> He's just telling his story. He knows he fucked up. But he also knows the system is fucked.
Here in the UK we have something called Joint Enterprise [1] which is controversial for a numnber of reasons, I've read this chaps blog, I can relate to his circumstances in a number of ways having grown up with the rave culture in the 90's, I've seen many people turn a blind eye and escape prosecution, mainly because its too hard to prosecute, demonstrating the laziness of the police as evidence gathers and the judicary.
What annoys me is how these so called law abiding people manage to remain in their job. People claim to live in a democracy, none more so that many in the US, and yet AFAIK noone gets taught law as a mandatory subject when growing up. If you are not taught something how can the public even debate it? Is this the legal system applying a form of Darwinism on the population in a dictatorial fashion? Is this a form of intellectual torture being applied on some who want to enjoy themselves in non-alcoholic ways?
If I had the money I'd get a Judicial Review to find the reasons why judges dont want people to be taught the law as a mandatory subject for a number of reasons, and for adults to be kept up to date with legal changes in a TLDR fashion, that doesnt rely on the opinion of the state broadcaster and other news outlets.
Some people are too busy to watch/read the news, which is the only en-masse way to keep up to date currently, and there is also the issue of why is legal conformity pushed on people if they are doing no harm? Just what exactly is a democracy and do you really have a say?
If Roe v. Wade (1973) can mandate a change across a country like the US, are these judges who shy away from making a countrywide decision to keep people abreast of legal changes, not only undermining the idea of democracy, but also just keeping themselves in a stealth sado masochistic schadenfruede-like position of authority with accompanying lucrative income?
Has any scientific study measured the dopamine receptors of judges or serotonin receptors or testostorone levels when they pass a judgement? Has the scientific community shown they derive pleasure from controlling other peoples lives in non scientific ways, because I see the reoffending rate is quite high, and the system is clearly not fit for purpose.
To the original poster, just remember there are some people who agree with your actions, enjoy the mental mind games of programming, it can keep you occupied even when not in front of the computer. :)
https://transitcosts.com/ has a lot of data, but that focuses on underground while this is mostly elevated. Spain has built fully underground subways for less, but most of the world is a lot more expensive.
Resource Burn. Meta can throw more money at any court case, so if the judge is bent, which happens, it can become a long drawn out process. Personally though, despite having the trademark for a trademark with the word "threads", note lowercase, its also got a logo filed which might complicate the situation.
https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00...
Personally I would have filed the logo and word seperately to avoid any confusion, otherwise situations like this court case could present themselves, but maybe that is/was the intention when it was filed.
British Mental health hospitals can be like that. Locked up without any jury trial which can be 24/7 solitary with hourly suicide watch checks to keep you awake and sleep deprived, drugs forcible introduced into your system that fuck your mind and health up.
If you dont becomes the NHS's compliant puppet physically and mentally aka their idea of a typical model citizen, you never get let out.
Its beyond inhumane and healthy, but humans have had thousands of years domesticating different animals, breeding traits in and out, which can be and have been applied to humans.
The state, ie police and NHS can totally bypass the legal system and incarcerate people, in effect dissappearing them, unless the legal system allows this?!?
The legal instrument that is necessary to protect against this situation is a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). This permits a specific other person to make decisions if the subject is deemed to lack mental capacity (that is, diagnosed as insane). Without a pre-existing Lasting Power of Attorney, the NHS may be delegated responsibility for the subject's health - which could include the mandatory drugs that you mention.
It really is rather extraordinary that this is the case, but one's next of kin do not have any power or influence unless a LPA has been signed.
Edit for exact (albeit heavily abridged) quote from the relevant Mental Capacity Act 2005:
(9)(1) A lasting power of attorney is a power of attorney under which the donor (“P”) confers on the donee (or donees) authority to make decisions about all or any of the following—
(a) P’s personal welfare or specified matters concerning P’s personal welfare
...
and which includes authority to make such decisions in circumstances where P no longer has capacity.
...
(9)(7)Where a lasting power of attorney authorises the donee (or, if more than one, any of them) to make decisions about P’s personal welfare, the authority—
...
(c) extends to giving or refusing consent to the carrying out or continuation of a treatment by a person providing health care for P.
"But your health and welfare attorney won't be able to refuse treatment for you if: You’re sectioned under the Mental Health Act in the future, and your treatment is prescribed by the responsible clinician or approved clinician in charge of your treatment at that time. Your attorney will have no legal power to refuse the treatment. This is except for ECT, which they can refuse even in these circumstances. ..."
Thanks, this appears to be useful for end of life as well.
Problem is GP's really dont like being challenged in my experience, and its a case of having to write papers to challenge their theories with more recent (< 30yrs) scientific discoveries and studies. In other words, I'd have to throw more recent expert stuff back at them, which is an exercise I dont have time for, but when banged up the movements are seriously curtailed, and access to the internet is seriously restricted to non existent, making it impossible to fight back once inside. Its a Kobayashi Maru in Star Trek terms!
Their medicines are shrouded in secrecy in the main, which also makes their judgements harder to fight.
When inside you dont even get a patient information leaflet for the meds they "prescribe", its effing dictatorial, Josef Mengele would be proud of the british state today!
Dont get me started on the patronisation by staff either!
Leaving aside the bizarre comments about breeding animals and humans, it's certainly the case that mental health hospitals are prone to abuses. Sadly, there will likely always be a need for them. Like prisons, some people are just unable to live with others safely. Sometimes they can be helped, but many cannot and will have to spend their entire lives without freedom. Until we discover a means to help them I can accept that.
What I can't accept is the way those people are often treated. Being confined is terrible, but they should still be well treated/looked after and, as much as possible, allowed to pursue their own interests and lead meaningful productive lives.
Ultimately I think that it'd take oversight and transparency to prevent people being "disappeared" without cause or necessity. I'd hope that a hospital would need to make their case to a judge and/or an independent body of professionals to justify keeping someone locked up against their will for longer than a couple days (as an assessment/suicide watch period) which can be challenged and reviewed.
I make sure they stop before stepping out in front of them. Here in the UK we have zebra black and white crossings, and the rule is (as I've been told) cars dont have to stop until your foot is on the crossing, so I stand by the crossing with one foot on the crossing, one foot on the pavement until they stop.
Anyway even crossing on these will see cars driving over them and I've been hit by cars on these crossings. I've been in cars where the driver has ignored the red traffic light at a pedestrian crossing, in fact the same one on the way to watch a film at a cinema and the same one on the way back.
The drivers problem was inexperience, and too interested in what the other passengers were saying, they wanted to join in the conversation and not pay attention to the road, and there are a lot of people whose attention dangerously fails when driving when they have passengers, but its not illegal, but using a hands free mobile phone is. Legislators and the Police are hypocrits!
That driver who ran two red lights at a pedestrian crossing got away with it because they were son of a British Police officer, Detective iirc, even though the pedestrian had to jump out of the way to avoid being hit.
Military childhood, being moved around from pillar to post, then pretty much a university life after that.
Cant say I totally agree with his observation, because there was not one mention of the word trust. Sure it could be implied by virtue of discussing the topic of friends, but its just an observation and categorisation, which is simplistic at best.
Trust is something that happens over time, much like in a relationship, and with any sort of friendship, there needs to be trust. I can only assume from his military childhood and university movements, that his friendships perhaps dont have the depth of trust others seek or have. The problem with being too trusting and thus naive, is you become exploited whilst people masquarade as friends, and only once they have what they want from you, you see that friendship dissipate into nothing.
I think it goes down to what you'd be willing to sacrifice for them. There are a few people in this life I know I'd jump in front of a bus for. I don't actually need to know that they'd do the same for me, but I know it anyway. Trust is what you give, not what you get. What I'm willing to give when I don't want to give it. That's the meter, for me, of a friendship.
> This made the real issue clear: iOS 4 ships with an outdated set of root SSL certificates,
Alot of old software installations are in this situation, you cant install SBS2000 or SBS2003 Premium without turning back the clock on the server to 2001 and 2004 respectively.
For any closed source, I've found Ghidra[1] to be quite easy to use and understandable.
And if you dont have a heatsink and fan of sorts just use alternativing fingers on the cpu, they can still absorb about 10-15 DegC off the cpu temp and thats overclocking a 3b in the 1.35Ghz range. Surprisingly robust. Sadly cant get it to idle below .6Ghz yet, that needs more work.
But it makes wonder how much more phone manufacturers could squeeze out of their phones, although Apple are definately overclocking the 15.
Here in the UK we have something called Joint Enterprise [1] which is controversial for a numnber of reasons, I've read this chaps blog, I can relate to his circumstances in a number of ways having grown up with the rave culture in the 90's, I've seen many people turn a blind eye and escape prosecution, mainly because its too hard to prosecute, demonstrating the laziness of the police as evidence gathers and the judicary.
What annoys me is how these so called law abiding people manage to remain in their job. People claim to live in a democracy, none more so that many in the US, and yet AFAIK noone gets taught law as a mandatory subject when growing up. If you are not taught something how can the public even debate it? Is this the legal system applying a form of Darwinism on the population in a dictatorial fashion? Is this a form of intellectual torture being applied on some who want to enjoy themselves in non-alcoholic ways?
If I had the money I'd get a Judicial Review to find the reasons why judges dont want people to be taught the law as a mandatory subject for a number of reasons, and for adults to be kept up to date with legal changes in a TLDR fashion, that doesnt rely on the opinion of the state broadcaster and other news outlets. Some people are too busy to watch/read the news, which is the only en-masse way to keep up to date currently, and there is also the issue of why is legal conformity pushed on people if they are doing no harm? Just what exactly is a democracy and do you really have a say?
If Roe v. Wade (1973) can mandate a change across a country like the US, are these judges who shy away from making a countrywide decision to keep people abreast of legal changes, not only undermining the idea of democracy, but also just keeping themselves in a stealth sado masochistic schadenfruede-like position of authority with accompanying lucrative income?
Has any scientific study measured the dopamine receptors of judges or serotonin receptors or testostorone levels when they pass a judgement? Has the scientific community shown they derive pleasure from controlling other peoples lives in non scientific ways, because I see the reoffending rate is quite high, and the system is clearly not fit for purpose.
To the original poster, just remember there are some people who agree with your actions, enjoy the mental mind games of programming, it can keep you occupied even when not in front of the computer. :)
The Law of 'Joint Enterprise': Graham Virgo Cambridge Law Faculty [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjBwCmwpvMI