ToaKraka
Dislikes you
No bio...
User ID: 108
If your French is not sufficient
AP article on the ICC prosecutors who have received the same treatment
EU page explaining the "blocking statute" that the judge wants the EU to implement in order to prevent EU companies from obeying US sanctions
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
22hr ago
It looks like Frank did demand court costs in his complaint. But costs are mentioned in neither the trial judge's opinion nor the appeals panel's opinion, so I assume that these costs (and Frank's entitlement to them) will not be determined until after the appeals process has concluded.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
-
In year 1985, on a dead-end street that terminates at a beach, two properties are created*, one on the beachfront at the end of the street and another with the first property between it and the beach. The beachfront property is encumbered with a restrictive covenant forbidding any construction or landscaping taller than four feet in the rear 40 percent of the lot, "specifically imposed for the benefit of" the non-beachfront property. In year 2002, the federal and state governments obstruct the ocean view with a tall dune in order to mitigate erosion.
-
In year 2015, Frank buys the non-beachfront property for 5.2 megadollars. In year 2018, John buys the beachfront property for 5.3 megadollars (outbidding Frank, who also wants to buy it). John demolishes the existing beachfront house and builds a new one. But the new house's landscaping includes trees taller than four feet in the restricted area, so Frank sues John to force him to prune the trees down to four feet.
-
In court, John argues that the restrictive covenant is superfluous because the ocean view that it was intended to preserve for the non-beachfront property no longer exists. But the trial judge rejects this argument, and the appeals panel affirms. The restrictive covenant is unambiguous, and it is not unreasonable to interpret it as intended to preserve the non-beachfront property's view, not just of the ocean, but also of "the scenic dunes and beachscape that surrounds it".
*Insert Georgism joke about how land cannot be created. Insert Nederland joke about how land can be created.
-
A woman reports to the police that a man has trespassed in her house and fallen asleep there. The responding police officers are familiar with the trespasser, and note that his car is parked outside the house, with the key and a bunch of cash plainly visible through the car's windows.
-
The officers arrest the trespasser and bring him to the police station, which is just three blocks away from the house. The officers note that the trespasser appears drunk, but do not think that there is enough evidence to additionally charge him with driving to the house while drunk. The officers remind the trespasser that he's too intoxicated to drive legally, offer to drive him home, warn him that his car is presenting an enticing target to thieves, and suggest that he call someone to drive the car away. The trespasser assures the officers that he will get picked up by someone else, and tells them that he won't bother to call anyone to drive the car away. He is not so intoxicated that he is a danger to himself, so the officers release him from custody (rather than making him sober up in an emergency room for a few hours).
-
At this point, three hours have passed since the initial report. One of the officers drives back to the house to make sure that the trespasser doesn't drive the car away. The officer immediately sees the car being driven away. The officer can't see who the driver is, but suspects that it is the trespasser, and on that suspicion tries to pull the car over. The driver tries to escape at high speed for half a mile, but eventually stops and is revealed to be the trespasser. The officer notes that the trespasser still appears intoxicated (though less than he was three hours prior), and arrests the trespasser for (inter alia) drunk driving.
-
At trial, the trespasser argues that the officer did not have enough suspicion to stop the car. But the trial judge rejects this argument, and the appeals panel affirms. The "reasonable suspicion" necessary for a warrantless motor-vehicle stop is a low bar, and the officer in this case cleared that bar when he observed the car being driven away in conjunction with the trespasser's statement that he wasn't going to call anyone to drive it away.
There was also a case that I posted in the Wednesday Wellness Thread.
They're called "snark" subreddits. Null has complained a few times about how they get away with harassment that would be immediately banworthy on Kiwi Farms.
Bro, do you seriously think Kiwi farms is a more rigid environment than reddit? Do you seriously think communities on reddit can organize CPS calls openly? Do you seriously think communities on reddit can organize CPS calls openly? Doxxing and personal information is banable, you can't even post a screenshot with someone's username on it because they consider that harassment. The whole point of Kiwi farms is that is not as anal and rigid as these other sites. Kiwifarms doesn't allow calls to action, that's it, everything else that is legal is allowed.
Non-Null quote regarding H3H3's lawsuit against the moderators of that group's snark subreddit:
very bizarre to see people in this thread joyfully celebrating the fact that a Professional Internet Faggot got a judge's permission to dox and sue Redditors for being mean to him on the internet. I wonder if our friend Mr. Elliot Fong is paying attention.
Nigga the anti-H3 people sent him skulls in the mail, tried to get his kids taken away, and people on h3snark were taking credit for it and openly bragging about it. That shit is straight up illegal and he is well within his rights to subpoena reddit for the names of the people who moderated the communities where that behavior happened and encouraged it. This is true regardless of your opinion on Ethan.
perhaps you have forgotten kiwifarms' status as The Most Hated Forum. baseless accusations of defamation or harassment can and have been used effectively against this site and its user base.
Kiwi Farms, as far as I know, has not sent people human skulls in the mail or tried to call CPS with the intent of wrongfully getting someone's kids taken away.
You're making an argument that this is setting bad precedent, but the kind of person who would spread lies in order to destroy this site a-la Keffals during DKF don't need that precedent. It already happened and did not involve use of the law. I repeat my statement that there is literally nothing wrong with going through the proper legal channels to obtain the identities of people who tried to fuck with you and your family so that you can sue them.
If Null thought this sort of thing would hurt the site in some way, he wouldn't be featuring it himself: [screenshot of thread's being featured on Kiwi Farms front page]
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
Source, included in the record of a 2016 Senate hearing on this topic by John McCain
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
In a 100-page court opinion, six of the New Jersey Supreme Court's seven justices go on a deep dive regarding SBS/AHT (shaken-baby syndrome/abusive head trauma), and conclude that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the pronouncement of the prosecutor's expert witness that "the only explanation for the children's symptoms, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, was that the children were shaken by the caregivers" (in these two consolidated cases, the children's fathers).
The State has not met its burden of establishing general acceptance in the relevant scientific communities because the research, studies, and testimony presented at the hearing reflect a lack of general acceptance in the biomechanical community regarding SBS/AHT without impact [as opposed to shaking with impact]. There is evidence of general acceptance by many in the medical community, but the State must also establish general acceptance in the biomechanical community, and it has failed to do so.
Surely, if there is physical evidence of trauma to a child or other evidence of abuse, the State can present such evidence to a jury. And, if new, reliable, scientific evidence is developed, the State can, of course, in a future case, make a showing under the Daubert standard this Court adopted in Olenowski I, that expert testimony regarding SBS/AHT without impact is reliable. In such a case, scientific evidence and research, both old and new, could be presented and considered. Science is constantly evolving, so the door is not forever closed on making such a showing of reliability
There is no dispute that child abuse is a serious and unacceptably cruel act against the most vulnerable and innocent in our society. There is no dispute that, when a young child presents at a hospital or other medical facility with symptoms including subdural hematomas, retinal hemorrhages, and encephalopathy, such symptoms present a worrisome and urgent situation. No one disputes that medical professionals, including pediatricians, radiologists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, ophthalmologists, and more perform admirable work every single day to care for severely ill children who present with the symptoms associated with SBS/AHT.
The question before this Court, however, is whether the State has met its burden of proving that an expert should be allowed to take the witness stand and testify, not only about the injuries observed on a child through medical examinations and tests, but also that the only explanation for those injuries is child abuse. We hold that the State has not met that burden, and that Dr. Medina's testimony is therefore unreliable and inadmissible at trial.
The lone dissenting justice spends another fifty pages arguing (inter alia) that (1) SBS/AHT is far more scientific than the other medical diagnoses that have been rejected by the court under the same standard (identifiable character traits common to rapists, voiceprint analysis, estimating a person's height from the size of his shoes, hypnotically refreshed testimony, child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome, and Alcotest machines calibrated without an NIST-traceable digital thermometer) and (2) completely banning expert testimony on SBS/AHT, rather than permitting the jury to decide between competing experts at trial, is an excessively harsh sanction.
The [Consensus Statement on Abusive Head Trauma in Infants and Young Children] was endorsed by the national and international professional societies of every major discipline involved in the diagnosis and treatment of SBS/AHT. That includes the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology, the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, the Executive Committee of the American College of Radiology, the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, the European Society of Neuroradiology, the Swedish Paediatric Society, the Norwegian Pediatric Association, the Japanese Pediatric Society, the Society for Pediatric Radiology, the European Society of Paediatric Radiology, the Sociedad Latino Americana de Radiología Pediátrica, the Société Francophone d'Imagerie Pédiatrique et Prénatale, the Asian and Oceanic Society for Paediatric Radiology, and the Australian and New Zealand Society for Paediatric Radiology.
This more than suffices to show that SBS/AHT is generally accepted in every major discipline involved in its diagnosis and treatment: pediatrics, child abuse pediatrics, neurology, neuroradiology, neurosurgery, radiology, ophthalmology, and emergency medicine.
I note the sweep of the majority's decision. Acknowledging a debate and granting a new trial to allow experts to dispute the merits of a particular medical diagnosis is entirely different from prohibiting a trial from taking place at all. The majority has chosen the latter, holding that "expert testimony regarding SBS/AHT without impact… cannot be admitted at trial".
Under the majority's rule, unless "new, reliable, scientific evidence is developed… that expert testimony regarding SBS/AHT without impact is reliable", no person in New Jersey can be charged with child abuse for shaking or slamming an infant unless external evidence of impact is present. Similarly, the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP) will no longer be able to bring Title 9 proceedings in such cases. The Attorney General and DCPP warn that this will be "a significant setback to public safety" and will "hamper DCPP's ability to fulfill its responsibilities… to 'immediately take such action as shall be necessary to insure the safety of the child' upon receiving a report of [child] abuse".
In my view, a better approach would be to allow a full exchange between experts on the merits of an SBS/AHT diagnosis in any particular case.
This case should inspire judicial modesty. It should call to mind Chief Justice Rehnquist’s warning that judges resist the temptation to believe themselves "amateur scientists". Yet the majority "step[s] beyond its role as gatekeeper of relevant and reliable information, and instead act[s] as the final arbiter of the correctness of Dr. Van Ee's" and other experts' conclusions. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
I realize that this probably is a joke (and if so it's a hilarious one), but just to avoid confusion I will link to the actual website.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
A development tangentially related to a court case that I posted a few weeks ago: On roads where cyclists are present, the government of the UKGBNI is now discouraging the construction of 12-foot (3.65-meter) traffic lanes, which have been standard for approximately 150 years, under the rationale that they encourage motorists to pass cyclists in an unsafe manner (closer than the 4′11″ (1.5 m) that is required under the law). Under the new guidance, lanes should be (1) 10′8″ (3.25 m) or narrower, in order to make it clear that motorists should not try to pass cyclists, or (2) 12′10″ (3.9 m) or wider, so that motorists can pass cyclists safely. Critics point out that in most cases right-of-way constraints prevent existing lanes from being widened, so in practice this will force local governments to make existing lanes narrower in order to get funding for road-maintenance projects.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
OMB accepts the recommendation to combine the separate questions on race and ethnicity into a single combined race and ethnicity question. Because respondents may perceive categories like Hispanic or Latino or MENA as either a race or ethnicity, the revised SPD 15 requires agencies to treat the categories equally and report them as “race and/or ethnicity” categories.
"Middle Eastern or North African" also has been separated out from "white".
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
& #x223c; (without the space) = & sim; (without the space) = ∼
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
All my money buys me a modest single family home where I live.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
What Markdown still wrecks for me is the use of "[tilde]40" to indicate that the number is a loose approximation, which then sometimes turns into a big strikethrough if I use it a second time. Unicode gives us ≈, but that doesn't feel right to me when there's nothing to the left of it.
Fun fact: You can use the code charts (or software like BabelMap) to find official alternatives for problematic characters.
Alternatives to 007E ~ tilde (HTML named character reference Tilde) (not including combining characters):
-
02DC ˜ small tilde (HTML named character reference
tilde) -
2053 ⁓ swung dash
-
223C ∼ tilde operator (HTML named character reference
sim) -
2E1B ⸛ tilde with ring above
-
2E2F ⸯ vertical tilde
-
301C 〜 wave dash
-
FF5E ～ fullwidth tilde
Obviously, HTML named character references are a lot easier to remember than hexadecimal representations, so & sim; (without the space) probably is the best alternative for use on this website.
It appears that bankruptcy fraud is a crime (1 2) punishable by a sentence of up to five years in prison. (The federal Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a minimum offense level of 10 for fraud of up to 15 k$ (base 6 for fraud, plus 2 for loss up to 15 k$, plus 2 for bankruptcy fraud). This corresponds to an actual sentence of 6 to 12 months for an offender with no criminal history.)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3d ago
28
low 7 figures saved up
That should be more than enough for you to retire.
-
Expenses of a single man with income less than 15 k$/a: 26 k$/a
-
Withdrawal rate: 26 k$/a ÷ 1 M$ = 2.6 %/a, which is far less than the general recommendation of 4 %/a
I'm not sure where you're getting the 90 cm from.
(4) Except as provided in Sentence (5), openable windows in buildings of residential occupancy shall be protected by
(a) a guard, or
(b) a mechanism that can only be released with the use of tools or special knowledge to control the free swinging or sliding operation of the openable part of the window so as to limit any clear unobstructed opening to not more than 100 mm (3.9″) measured either vertically or horizontally.
(5) Windows need not be protected in accordance with Sentence (4), where the bottom edge of the openable portion of the window is located
(a) more than 900 mm (2′11.4″) above the finished floor, or
(b) less than 1 800 mm (5′10.9″) above the floor or ground on the other side of the window.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
4d ago
In The Phantom Menace, it seems that slavery is openly practiced on some worlds and the Republic just doesn't give a shit.
The opening crawl for that movie explicitly states: "The taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute." Naboo is an outlying star system. Tatooine is even more distant from the capital than Naboo—possibly not even part of the Republic, as indicated by how Watto refuses to take Republic credits. These two systems are not representative of a "glorious republic", any more than Moldova and Transnistria are representative of Europe.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
4d ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
4d ago
I haven't read any Star Wars books in maybe ten years, and The Crystal Star in particular in maybe fifteen years. But I do not remember The Crystal Star's being particularly bad (though I do recall thinking it was rather weird that the Solo twins were able to create light with the Force by vibrating air molecules in their prison cell). The point is that it is among a zillion books that are suitable for movie treatment.
I don't think it's possible to make another great Star Wars movie. All the good ideas were completely used up in the original trilogy. Back in the 90s they made a bunch of books to continue the story, and an awful lot of them were about the emperor coming back to life and then getting taken down again by Luke, Han, and Leia, because what else can you even do?
This is blatant misinformation. Only a single storyline, the comic series Dark Empire, featured a revived Emperor. There were lots of cool Star Wars books, running the gamut from standalone books like The Truce at Bakura, The Crystal Star, and I, Jedi to sprawling series (plural) like Rogue Squadron, New Jedi Order, and Legacy of the Force.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
5d ago
An r/bogleheads bigwig says otherwise.
The Cash Trap
The way it might play out if you switch from a total bond fund to a cash equivalent is as follows. The economy goes into a recession, and the Fed signals and then implements significant rate cuts—for example, −1.5% over 2 years. Now you’ll find your HYSA or MMF may be suddenly yielding less than 3% while the total bond fund, thanks to its 5–6 year duration, is still yielding close to 5%. So you think you’ll switch back to the total bond fund after that happens. But what you missed is that, when the Fed cut rates, BND’s holdings became more valuable and the price will have shot up. How much? I can’t say exactly. But, as one indication, at the end of October 2023, the Fed only signaled that they were stopping rate increases—not even a signal of actual cuts—and BND’s value jumped 8% in two months.
Think about it—you are contemplating moving money from BND to an MMF to earn maybe 0.75% more yield over the course of a whole year, and when the Fed signals rate pausing BND increases in value by 8% in just 2 months. The December 12–13 Fed meeting alone caused a +1.6% daily increase in BND’s value. So the decision to chase a little more yield could cost you years’ worth of the spread you were trying to capture. As described in this post:
The cash trap describes the risk of investing in short-term bonds or cash instruments at higher rates that ultimately prove temporary. The Federal Reserve eventually cuts rates, and the high short-term yields disappear. Because the securities have short maturities, falling rates do not lead to material price appreciation. Once the securities mature, the cash flow stream withers and investors are left with a much lower return outlook. However, if investors lock in longer-term rates, unlike the short-term options, the yields do not go away. Not only does the cash flow stream stay steady, but the reduction in market rates also leads to price appreciation. The result historically has been significantly higher returns on longer-term securities, despite the lower starting yield.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
5d ago
I think he mentioned a while ago that he does have a job and this website is just a side project.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
5d ago
VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF) is an ETF (exchange-traded fund) that covers the entirety of the US stock market. VTSAX (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Admiral Shares) is the mutual-fund equivalent. The previous commenter is recommending that you invest exclusively in US stocks. The more standard advice is to invest in a mixture that trends from 90/10 stocks/bonds (high reward but high risk) when you're working to 70/30 bonds/stocks (low risk but low reward) when you're retired—and also 60/40 US/foreign, so four different component funds in total.
smuggling
More options
Context Copy link