It is basically when someone is doing something illegal and stupid, but isn’t thinking about it killing someone. Then accidentally kills someone.

Voluntary manslaughter is then when you do something that you know will kill a person, but for some reason it isn’t murder.

For lots (most?) laws, ignorance isn’t an excuse… even though the specific charge may change.

Am CIS and support this logic

This seems like a good place for a charity… although the cost isn’t just a bus ticket but also probably temporary housing/income as well.

Shit. I just realized I’m suggesting a refugee agency for US states.

Thanks. It’s hard for me to judge tactics from video, as I can’t really tell what is accidental collateral damage vs purposeful. The statements by Israeli leadership definitely supports the view that they are purposefully being punitive… which is monstrous.

Your response seems to be equivalent to “never defend yourself against someone holding an innocent hostage.”

To clarify, I’m not sure what response doesn’t result in more innocent people dying.

I don’t really care about this specific conflict more than any other. And morally I don’t care for the lives of one side more than the other. And morally I don’t care who lived in what cities 100 years ago (note: unless those specific people are involved).

My confusion seems to be that the ‘right’ response people seem to want to this is no response.

So I just heard about this whole thing last night. What is the preferred Israeli response to this?

To me it looks like Hamas using occupied buildings as places to attack from, the Israel being told they aren’t allowed to hit back at people using human shields.

I think the issue might be visibility.

Naively, it feels like most of the issue is from a small number of extra sooty vehicles. But that belief is probably just because of how visible it is. The brake/Tyree dust isn’t visible because it is more spread out.

Blah blah right to assemble blah blah.

Any reasonable person would say “Ok, but there is also at a minimum the requirement to recuse yourself then.”

I see this the same as a company asking for a SSN. I didn’t pick it, it is really hard to change without physical/mental pain, and is spoofable anyway.

Based on those criteria… I’m not sure why I care about sharing it. I wouldn’t solely use it for something I’m securing myself, but if some company wants too, I don’t really take issue.

I agree with you; but the parent comment is accurately drawing a parallel. Both China and Canada have issues and both are worried about a strait which objectively isn’t ‘theirs’.

The difference is

1. China has bigger problems, but the strait is at least close; although China is being a bully
2. Canada has lesser problems, and the strait is on the other side of the planet; but they seem to at least be defending the public good.

Point being, tying this to China’s flooding is silly. If Chinas actions are dumb, it is for unrelated reasons.

Who do you think makes money off of these ‘private’ transit agencies?

No, it is an organizational problem. It is functionally the reason that startups tend to stagnate when bought out… even if the host company ‘leaves them alone’.

A really simple example for transit: due to past corruption and or pay-to-play issues, most states (especially Democrat states) have pretty firm procurement guidelines. There are exceptions for emergencies, but the usually require the Governor’s office to chime in and aren’t intended for day-to-day items. A threshold of $100k isn’t unheard of for a forced sole-source procurement. I don’t want to waive that rule for government in general, but a transit agency that you want to actually meets service needs to not be waiting on the Governor to do so.

That specific issue is obviously solvable with a rule change… the meta issue is that State governments tends to create rules/laws without understanding how it breaks things

Aagrred with this.

It still surprises me that:

1. people think students need to be in school so long every year for actual educational reasons
2. people get offended when you point out that it largely functions as a ‘daycare’ for younger kids
3. we’ve had both parent working be the norm for decades now… and somehow we still don’t have a school system that addresses that

I honestly think that the main reason for the male/female become gap is the above. Discrimination exists, but I think it is more an issue of women being more likely to compromise their work life to take care of kids… and therefore being less useful to work… so being paid less for it.

If we ACTUALLY fix that somehow, we’d be much more inclusive and free society.

I’ve been parts of these discussions. There are certain things governments just can’t do the way they are currently setup.

An easy example I’m familiar with; some States’ rules are onerous enough that you couldn’t operate a transit system under them.

Lots of things people think are public are legally private. Most transit agencies, the people who print the US dollar, some state universities… etc.

Usually the bylaws of these private entities are formed to stipulate that the governor or someone picks the equivalent of the CEO.

The issue is that the article (and anybody else) CaN’T be more precise.

We don’t know if the parts are good because they faked the testing.

We can also almost guarantee that some are out of spec. ‘Simple’ things like screws even have fallout when tested.

Can you? To store the energy you need to pump up; to use it you need to flow back down. Where is the ‘down’ or ‘up’ from a mine shaft?

I’d also question if the volume would be worth it.

Edit: maybe you are thinking compressed air?

Shorter: found out

No. As an example (probably cherry picked granted) there was that video of the guy somewhere in CA that was shooting at cops and they tried really hard to get him to somehow get him alive.

But maybe ‘institutional bastardism’? I don’t want to fault all cops as bad, because then you end up with any good cop deciding not to be a cop… which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is a government mandate for one corporation to pay another corporation to share it’s product. This isn’t ‘helping the little guy’ or anything.

People still have the ability to just go directly to the news site. Or Google. Or the government’s Facebook page. Or the national alert system. And probably lots of other options I don’t know about.

The law (“you must pay for the news you show unless otherwise agreed”) seems reasonable. As does the response of “well it isn’t worth enough to pay for”.