Hey HN slow down let me chime in here, i used to work in the lying profession and i just need you to know that lying is not ok, and that lying is not the same thing as lying
The people who lived in towns which thrived long before the economy failed them don't need to justify their existence in economic terms. The question you should be asking is whether or not this economy has any benefit to those people.
I don't know the original intentions but I didn't read it that way. Seemed more like a question of the premise that a town _needs_ to be a tech hub to survive, which is sort of half implied by the article.
Testimony of lived experiences is evidence. It's enough to convict.
When you serve jury duty and the case involves domestic violence, you are explicitly reminded of this because most people will assume it is not.
Still, we end up with cases like Brock Turner where he does get convicted not with the victim's testimony but a mountain of corroborating evidence and national media scrutiny. And then receives what is essentially a non-punishment.
> Still, we end up with cases like Brock Turner where he does get convicted not with the victim's testimony but a mountain of corroborating evidence and national media scrutiny.
How can we know what specific pieces of evidence led to his conviction? I would assume the jury took into account the victim's testimony and the testimony of the onlookers who stopped him. What makes you say he was "convicted not with the victim's testimony but a mountain of corroborating evidence and national media scrutiny"?
Of course judicial systems vary with countries, but I'm not aware of a jurisdiction where only the word of the victim is enough to convict somebody (who denies the act).
This is possible in the US. Imagine someone rapes a nun, and she testifies to it. She identifies the defendant, and in his testimony he denies it. If the jury finds her testimony more credible — to the extent that there is not a reasonable doubt as to his guilt — they can convict him.
Of course, it helps if there is corroborating evidence, but there is no rule that says one cannot be convicted (in the US) based on a victim's testimony alone. It just doesn't happen often because usually there is some sort of corroborating evidence of a crime, and because it's hard to eliminate all reasonable doubt without any.
So, it is no different than for any other sort of accusation lacking corroborating evidence?
Is there evidence that this is more likely in sexual assault cases than others? Your post here [1] (and the post you are replying to) seem to suggest that it is actually less likely in these cases.
I think all cases that are based only/mostly on a victim's statement are very difficult to prove. In my other comment, I was pointing out that sex-based cases are more likely to be based mostly on a victim's statement than other cases.
Evidence is evidence. Witness testimony is evidence, photographs are evidence, video is evidence, dna is evidence. All evidence has credibility, which can be challenged.
Every case is different: witness testimony can be far more credible than photo evidence, dna evidence can be less credible than video evidence.
There is — as far as I know — no legal system in the world that measures the validity of a case based on the amount or type of evidence. You can absolutely be convicted on witness testimony alone in the US. That’s very unlikely but entirely possible under the law.
With such disproportionately high rates of domestic abuse in law enforcement professions, you really can't say they are competent to investigate them either. So whose responsibility is it?
I have this nagging belief that advertisers know well that nobody in this generation wants to be advertised to, and that ads generally don't work as a direct call to action. Something that allowing podcasters to loosely do ad reads achieves is a small sense of authenticity.
This seems to fit in nicely with the assertion that they know people dislike ads; when a podcaster stiffly or sarcastically reads an ad and throws in a side comment, the ad-averse listener reads this as an irreverence to commercial advertising that both the podcaster and the advertiser are both acknowledging.
I truly think that the advertiser sneaks into the podcast listener's authenticity dome this way, and I feel like this must be a well-understood phenomenon for advertisers who buy ad reads on podcasts known for having a primarily gen z and millennial audience.
Work culture in general is harsher, but a lot of professional jobs include benefits like housing (usually not too far from full rent) and full commute expenses in their compensation. These are perks usually added to your base salary, which is one of the things foreigners ignore when bringing up stories of lower salaries and harsh work culture. You take your pick which is more important to you when thinking about whether or not to live in Japan.
There's a stronger social contract in place than in other places. Work culture is harsher in terms of hours expected in the office than elsewhere, but there is a stronger respect for workers' material conditions as well.
Just a minor nitpick about this, forgive me. Overall this post is perfectly agreeable.
Police primarily serve private property owners, with private property being different from personal property.
Private property refers to property which earns their owners accumulated wealth: think landlords, business owners and such. Personal property, such as your smartphone or house are intuitively different from this even though things like this are called private property in vernacular.
I think it's a distinction worth posting about since policing as an institution got its start in union busting and slave catching.
That Wikipedia article doesn't draw any connection between modern policing and the slave patrols, though it points out the well documented connections between militia efforts and enforcing slavery. Similar institutions date to the Romans[1], which would suggest that slave catchers and the like may not be directly linked to our idea of a municipal police department.
The second source seem to support the connection, but doesn't document any actual institutional connections. It relies on similarity, and bald assertion. The existence of overlap between the KKK and local law enforcement is evidence that policing in the US is racist. It isn't actually evidence that the institutions of policing were descended from slave patrols.
I'm not a huge expert on criminal justice, but my degree is history, and these kinds of assertions seem to ignore the parallel developments in NYC, Boston, and other Yankee cities in policing and crime solving that established our idea of a municipal police department. That such departments may have been racist isn't a surprise, virtually every institution in 1880 was, but they were in states that did not practice slavery(abolished in 1799 in NY) and as a result had no institutional history of enforcing it.
Consider that Federal Marshals were so reluctant to enforce laws on the return of escaped slaves that it took an act of congress, with severe financial penalties, to get them to actually enforce the "property claims" of southerners.
I think for the assertion to be true one would have to qualify it to something like 'policing as we know it today, and especially in America'. One book I've read and can recommend is Kristian Williams' _Our Enemies in Blue: Policing and Power in America_:
Definitely longer than I've had time to read overnight, but interesting, and it looks like it may cover the claims of union busting. Though I thought that part of the reason the Pinkerton's thrived is that many police forces wouldn't engage in anti-union activities.
Ehh I totally buy the plausibility of there being a connection between the institutions of policing and enforcement of slavery, particularly in the context of the antebellum US system, and reconstruction period.
What I find striking is that GP doesn't have facts at hand.
Correct. For the strict purpose of protecting private property, something which slaves were considered to be. Thank you for agreeing with the historical facts.
Disagree, I was the not in the "in crowd" with my boss at a previous ___location and yet I was the person (as suggested) in regards to everything backend related.
