theneverfox

I feel awkward being in public without interaction. It's like my brain goes into overdrive, trying to predict a sudden interaction incoming like a quick time event

I'd comment on something slightly more relevant than the weather, because the conversation can then fade to comfortable silence (for me at least) knowing no more conversation is likely, or I'd do what I always do when someone engages - everyone has something interesting about them, I'll throw the conversation in random directions until I find a topic worth speaking about

The problem is artists... They don't generally have the wiggle room a developer has, a handful of devs can take a sabbatical for 6 months easy, but the artists that can pump out assets are either in crazy high demand or need another job to eat. Even supporting another person living in a studio and eating ramen drastically changes the situation

It's actually something I've put thought into recently, i have a friend very passionate about artist exploitation but I haven't figured out the structure to make it work. Artists aren't rare, but they're very in demand... There's got to be some way to help them bind together to take chances like this

No, let's give them random privileges too. You get to drive in the HOV lane alone, you get a license made of metal, and you get to park in all handicap spaces except the closest to the entrance. And if you pay enough in taxes, you get an invite to the yearly pizza party with the president

I'm not saying it's necessary for everyone... Even if most people don't need it, some do. I do, despite what everyone has told me from childhood

Anecdotes aren't good science, but they can point out bad science

Glad to help.

It's a weird concept outside of inheritance - for example, a royal bloodline could end because the regent dies without children. Because the upstream follows the ruler, you might have to backtrack up the bloodline to find the next heritor, which you'd call a branch bloodline

But in modern life? It's kinda pointless as a concept. We care about heredity and family, not bloodlines

People say that... And yet, in middle school they did a hearing screening, and said I had reduced hearing. I told my mom "that's crazy, my hearing is incredible, I just had earwax in my ears". We went to the doctor anyways, the PA said she couldn't see any earwax even though I could hear it moving around when she put the scope in my ear

I was adamant I just needed to clean my ears, so my mom grabbed some qtips from the exam room when the PA left, I cleaned my ears, and I passed the test perfectly

In my 30s I can still hear those "teen repellants" that whine at a pitch most lose in their early 20s. People look at me weird when I say I heard someone's voice on the wind, and yet I can pinpoint individuals talking normally within a half a mile in a forest

I don't use qtips anymore, I use a metal loop to clean my ears, but for me it's most certainly necessary to clean them somehow

Oh no, I totally agree with you that this is gross behavior - I just think your rule is too broad.

So we need more focused rules and mechanisms. I think disclosing anti-cheat on the store is a good mechanism, I think forcing them to provide previous releases is a good rule. That obviously doesn't cover nearly enough, but in the current gaming environment I think it's a good start

Reading through all of it, it's exactly as I thought it was, but I kept the complexity out

You cannot give jury instructions related to jury nullification. The judge can't get anywhere near the topic, and lawyers cannot directly argue the jury should acquit based on the law being unjust (they can certainly imply it though)

You cannot have already decided your verdict before the case, including based on the law involved. This is generally a moot point, because jury selection should catch this. If it doesn't and you didn't lie, then that's on the judge

So, they will never tell you that you have this power as a juror. But you do, in all cases

The only complicated part is on the part of the judge and the defense

They rule on anything if it becomes a matter of law. Fox News argued they were entertainment not news, and so laws about journalism don't apply to them

The court ruled on it, because it now became a matter of law, it must be decided first to know which laws apply in the case

It might not have been a good ruling, but they did in fact legally judge them to be entertainment and not news.

Imagine a line running only down the tree connecting two individuals - that's a bloodline

If you can draw a bloodline from one person to the other, they are of the first's bloodline. Your full blood siblings are not in your bloodline, though you share all of each other's bloodlines

That's what they want you to think. You can, in fact, decide you think the law is unjust and acquit. You can just feel bad for the defendant, or think the protection is being too harsh

The judge isn't going to tell you that, they're going to tell you to follow their guidance

You can't be punished for a jury verdict, and you can't be compelled to return a certain verdict

Jury nullification

Um... Maybe reread that. Their stance is literally the opposite