Am lawyer.

We have basically three murders:

An intentional killing with Malice aforethought or premeditation as you put it.

An intentional killing in the Heat of passion lacking the premeditation.

An unintentional killing, manslaughter.

In Tennessee the middle on is called intentional manslaughter and that’s the one at play.

There are certainly cases where the jury has concluded at some point between bullet one and bukket six you formed the premeditation required.

I write to you all from the parents table.

It began lame as hell. I was a single man with a married brother who had a young child. I was clearly there to keep them company.

Later, there I was with my own child. At a table of people I didn’t know with children. Next to the goddamn speaker.

Then, I’m happy to report, I was at one of my favorite cousins weddings. I was there with her oldest brother and his child my kids age. And a bunch of other people with kids that age. And it was awesome. Finally.

I submit the best table at a wedding is one that you really fit in with. Whatever commonality that may be.

deleted by creator

But that’s fundamentally a flawed argument. It’s more expensive becuase death penalty cases have more rights. Specifically in the US what is called “actual innocence” is not grounds for an appeal to a life sentence but is for a death penalty.

Ideally we would extend that everyone, not save a few bucks and justify continued incarceration of innocent people by noting “hey it’s not a death sentence.”

Imagine the scenario of an innocent person who can’t appeal becuase the trail was fair but would have been freed if they had been sentenced to death, but becuase of the judge or jury’s mercy, they are imprisoned for life.

That has happened here.

Not think a great argument for abolishing the death penalty since it fundamentally is just saying “it is way too expensive to let any prisoners appeal based on being innocent. We could save so much money if didn’t let anyone do that.”

I don’t know. I mean it’s probably a very bad model and these people are just being scammed for a gpt 3.0. I can’t say I like them but I still abhor a scam.

If only. If you google an AI specifically for litigation you’ll get websites selling weekly access for just shy of $500.

I often get very large pleading dumps immediately prior to a hearing instead of at a more logical time and I think it’s the pro se scrounging the money together for another fix of an expensive AI website.

I don’t mean to be an absolutists and say it could never under any circumstances leak if handled poorly, but even if you just dumped it in a hole in the ground the odds are against that.

We primarily don’t have long term storage for us becuase it’s too valuable and we’re only currently using a small percentage of its potential energy. In other words we are not done with it.

Long term storage that exists like Yucca Mountain are heavily engineered to remove risk.

But if we’re talking about great brittian I mean, build storage on the French model, or pay France or the US for storage, or just do what you always do and toss the damn things into the Thames.

Here’s a radical idea- store it.

I sincerely doubt it. Judges want to do justice. I think most people would call having a robot judge your pleadings and dismiss merit less claims as dystopian.

Even if it was just “parsing” that’s a layer between you and the judge. Probably also dystopian.

I can only speak to my field, which is legal. Incomprehensible but prolific drivel has always been something the court system has struggled with getting through. That same drivel is now pretty good at pleading generalities but it’s awful at detailing facts.

You can get past the first hurdle in the legal world and unlock a massive and expensive cascade which AI can also effectively navigate for you.

In essence, AI can, very effectively, take an incoherent unreasonable and often mentally unwell litigant and magnify the expense of getting rid of their frivolous claim by over 100.

It’s almost assuredly going to 1. Chock the system. 2. Force massive reallocation of resources in the judiciary 3. Thereby vastly increasing not decreasing legal work. And 4. End up with valid claims being killed in a massive change in judicial attitude toward “clear enough” pleadings as they struggle with an AI influx.

Is opera not a good alternative?

I told her we were going to get married, and all she could talk about was frogs.
She said there’s these hills where it’s hot and rains all the time, and in the rainforests there are these very tall trees and right in the top branches of the trees there are these like great big flowers called . . . bromeliads, I think, and water gets into the flowers and makes little pools and there’s a type of frog that lays eggs in the pools and tadpoles hatch and grow into new frogs and these little frogs live their whole lives in the flowers right at the top of the trees and don’t even know about the ground, and once you know the world is full of things like that, your life is never the same.

In 2016 they had a coordinated and clear effort to undermine the election and get Hilary in the primary over Bernie. Trump won.

In 2024 they all agreed to not challenge Biden despite serious concerns the ones in the know must have had.

Thats twice now they rolled out the red carpet for trump and in both cases it was to make damn sure their preferred candidate won the primary voters be damned.

It really should be brought up each election because it seems like they really want to keep doing it.

I only heard about it when she put out a full nudity and penetration reinacment video. The reactions to that were certainly interesting.

“A murder should only have one victim. When Ratchett kills Daisy Armstrong, a dozen lives are broken, deformed, ended, THEY DEMAND JUSTICE! Of all these wounded souls, we must finally answer — who among them is a killer? Who takes up the knife? The answer is… no single one of you could have done it. Nor any pair. It could have only be done… by all of you."*

I love that Bing Crosby just refilmwd the same movie a decade in and called it a day.

That’s fundamentally missing the problem- sales of wine are down 1/5. They have a supply chain that isn’t moving. If you offer cheaper wine you likely won’t move enough more to make up the shortfall and the costs of production/storage ect.

My wife and I went out this year and the bill was $200 for a sit down Italian in our suburban town. I don’t even like Italian.

We did a tiki lounge more recently in the city and it was $150.

These are nicer ish places but like, that’s a lot.

You’ve heard of jumbo olives though right?

Romancing SaGa: minstrels song

Super Mario World

Civilization ii

Lords of Magic

Left 4 Dead