This is literally an associate professor of law at Yale asserting "my reconstruction of events based on interviews long after the fact is more plausible...
Yes, but the Yalie's claims still includes sections like :
As laid out in the reconstruction above, I believe it likely that Lawrence and Gamer were in Lawrence's bedroom together when the police arrived. I further believe it likely that the two men were involved in some kind of sexual activity (possibly, though not necessarily, including prohibited anal sex) when the police arrived. Thus, on the one hand, I do not believe a central contention of Quinn and Lilly's account. For reasons I gave earlier, I think it unlikely the deputies actually witnessed Lawrence and Garner having anal sex.
This isn't compatible with "But in short, Lawrence and Garner were not together, sexually or otherwise, before or after the case", nor "the case that affirmed the right of gay couples to have consensual sex in private spaces seems to have involved two men who were neither a couple nor having sex." At most, Carpenter's analysis tries to question whether the men were having oral sex, or whether the police had actually seen them fucking rather than just recognized that they had been.
But that is not actually the legal question relevant to the case. Even had Lawrence and/or Garner brought a not-guilty plea, rather than plead no contest, and faced a jury, the jury would not have asked which of the two had topped for a minute in front of police, but merely whether they had sex. Even excluding the contested police statements, it doesn't exactly take a giant leap of faith to think that the two men found naked in a room with some gay porn, after a false police call that was triggered by a lover's spat, were Down Bad. Separately, the men were long-term confirmed bachelors, but this isn't even a 'but they might someday violate the statute' question; the available evidence suggests this wasn't even the first time the two fucked. It's possible that the two were merely remarkable fans of frottage or manual masturbation, or that prosecutors wouldn't consider rimming to count, or what have you, but it's a bit of a reach.
These are reasonable discussions! It's quite likely that at least one if not all of the police testimonies were 'embellished' if not simply lying as a way to implement 'contempt of cop' as a charge, and that does say something for these laws in specific and for due process in general (although I think Carpenter is a little too quick to assume contradiction and, for that, which direction: drunken guys making bad decisions are not ). But the 1973 statute in question banned both oral and anal sex, and like all crimes allows arrest and charge on relatively low standards of evidence. And neither Lawrence nor Garner would have to have lied. After all, "no contest" does not require you to plea that the factual allegations in a claim are true, unlike a guilty plea (indeed, a lot of states have case law about people having to plea no contest because they could not remember facts of an incident well enough or even at all to plea guilty).
I expect Carpenter tolerates, if not intentionally courts, this confusion: there's a reason his paper subtitles a section as "Posing As Somdomites [sic]". But Carpenter only says this in the subtitles, which are apparently in the group of things no one expects to be honest, and tbf he throws in an annoying footnote. This sort of thing is neither unusual nor is Carpenter (or the New Yorker) particularly severe here. But it's still kinda relevant to recognize that they were sodomites, and almost all the available evidence suggests that they were at least working on the practical side of that with each other the day of the arrest.
The revelation that Lawrence and Garner were not married-in-everything-but-name is more honest and contradicts a lot of the implications the Lawrence cert request about not merely couples but 'long-term couples', and in Kennedy's writing (along with its other problems: the man's first draft was so florid gay clerks asked him to tone it down), and it's somewhat more fair.
((Indeed, here perhaps Carpenter is either unwilling or too unfamiliar with the matter to actually Darkly Hint: his analysis, at most, suggests that Lawrence and Garner had a one-night stand or perhaps a threesome-turned-twosome with an annoyed third wheel. That neither Eubanks nor Garner had regular employment and were staying late at night in a large apartment rented by a man of moderate income... sometimes that sorta thing is someone genuinely providing as much as they can to destitute soon-to-be-friends. Sometimes helping down-on-their-luck gay guys out means a bunch of gay guys will be in your apartment. And then sometimes it means they'd owe you a favor. I'd bet closer to category one or two, here, but I've seen the aftermath of people chasing three.))
That they were not a traditional couple (or threepul or whatever) is a more realistic criticism of Kennedy's writing. But that still does not get us to "Plaintiff shopping", "All it takes is a bit of theater", or a place where we can't find "parties who aren't being puppeted". Indeed, Carpenter and Lewis both agree that all three of Eubanks, Garner, and Lawrence were very far from the sort of parties that anyone would want for a court case. One of the police that night (Quinn, the man who alleged to have been exposed to over a minute of two men fucking at gunpoint) thought it was an intentionally-farmed case. But Carpenter dismisses that entirely; Quinn's report is the one Carpenter believes was most heavily 'exaggerated'.
There are aggressively shopped cases and plaintiffs; even assuming the report for 303 Creative isn't lying it still wouldn't be the most severe. US v. Miller is my long-standing favorite, simply because the 'controversy' involved a man who was dead before the case was decided. There are even some traits for this case after the charges were filed: the defense lawyers requesting that their own clients face higher fines (so they could appeal) are one of the more obvious.
Rather than being picked as people to find a case, or perhaps had a case with facts selected to best present before the court, the gay men here seemed to have been 'picked' once they were already facing prosecution, and picked mostly in the sense that they and Lawrence in particular (previously pulled to a police car in his underpants while shouting at police!) were obstinate enough to pick a fight.
There's a fair critique that these men did not have the information to understand what that fight would entail for them over the long term, or that given costs of what they paid that the broader movement owed them more; the New Yorker piece ends with a bit on that. And it's quite true: I've made my case for smaller-scale problems, but the extent the legal community depends on an army of sacrificial lambs is pretty appalling. But it is less an argument in favor of 'natural' cases as against them.
gattsuru
1yr ago
I don't think this is a very strong argument. Trivially, a portion of covered tenants are effectively unservable, a larger portion of covered tenants are going to be judgement proof, most state eviction systems got absolutely wrecked by the moratorium in ways that prevent a lot of newly-started evictions from actually going through in anything close to a reasonable time frame and further delay them, and being incredibly charitable and assuming that the same people who told SCOTUS about behavior "absent an unexpected change" weren't planning around these things, they still are separately impacting those systems by other bad policies.
As far as I can tell, there have been no successful cases attempting to bring damages against the government -- indeed, the unlawfulness of the moratorium was used to dismiss a suit about the damages for a taking.
And that's for a court case that ultimately decided on statutory interpretation grounds, not takings clause or due process ones. Eg, a case where the courts would have been A-OK if Congress wrote a law.
This isn't quite parallel with the mafia don that theoretically will accept appeals from those under his 'protection', but gives his made men's decisions incredible latitude even in the face of repeated bad acts, and only occasionally has them injure the representatives of even victorious appellants. But it rhymes a lot more than you'd hope.
gattsuru
7hr ago
I'd caution that :
- Python's support for the singleton pattern is kinda jank, due to lack of first-class support for private constructors or access modifiers.
- While there's a lot of arguments in favor of the singleton pattern with an interaction controller for bigcorp work, in small businesses it can be a temptation with serious tradeoffs. Refactoring (whether to add an intermediate object between World and Agent, or if you end up needing multiple World objects such as for a fictional context) can be nightmarish in Python, even if all the interaction logic is properly contained. And it probably won't be properly contained: marketing and customers can end up demanding bizarre requirements on near-zero notice that can require information from multiple different singletons, and if you end up hiring (or taking interns!) as a small business rather than at the FAANG level, those people (and I was one of them once!) will often break around the interaction controller unless aggressively managed.
gattsuru
14hr ago
There's nothing like the partial class concept from C#, though I agree it would be really nice if there were.
You can kinda fake it by exploiting the heck of out inheritance, in a couple different ways, depending on what level of composition you're aiming to be able to do. If you want selective import of behaviors (and to avoid the diamond inheritance problem, mostly), you can do something like :
agentInfectionLogic,py:
wasInfected = False
countedInfections = 0
def incrementInfection(self):
self.world.totalInfections += 1
if self.wasInfected:
self.world.redundantInfections += 1
self.wasInfected = True
self.countedInfections += 1
def infectedCount(self):
return self.countedInfections
agentFileLogic,py:
def loadInfectionInfo(self):
temploadInfections = 20
for x in range(temploadInfections):
self.incrementInfection()
# do an actual file load here.
def saveInfectionInfo(self):
tempfile = self.infectedCount
# save an actual file here.
agent,py:
class Agent:
from agentInfectionLogic import infectedCount, incrementInfection, countedInfections, wasInfected
from agentFileLogic import saveInfectionInfo, loadInfectionInfo
def __init__(self, ownerWorld):
self.world = ownerWorld
And then calls like world.knownAgents[0].loadInfectionInfo() or world.infectRandomAgent() would work as normal, and you can even swap between different experimental forms by having from agentInfectionLogic import infectedCount, incrementInfection, countedInfections, wasInfected or from testAgentInfectionLogic import infectedCount, incrementInfection, countedInfections, wasInfected (or even a mix-and-match between the two).
Agent.py has to know about what's going on, but to everywhere else, anything imported into agent.py looks identical to as if it were coded into that file or class. Eventually this turns into a full module, where the __init__.py file holds the glue and then you have better names for your actual logic .pys, but when that makes sense depends a lot on the scale of your project.
gattsuru
20d ago
What does that involve, if not covered by a traditional Christian family who had very strict understandings and very overt rules about not just social roles but also biological expectations (ie, it is your duty to marry and pump out 2-4 children)?
gattsuru
2mo ago
Thanks you. Trying to decide if it's worth reposting mediated group hallucinated reality, but have readded the other links and updates.
gattsuru
3mo ago
I'm hopeful, but there's a risk that Roberts may not be choosing from the full possibility space, but from a small number of best alternatives to negotiated agreement. And a lot of those leave states (and worse!) to just decide to not let a candidate on the ballot (and worse!).
gattsuru
3mo ago
There was a lot more authority and clear case-law on the matter before a bunch of the Colorado election code was revised in the last decade, although its bounds had a limitation. But that's... about as much detail as I'm comfortable giving publicly.
gattsuru
3mo ago
But Colorado does not have a statutory restriction preventing ineligible candidates from being listed on the ballot, and the Colorado Supreme Court did not find one. In fact, it held that :
To that extent, we agree with President Trump that the Secretary has no duty to determine, beyond what is apparent on the face of the required documents, whether a presidential candidate is qualified.
Hence the emphasis on "“wrongful act” that runs afoul of section 1-4-1203(2)(a) and undermines the purposes of the Election Code", and why there's so much emphasis on what's implied for 1203 purposes. But it doesn't matter; this is a state law question, and SCOTUS isn't going to punt because of it, and it wouldn't matter if they did (even for Colorado, for reasons I'm not discussing publicly).
It just makes Unikowsky's argument really weak at a philosophy-of-law level.
gattsuru
3mo ago
I don't think the "Not everything that is permitted is mandatory" part is very coherent. It would be a wonderful argument if there were clear statutory restrictions preventing insurrectionists from going on the ballot -- yet if such existed, we wouldn't be futzing around with these weird third- or fourth-degree restraints. Both Colorado's role and Baude/Paulsen position more generally is not that a state can block insurrectionists from the ballot, but that it must do so where any role to review qualifications exists. Unikowsky tries to shove this problem as if Thorton were the only limit, but Thorton is why Trump's lawyers argue this is clearly and egregiously wrong rather than merely incorrect.
The pragmatic argument is a lot stronger -- kicking this can down the road opens up a tremendous amount of worms, and heightens the risk of people literally marching on SCOTUS among far worse things -- but the pragmatic arguments give a lot of strong arguments toward either completely disqualifying Trump across the board, or completely limiting disqualification, and Unikowsky isn't making either of those arguments in context for Michigan.
((Separately, Unikowsky's aversion to clever solutions isn't as awkward as when coming from the emoluments clause fandom, but it's still pretty nakedly new given the man's role in Espinoza. Or, for that matter, when one examines how 'clever' this is, here.))
gattsuru
3mo ago
Netanyahu was successful in his judicial reform bill, pending SC review
In a monumental, highly controversial decision, the High Court of Justice strikes down legislation passed earlier this year that curtailed judicial oversight of the government, annulling for the first time in Israel’s history an element of one of its quasi-constitutional Basic Laws.
The court split almost down the middle over the highly contentious legislation, which eliminated judicial use of the “reasonableness” standard — the only significant law from the government’s judicial overhaul agenda to have been passed so far. Eight justices vote in favor of striking down the law, while seven vote to uphold it.
gattsuru
3mo ago
Habba's been part of the team more involved in Trump's dumb (sometimes sanctioned-level-dumb) civil suits. So not exactly some rando, but still at the point where if she ran into the SCOTUS bar team in a dark alley she'd be having a bad time.
gattsuru
3mo ago
At least as I've seen it colloquially used in the ratsphere, iron is 'softer' than steel, sometimes with the implication than iron is something present in nature (if rare), while steel is mostly man-made. Might be derived from DoD framing of increasingly higher-order languages.
gattsuru
3mo ago
I think the "free publicity" point is no small part of things, but I think there's a lot of options that are still open, and Raskin's not stating those options outright less because they don't exist, and more because there are bigger benefits from the ambiguity and from crowdsourcing innovation.
gattsuru
3mo ago
That seems about the same tack that Bellows took, if a bit better thought out. The analysis in the decision is just:
On this point, I find Griffin's Case 11 F. Cas. 7 (CCCD Va 1869) to be unpersuasive. It is not binding in Maine, does not assess whether states can enforce Section Three without Congressional authorization, and has been discredited. See, eg Anderson, 2023 CO 63, 103; Amicus Br. of Constituional Law Professor Mark A Graber 7-8 (Dec 14, 2023).
gattsuru
4mo ago
Beyond the other objections, incest kink has had a pretty sizable and long-present popularity in fandom spaces where the drivers and funders are more transparent, or where ... reproduction wasn't a particular risk, or both.
Which doesn't prevent your hypothesis, but it'd be funny to have a complex conspiracy for things people already were gonna do.
gattsuru
4mo ago
While I like (and sometimes exploit!) this trait, a lot of settings on both generation and upscaling (especially with latent upscalers) will result in visual clutter that a normal artist would not use.
This is most noticable and obvious on the PMC brutalist logo: the scattered white pixels around the 'shoulder' and well outside of the logo's boundaries are just not what you'd expect to see. Maybe as some sort of deep-fried jpg artifact, were the rest of the image busier? But they're not actually those things, or even human interpretations of those things.
The wave-face image is the one where clear errors are most human-like -- anatomy and cloth flow mistakes, overpronounced foreshortening, slightly jank perspective are all totally things even good artists do, sometimes intentionally! -- but separately it's also got some weird distractions. Why are there blue highlights on his abs? If the flow of the image is supposed to be toward his face, why are so many lines going to his shoulders?
The ARMA one is the closest to human-like (there's a few physics/layout errors, but they're absolutely ones humans would make), though the genre it's coming from tends to be cluttered and intentionally disorienting to start with.
You can work around and stop these sort of issues, but you have to really heavily ride and push it toward specific low-clutter styles, and even then it takes some futzing with SD parameters to avoid the image coming out overdone or undercooked.
/images/17023968095808215.webp is prompted by meta at the FurryDiffusion discord, but outside of the hands/paws (and... subject matter), it's as close to human-created art as you'll get.
gattsuru
4mo ago
There are some men who genuinely do like them, though not in the sense of "can barely tell it's on at all". Condom kink as revolving around either the sensation of pressured latex (compare bodysuit latex fetishism, or pooltoy fetishism) or as a psychological thing isn't the most common kink, but neither is it especially rare.
gattsuru
5mo ago
It's defined as emoji codepoint U+1FAC3 as of Unicode 14.0, shows up on search for an (admittedly old-model) iPhone for me.
gattsuru
5mo ago
The Haaretz list includes literally zero infants (or children under the age of 4). It includes one child of four years old, two five-year-olds, two six-year-olds, an eight-year-old, one 10-year-old, an 11-year-old, four 12-year-olds, two 13-year-olds, two 14-year-olds, three 15-year-olds, three 16-year-olds, and four 17-year-olds.
There is a filter between civilian, police, soldier, and rescue services. There's a few people listed as civilians with a military rank (one Captain, three Master Sgt., a Cpl., two Sergeant Maj.), and one person marked without a rank but as a Lone Soldier (IDF member without family in the area). Looking through external sources, some of these look to be retired or off-duty, but I can't tell for the remainder.
Of the 1131 names (as of 11/5), 400 have no age listed. Most of those are probably not young children. Most.
There's some possible discussion to be had with someone who wants to engage seriously with the matter, and some deeper analysis available. I just don't see the point doing so with someone that's not taking photographic evidence.
Is your argument that the half of names and ages cleared for publication are not representative of half of the sample? Why not specify that, and importantly, why do you believe that?
I think there are actually a pretty sizable number of reasons to suspect that dead children will be identified slower (they won't be in many photo databases, are less likely to have parents or siblings in other cities, may not be fully set up within any database given Kibbitz politics, and in extreme cases bones are easier to damage and dental records are less useful or present), and once identified that they are less likely to have their names released (there are broad norms not just in Israel against sharing the identities of deceased minors without parental permission, in many).
Meanwhile, there are absolutely zero under-3-year-olds (and only one 4-year-old), while there is photographic evidence that I am decidedly not going to link to of multiple dead <1-year-olds.
There are more complex and esoteric issues, but these are the ones that should have been pretty obvious to anyone looking at the data with even a passing familiarity with the situation. Meanwhile, groups such as the lqgist twitter account you link don't bother even to spell out that half of the dataset is missing entirely or missing names.
The higher count is a (surprise) twice the value of the half amount I specified, and it’s three weeks old because the original Hamas incursion was four weeks old.
Someone with any degree of insight might ponder if it would be the slightest bit strange for that number to not have gone up across three weeks, even as the count of casualties on Oct 7 nearly doubled. Might think just the slightest about if there's something of relevance there
Then my figure (which is based in evidence) did turn out inaccurate, and that will be important to note in the future. Do you think that impacts my point being made? It would be 26x more children, rather than 66x, and the point I am getting across would stand.
And there's the punchline.
That is why I'm not going into any more serious analysis of the casualty counts, or comparing to other sources than haaretz. You don't care, and now you've said you don't care. The argument is nothing more than a soldier.
There are discussions I could present on the broader topic you want to make your point -- how much should we trust Gazan casualty counts? What responsibility does Israel have for insufficiently vetting strikes to minimize civilian harm, and Hamas for collocating military caches with civilian infrastructure or refuges? How many, if any, casualties can or should we accept for a valid military objective, and where and who does 'valid' military objectives come from? Where is the breakdown for civilian combatant casualties, and where does the line between combatant self-defense, police or pseudo-military, and terrorism fall? (How do you measure non-combat civilian casualties, which Israel has probably caused more of?)
But there's not really much point if you're not engaging with the most wildly concrete components with any degree of even-handed analysis. And you, specifically, have been following this long enough and in enough detail that I know a lot of the reasons you should be skeptical aren't a surprise.
gattsuru
5mo ago
For comments, after you've submitted a comment, click the "..." button to the right of "Delete", and then click "Mark 18+".
For posts, there's a selectable box under the main text box, between "Notify Followers" and "Draft". I believe Posts can similarly be marked 18+ after-publication from the "..." menu.
There's not exactly a shortage of trans men who can point to an upbringing and environment that required and enforced pretty strict gender norms for behavior. To the level of 'not allowed to wear pants' sorta thing.
More options
Context Copy link