separation of these concerns is the best way we have found to mitigate corruption since the advent of written laws. The outcome of a specific case may be unjust, but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.

Do you have some examples of justice systems which do not separate these concerns and produce better outcomes? If not, your comment is just hyperbole.

Who is "they" and how might they "fix" the justice system ?

More than half of American voters just chose to subvert the already ineffective legal system, to install a corrupt felon as dictator.

Are you proposing that allowing a jury of peers drawn from this public ought to be able to make up the law based on the vibe of cases before them ?

Everything you said is true, but it doesn't really contradict my point.

The current system is terrible, but it's better than having a jury of laypeople make up the law based on the vibe of the case.

I look forward to hearing your suggestions for a better judicial system.

I never said the system was just.

Merely pointing out that separating the finding of guilt from the determination of punishment is the best way we have to mitigate corruption.

I look forward to hearing your suggestions for a better system.

That's not really how jury's work though.

You're not there to dispense justice. You're there to decide whether the defendant is guilty of the charges against him.

Someone will be along in a moment to tell us all about Jury Nullification, a refusal to find the defendant guilty on the grounds that it would be unjust, despite the defendant's obvious guilt.

This pretty much reduces the court process to a popularity contest - how does the jury "feel" about the defendant, what are the "vibes" of the circumstances before them.

Jurors determine guilt, and judges determine punishments. The separation of these concerns is the best way we have found to mitigate corruption since the advent of written laws. The outcome of a specific case may be unjust, but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.