Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡

Dad. Storyteller. Software guy. Gen-Xer who does have time for any of this shit because there's work to do. Also: every right-wing accusation is a confession.

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

To expand:
1/the law is to protect their allies but not bind them; it is to bind their enemies but not protect them
2/every conservative accusation is a confession, either in the past or future
3/bottom line: the felt experience of power, rooted in bad faith

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

@SpaceGarbage202 @CPKFrozen which is worse, do you think? their AI or their frozen pizza?

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

@SpaceGarbage202 @CPKFrozen sorry

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

@LDSBishop_Vader Fair. I mean I WARNED those guys not to drink those White Monsters from the fridge in your office……

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

@DavidRBellamy Rather reminds me of the Y2K panic.

The more you dug into what the consequences of not fixing Y2K were, the less scared you got. And the places which could more plausibly cause damage were the first to be patched.

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

@Oakmanbearcow @peterjhasson And the doom side would need to escrow the payoff so there’s no way for the doom side to benefit from the wager.

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

@contresian @BladeDoc @bryan_caplan She’d have to escrow the 3k tho to make it fair (dying for some other reason). I guess she can also get interest on the 3k too.

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

Hey @KIRONewsradio has the NFL adopted 0-based numbering?

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

(1) designer supervirus initiated by omnicidal maniac, well before ASI is even a thing. AI dies too, helplessly.

(2) interlocking ASI-controlled economic concerns bogart all the resources humans require for survival--mostly, power.

either won't necessarily amount to total human extinction, but we would certainly be yeeted 12,000 years into the past civilization-wise...but on a planet ill-suited for Neolithic humans to thrive. final extinction very probable.

otoh, if a few humans survive for 2000-3000 years, maybe we'll get another shot at it. or maybe the crows take over. IDK.

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

@AndreTI @JHWeissmann no need for the T-800 army. just bogart all the power. nice knowin' ya humans.

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

@JHWeissmann Noah's scenario is even more scary than ASI-driven extinction, IMO.

there's always a chance that ASI would find humans useful or necessary.

but an omnicidal lunatic using the tech to create doomsday viruses? and the tech bar is far, far lower for that.

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

@Noahpinion or simply modified paperclipping--using blackmail and coercion to direct every scrap of useful energy to power compute. humans will take care of the rest as they starve in the dark.

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

washington is the only state where you can brag about having five guys, doing a little in-n-out, and then eating an entire bag of dicks—and you’re actually talking about food the whole time.

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

@hecubian_devil The left should move away from the “hermeneutics of suspicion/paranoia” as a first principle while still making space for marginalized voices to express suspicion learned from felt experience.

In this way, specific claims can be more faithfully tested against the evidence.

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

@JesseASweeney ok

[Brother Charlie ❤️🤷‍♂️🫡 @cpk]

Re MA v. Lindsay Clancy:

1. Donald Condie's expert testimony, if found credible, was sufficiently dispositive to deny proof of an element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, namely "possessed the substantial capacity to conform conduct to the requirements of the law".

2. If a juror finds Condie's testimony both credible and dispositive, the juror is required by the law to acquit.

3. A juror could reasonably disagree that Condie's testimony was credible, deciding that the prosecution's cross examination and rebuttal witnesses successfully impeached Condie's expertise. Or, alternatively, they could disagree that Condie's testimony was dispositive, meaning that it was insufficient to deny an element. And they could also disagree that the rest of the evidence was sufficient to amount to reasonable doubt on any element.

4. But if a juror states that Condie's testimony was credible and dispositive, but nonetheless refuses to acquit because they disagree that the prosecution should have the burden to prove criminal responsibility, they are violating the law.

5. If the judge knew or could've known about the conduct of this juror, a retrial could be barred under the manifest necessity doctrine. Eg, State v. Wilmer (Hawaii, 2001) but that maybe isn't the best fit. Though we do have evidence of prosecutorial misconduct as well.

6. In some jurisdictions, expert witness testimony is sufficiently legible to appellate courts for them to reach a "no reasonable trier of fact" finding and directing a verdict accordingly. But the NGRI angle makes this weird, so I am not sure this avenue is realistic.