Trial by socia media? Fuck outta here.

All these scummy shitbags are certainly guilty, but this needs to be proven.

The motto I get behind is “trust, but verify”.

Does YouTube vanced/revanced not work on Graphene?

It’s payday if a judge in 10 years gives a shit about constitutional violations, or if judges are still non-partisan by then. The dude also looks Latino, so his odds are even worse. I am an outsider looking in, but I wouldn’t trust that shit hole country to uphold any sense of the law after what I’ve seen over the last few weeks. Fuckin’ embarrassing mess down there.

The glory days of Derp and Derpina

Gold medal for your performance in mental gymnastics.

I can provide no further information that is going to help you see the point.

God speed.

You’re missing the point, especially if you think a fair and just system even exists within the US. If you want to take the stance that “murder is illegal”, sure, what he did was illegal. Jury nullification is a way we peons can still hold an iota of power. It’s spitting in the face of unjust systems.

Let me ask you this. Would you prefer a situation in which Luigi was convicted for murder, sentenced to life in prison, and the system never changes? Or would you prefer a situation in which exceptions are given in exceptional circumstances in an attempt to change a fundamentally broken system?

If your answer is the former, you might just want to apply at United and work your way up.

I’m going to copy WoodScientist’s post. Don’t know how to tag, sorry, but credit goes to him for this.

"I would say that jury nullification isn’t just some accident of the legal system, but the primary reason we have juries in the first place.

Judges will say that juries are meant to just decide the simple facts of the case. But what sane person would ever design a system that assigns 12 random untrained nobodies to do that task? If all that mattered was judging the facts of the case, why not have 12 legal scholars instead? Why isn’t “juror” a profession, just like being a lawyer or judge is? If we want people to just apply the letter of the law to the facts of a case, why not fill juries with professionals, each who had a legal degree, and who have sat as jurors hundreds of times? Judging evidence and reading law is a skill. And it’s one that can be educated on, trained, and practiced. Why do we have amateur juries, when professional juries would clearly do their purported job so much better? Or why not just do what some countries do, and have most or all trials decided solely by judges? What exactly is the point of a jury? Compared to everything else in the courtroom, the jurors, the ones actually deciding guilt or innocence, are a bunch of untrained amateurs. On its face, it makes no damn sense!

No, the true reason, and really the only reason, we have juries at all is so that juries can serve to judge both the accused AND the law. Juries are meant to be the final line of defense against unjust laws and prosecution. It is possible for a law itself to be criminal or corrupt. Legislative systems can easily be taken over by a tiny wealthy or powerful minority of the population, and they can end up passing laws criminalizing behaviors that the vast majority of the population don’t even consider to be crimes.

The entire purpose of having a jury is that it places the final power of guilt and innocence directly in the hands of the people. Juries are meant as a final line of defense against corrupt laws passed by a minority against the wishes of the greater majority. An unaccountable elite can pass whatever ridiculous self-serving laws they want. But if the common people simply refuse to uphold those laws in the jury box, those laws are meaningless.

THAT is the purpose of a jury. It is the only reason juries are worth the trouble. A bunch of rank amateurs will never be able to judge the facts of a case better than actual trained legal scholars with years of experience. But by empowering juries, it places the final authority of the law firmly in the hands of the people. That is the value of having a jury at all.

Jury nullification is not just some strange quirk or odd loophole in our justice system. It’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place."

This guy sucks Elon’s toes

You’re right, that is a shit opinion.

Had my eye on Children of the Sun a while back. Thanks for the reminder it’s on sale, I think I’ll pick it up too.

It’s less money in their pockets and more money in ours. That’s not going to be a double win in their books.

Getting Epic’s money isn’t a slam dunk for profit. You’re hedging your bets taking guaranteed Epic money for lower potential sales vs non-guaranteed Steam money for higher potential sales. Having a bad exclusivity deal on Epic and then selling your game at a loss (90% discount) on steam isn’t profiting both ways, and sometimes isn’t profiting either way.

I also disagree with the sentiment that you’re reinforcing bad behavior. If anything, you’re signalling to them that you won’t support exclusivity deals, and are happy to wait for a deep discount on Steam. Ultimately, that’s a win for consumers.

That said, fuck exclusivity deals, and I’m much in the same boat where I’m hard pressed to support developers that take them.

You can play Nintendo games on PC, with the added bonus of not giving money to that ghoulish company.

I played BotW and TotK on my PC, and let me tell you friend, with the increased frame rate, and the ability to run reshade, it looks and feels better than ever.

Gotta have something to do when he’s not monitoring his son’s porn browsing

Hey it’s me, your therapist. It’s for the nudes.

Or YouTube vanced/revanced for mobile

Ken M

I’ve noticed significant YouTube quality degradation when using Firefox, but no issues with Chrome.

Got a link for the extension by any chance?