There are a lot more layers to the case than you would originally think. Like an obligation to flee if reasonable to do so etc. Legal Eagle on YT did a great breakdown of it all.
It's not as simple as "can't claim self-defence if you initiated violence yourself".
>Like an obligation to flee if reasonable to do so etc.
If you're targeted personally i suppose. When the violence isn't targeted your running away wouldn't change the situation if there are other people around who can be shot. That reminds about that veteran who attacked the shooter several years ago at the Oregon college - he could have fled i guess, yet he didn't. Did he had an obligation to flee? I don't think anybody there entertained even for a moment such nonsense idea as the shooter's self-defense against the veteran who attacked him and got wounded in that fight. In Kenosha though the shooter shot the guys who tried to stop him (and from any point of view he was the active shooter to be stopped as he didn't stay with his first victim calling/waiting for police and rendering help to the victim as one would do in a true self-defense situation, and as an active shooter he was a threat to everybody, a threat that the people have the right to defend themselves from), and it somehow got successfully sold as self-defense on his part.
Oregon does NOT have a stand your ground law. If that were the only statute, he'd be guilty of murder (showing that such a law is not well thought out). My guess is they have another law (like most states do) that allows coming to the defense of someone else.
> Legal Eagle on YT did a great breakdown of it all.
I strongly disagree. He left out some very important details from the video. Whether by accident or not, doesn't really matter in this case, IMO. (I know he issued corrections/clarifications in the comments, but most people are not gonna read those)
This must be a recent change? It's been driving me nuts lately. I have to resort to adding a lot of negated search terms to compensate but it's still sub optimal.
No, this has been the case for a long time, years anyway. I don't know if it goes back quite as far as when they removed the '+' operator tho.
But bejesus, this drives me nuts! If I know the double quotes function even exists, then Google should know I actually want to use it as intended - it shouldn't decide "yeah, but maybe you'd like these irrelevant results too!"
I think it’s primarily for people copying and pasting something like an error message, which may have user-specific data in quotes. That should be what “not many results for...” is for, but Google is always trying to optimize away those clicks. Maybe they could add a “programatic” search feature with documented syntax for power users.
I am always surprised that these systems are not more friendly to engineers, since they were built by them. You'd think for their own sakes they'd stick in a system like xkcd.com/806/
Use 'verbatim'. It's a drop down option, and it isn't as good as the old + or other operators (deprecated because of Google Plus). For example, with verbatim you can't only + one single thing in a search.
Regardless, I basically just always search with verbatim on. Google is mostly useless otherwise.
One point that wasn't mentioned in the podcast, but that I thought of, was that if you had sort of blockchain that meant the data could not be deleted.
Yeah, that's an interesting problem and would make sense in that context. They wouldn't be encrypting it when the data needs to be deleted, but encrypt it from the start, keep the key offchain and delete the key when they are required to delete the data. The data would still be "available" ("it's in there somewhere, but we have no way to get it out"), but useless. Would be necessary to make sure that no metadata can be gathered from the encrypted data on the chain, so when my doctor deletes the key, you mustn't be able to ascertain that I was even a patient.
I don't know whether it would hold up in court though, but it's an interesting idea. With a private block chain, the risk would be a lot smaller that a single leaked key (i.e. the customer accidentally releasing it) would result in big problems. I've recently talked with a lawyer friend of mine about a similar topic, but he didn't know immediately whether that's legally sound.
That doesn't say that they aren't suited, only that it might explain the reason "we don't see equal representation".
There is no mention of "lacking" anything.
Someone can be fantastic at something in particular ways and still be unmotivated to pursue it for various reasons having absolutely nothing to do with particularly a "lack" of ability - and that premise aligns superbly with that sentence and the entire memo.
And thusly argues that we make appropriate changes because of seemingly biological differences - not inadequacies, to make that clear. I posit that that's a good thing.
It also take just as little effort to ignore this usage. I understand why you would say that, but what someone writes is their own - they might feel differently. Besides, "he" (or now, just as appropriately "she") is very common when referring to an unknown in English. Anyone reading should understand that there is usually no intent to exclude and that it's merely a side effect of the language.
The notation in the GP is Haskell-ish type notation, which is certainly different to the majority of languages out there today, but it's actually fairly simple (difficult to learn, but simple).
Quick glossary:
:: Defines a new function signature. The left hand side is the function name, and the right hand side is the signature.
a -> b A function which converts something of type a to type b
m a A generic m of type a. In Java/C# this might be written as m<a>. eg, `Array String` means an array of string elements, and might be written in C# as Array<String>.
Types starting with a lowercase letter (m, a, b) generally mean the type is generic - as in the function will take any type.
It might be helpful to define a function you already know:
string_to_int :: String -> Int
Or, for changing an Array of something to an Array of something else:
map :: (a -> b) -> Array a -> Array b
Here, we're defining a function that:
1. Takes a function that converts an 'a' to a 'b' (a -> b)
2. Takes an array of 'a'
3. Returns an array of 'b'
Notice that 'a' and 'b' can be anything! Since the first parameter* is a function that handles the conversion from a to b, the map function actually doesn't need to know what type a and b are.
Let's say we pass in the `string_to_int` as the first parameter, now the type checker will actually infer the following function type:
That's the Haskell language. There are a lot of "big" concepts in the language itself, compared to just about any other language from the last 50 years that people get paid to write, but the notation isn't hard to straighten out after a few tries. There's a really good intro here: http://learnyouahaskell.com/
It's not as simple as "can't claim self-defence if you initiated violence yourself".