IANAL, but in general, doxxing people is just a really mean thing to do.
Convicted criminal? Sure, write a story. In the most hopeful case, the sentence they serve will help reintegrate them with society - even then, it's good to know who you're dealing with.
Proven innocent? Lawful or not, you're now carrying the weight of possibly ruining someone's life even further. Sleep on that.
In the UK, a story is legally considered libellous if it's written in a way that could harm its subject, even if the facts are true. That means it would be a tort against the convicted criminal to name them if it wouldn't be in the public interest to do so.
Libel strictly implies false statement and it is a full defence to show that the statement is true:
"It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true." [1]
That has to be the case otherwise it would be unlawful to say or publish anything negative about someone!
Public interest defence applies when the statement published was false.
Note that convicted criminals are always publicly named unless the court forbids it. In that latter case naming the person would still not be libel but contempt of court (which potentially means jail).
> Convicted criminal? Sure, write a story. In the most hopeful case, the sentence they serve will help reintegrate them with society - even then, it's good to know who you're dealing with.
Even this is somewhat problematic. There seems to be a widespread idea that "criminality" is somehow an integral feature of some (un)people for whom almost anything goes, their lives being ruined is of no concern (not saying you imply these), and it's crucial to know who have this feature.
Something like this was actually a phrenologically motivated "scientific" view in the 19th century most famously by Lombroso's phrenological and eugenical "theory", but other "biological theories of criminality" are still around. It's not that such views are necessarily widely held, but it was the backdrop of the development of much of criminal policy.
The distorted view of crime and the tragedies it causes for both "innocent" and "criminal" is really sad.
Note: I'm not really arguing against you rollcat here or attributing this thinking to you. Just something tangentially related.
Yep that was a silly assumption on my part; I've just remembered a story from like 10 years ago. One of my skate buddies, very chill and motivated guy. He's had a terrible accident. He was in his home, mixed alcohol with his new medicine (which he had no idea he mustn't), and suddenly woke up strapped to a hospital bed, guards in the room. Turns out he drove a car and killed a person. He doesn't remember any of that happening, but he's had alcohol in his blood, the verdict was "obviously guilty". He served 2 years in prison, now can't find a job. Sometimes shit happens.
"According to the ABF website, the MAL is for non-citizens. According to a 2013 audit, there were only 172 Australian citizens on the list at that time. What accords me this rare honour, I do not know."
There are far more than 172 Australian dual nationals.
He's referring to the number of people(with dual australian/whichever citizenship) being on the 'Movement Alert List', meaning being on the shitlist of the ABF.
I understood that's what Handmer means. I pointed out he can't be on the list simply "Because [he's] a dual citizen", as almost no dual citizens are on the list.
One shouldn't ever be anxious about such things as being wasteful. Mindful, sure, but not anxious - being anxious about such things is actually a pretty good reason for therapy.
That’s not what they said. Don’t be anxious about being wasteful, don’t be wasteful! It’s not some lofty goal or something, but a part of growing up and being a responsible adult.
yes, but if trying not to be wasteful creates an anxiety, then you need to treat the anxiety first. in that case giving yourself permission to be wasteful is what matters, and responding to that by telling to person not to be wasteful is counterproductive.
No, that’s just the wrong way to think about it. It’s something that needs doing, so you do it. Are you anxious about going to the toilet? You’re not. You do it as it’s necessary.
Sometimes it helps to stop thinking and start doing. I’ve been there. It takes practice.
Speaking of wastefulness and dishwashers, I rent an apartment which does not include a dishwasher. In fact, no apartment I've ever rented included a dishwasher, although many have included a clothes washer and dryer installed.
My kitchen does include a garbage disposal, which is a nuisance, because even though my ex-girlfriend called it "dispose-all", it disposes of nothing, except it effectively annoys 10-30 neighbor families if you manage to clog up the lateral drainpipes, and I don't rely on it to chew up food or any solid waste at all. The only reason I activate it is because it speeds up the draining of water in the dual sink. And also because, if I don't run it on a weekly basis, the motor will seize up in a way that requires a maintenance call, and you don't want to call in maintenance.
Anyway, I wash my dishes by hand, and the bane of my existence is dirty dishes in the kitchen sink when I'm quite hungry and it's 7am and I just want to get breakfast started, but the sink isn't clear and everything I need is dirty, and needs soaking time before the residue will budge, and so I end up punting and ordering delivery anyway.
Washing dishes is a pipeline, a process, that can take 2 hours, or it can last 12 hours, or it can take 3 days to complete. I often don't get around to that magnificent endgame of putting away the dishes but I leave them in the drying-rack until I need them again. It's like my "L2 Cache" for kitchenware, that drying rack. And guess what, when I go to wash dishes again, I often discover there's no room in the rack, and I rip out my hair a little bit and I stop washing the dishes long enough to empty the rack, and then I'm exhausted and I go to lie down in bed instead of washing dishes, or starting dinner, and guess who's ordering delivery again?
So one of the sanity-preserving hacks I've developed is using paper plates, paper bowls, plastic cold cups, and plastic flatware. And this works great for cold cereal, and the raw eggs I drink, and microwaved frozen meals that I can plop into a bowl or put on a plate in order to cut them into pieces.
And I thought that cloth napkins and dish towels were cool, because I was Saving the Earth, and for a couple of years I owned not a single roll of paper towels; I used cloth napkins and I laundered them, and now I use both, and if something is going to stain my precious cloth, then I use paper towels or a disposable sponge on it first.
And they called me "wasteful" for using disposable kitchenware, but in reality I only own a single tablepspoon and a single teaspoon. I own about 3 forks, and 2 butter knives. I recently purchased a set of 4 identical steak knives, because a good sharp knife to cut meats is essential. But most of my flatware is disposable, including semi-disposable chopsticks (set of 8 for about $4).
And guess what? None of the delivery services include plasticware anymore. None of the restaurants tuck it into your bag. They used to give you, like, a packaged knife-fork-spoon-napkin-salt-pepper, sealed in cellophane. Then COVID-19 happened, and plasticware is a cost center, and restaurants hate delivery services for many reasons, and no restaurant carries knives, even plastic butter knives. They are still usually sending me plastic straws, but I nevertheless keep on hand a stock of plastic bendy-straws to use with every beverage.
So basically whether I order delivery or I make food at home, my plasticware suffices, and yeah, it's wasteful and I do not wash or rinse or reuse any of them, and I don't really care, because it is a sanity-preserving strategy that works quite well, because it is much easier to just tuck into a meal when I have flatware ready to use.
Well, yeah, or else they'll release software with memory leaks, which could become a dependency of some big project and bring down some important things and have real effects on some other people.
Or, yeah, because if my child can access streaming without a child lock, they may not recover from what they see.
Looks like we should protect each other as much as we can, using UI!
One could argue that the potential number of complications in any smartwatch is practically limitless, and also that the sophistication and craftsmanship required to make it, including the hardware part, is the ultimate testimony of refinement and engineering.
If you took an Apple Watch and this Vacheron 2000 years in the past, which one would the people of the time find more impressive (until the juice runs out, that is)? In other words - which one looks more like magic?
We're just used to microprocessors we can't see tick and maybe don't always appreciate the complexity.
There's very high taxation of high income individuals (60%) as well as companies, supported by a big majority of population,
which is then used as propaganda by the gvmnt that high taxes benefit everyone because the government knows best what we need. My feeling is
that fellow citizens actually support this idea. Those that don't agree find other ways, which is so easy in EU it almost looks like it's by design.
Such an environment is not as business friendly as it seems. Most politicians in this environment see a solution to every problem in new taxes. Hard to talk about freedom, when you're not allowed to vote on taxes.
There's a also a push for truthspeak - younger generations are no longer sure freedom of speech should be sacred, because it
wasn't explained as important enough, so they themselves get ideas about what should be censored and why. Again, the gvnmt
is quick to agree with them by offering a way to compile a list of truths.
Also, public healthcare in EU is only for the poor - if you can afford to pay private, you're not even thinking about going public. It just doesn't work like some people here thinks it does.
So, no, Europe is not a dreamland compared to USA, it just has a different set of problems.
> There's very high taxation of high income individuals (60%)
55.9% *, at highest bracket. And when you get there, you usually have means to have at least some of your income as capital gains, which is uniformly taxed lower. I.e. you don't become a high income individual, you become an owner of profitable family business.
Edit: I said originally, "55.9%, marginal", but that was wrong. Corrected.
