I wish I'd had a bunch of those BASIC programming books from the 8-bit home computer era, they had a ton of fun games based only on simple console input and output.
Yes, especially when it is civil rights litigation, e.g. facility conditions. They will do everything within their disposal to interfere with litigation. A lot of county facilities in the USA will retain private counsel, not government lawyers, for these kinds of cases, and it is enormously expensive. I can remember one case where they took a newspaper from a prisoner and he sued, and the jail took it to trial and lost and had to pay not only damages of $15K, but also their legal fees, which were somewhere around $1.5m, but also the plaintiff's counsel, which was another $900K IIRC.
The United States has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, with approximately 541 to 614 people imprisoned per 100,000 residents as of 2022–2026. While representing only 5% of the global population, the US holds roughly 20% of the world's prisoners, totalling over 1.8 million people.
For many crimes, the U.S. loves giving eye watering long sentences for offences that would result in a tenth of the prison time in other countries.
I read ‘helping the litigation’ to mean they both may have been involved in the same crime, and they mean to stop collusion after the fact, before trial concludes?
Both ways. Mostly it is just helping with the legal process. Rarely is it a multi-plaintiff case as the courts don't like those from prisoners. It causes too many logistical nightmares. How are two plaintiffs to communicate their wishes to each other on how to proceed? How will they both appear in court together if they are in different buildings or even different institutions?
I remember being on one join-plaintiff civil rights case and the government lawyer told the judge they were going to criminally charge me with impersonating a lawyer as I "must have given legal advice to the other plaintiff." The judge asked how they thought the complaint was written. "As I see it, one plaintiff must have pressed one key, then the other plaintiff pressed the next key on the keyboard. That is our belief."
Incarcerated people have the right to sue, right? They have right to appeal. Prisons shouldn't be able to interfere with prisoner's rights, specially when it's about suing the prison itself.
This comment is obviously true but uninteresting if you don't elaborate further on those causes
What I mean is, the comment you replied to isolated a specific cause and sparked a discussion; your comment, if taken at face value, is thought-terminating. How can we possibly comprehend all causes of complex phenomena before we are allowed to discuss them?
About the universally true thing, I understood it as whether people that's unhappy with life generally have trouble sleeping, not whether everyone that have trouble sleeping is unhappy with life. Still probably not an universal but is more reasonable sounding
The comment I replied to suggested that people who are not fit or suffer from sleep disturbances are willfully unhappy. I don't feel it requires much thought or experience with the subject matter to see that this is false. There are many easy counterexamples which I'm sure you can come up with even if you are only barely determined
No one is disallowing the parent, you, or anyone else from discussing or thinking about complex phenomena. If someone is not putting in the work to engage with the material, others are free to point it out, and they do so at their leisure.
I hold others to a higher standard when the stakes are higher. Specifically, the post I commented on was (likely unintentionally) not only factually wrong, but stigmatizing people with sleep disturbances. This is why my tone was dismissive and condescending. This was intentional.
I don't care to give examples because they are easy to find if you are asking in good faith. I even posted one in direct reply to TFA.
Now we just need the RAM market to get back to normal. Or at least fine OpenAI for speculating on raw wafers. There's an article on the front page [0] with this passage that gives me hope that consumer access to VRAM may improve
> On the infrastructure side: OpenAI signed non-binding letters of intent with Samsung and SK Hynix for up to 900,000 DRAM wafers per month, roughly 40% of global output. These were of course non-binding. Micron, reading the demand signal, shut down its 29-year-old Crucial consumer memory brand to redirect all capacity toward AI customers. Then Stargate Texas was cancelled, OpenAI and Oracle couldn’t agree terms, and the demand that had justified Micron’s entire strategic pivot simply vanished. Micron’s stock crashed.
That's what LLMs are best, actually. Go through all your stuff and painstakingly document, add tags, refer to other documents, etc
> Due to this, my Obsidian vault is pretty much a collection of a bunch of temporary to-do lists and then some folders with specific reference information
LLMs can also separate what information was only useful at a specific time vs more perennially useful notes.
Isn't the "gardening" aspect part of it though? It's where you naturally review and mentally correlate topics, infer connections in your brain and spark new paths?
This is true. It would be beneficial to do such a task
However, if one doesn't want (or just doesn't have time) to do the task but still want a tidy cross-referenced set of notes, one could outsource to a LLM
Yeah, the problem with AI is that they can become too good at performing general tasks, ranging from, like, designing cancer treatments, or designing bioweapons, and everything in between
yeah ruby API ideas and the _why poignant guide specifically, they were very influential in programming in general. a number of early rust devs came from ruby as well. all original authors of cargo worked on ruby's bundler earlier. etc
But yeah no matter the amount they lose in courts, it's inconsequential compared to angering this federal administration even a little bit
reply