A jury could have decided whether his refusal to disclose made him guilty of a crime deserving of that punishment. Authority and power are two different things. Lots of people have authority without the power to unilaterally throw people in prison indefinitely.
That's not how court works. It's not a democratic vote of a group of people just making up their own mind. The judge intricately controls what the jury does and does not hear, and how they are instructed, based on the rules of evidence and of criminal or civil procedure. No, you can't just "let the jury decide" if a party to a case simply decides to ignore the judge.
No, that is how it works. If you are charged with criminal contempt, you have the right to a jury trial, and the jury determines whether guilt has been proven to the appropriate standard.
Okay but they didn't give it in meters per second, they gave it in micrometers per second. Converting to micrometers per second is exactly as much arithmetic as converting to meters per day.
Ukraine war, Nagorno Karabakh war, Iraq war, Kosovo War, Gulf War, Falklands War, Vietnam war, Korean war, wars frequently are named for where they are fought.
> It's better to communicate as an individual, warts and all, than to replace your expression with a sanitized one just because it seems "better." Language is an incredibly nuanced thing, it's best for people's own thoughts to come through exactly as they have written them.
This is the opposite of how language works. You want people to understand the idea you're trying to communicate, not fixate on the semantics of how you communicated. Language is like fashion - you only want to break the rules deliberately. If AI or an editor or whatever changes your writing to be more clear and correct, and you don't look at it and say "no, I chose that phrasing for a reason" then the editor's version is much more likely to be understood correctly by the recipient.
The key is to accuse everyone of being an LLM. Those who don't react are bots. Those that fight the charge no matter how much its levied are also bots, but with better programming. Those that complain at first but give up when too much effort is required are the real humans. Any bot able to feel frustration is cool.
Maybe a reasonable approach would be that people could flag posts with a "probably AI" button to eventually trigger a "bot test" for that account (currently, the "score 5 in this mini game" type seem pretty clanker proof). If they pass, their posts for the hour, week, whatever result in a "not AI" indicator when someone clicks the "probably AI" button.
Targeting industrial and economic assets (factories, ports, telecommunications infrastructure, etc.) has always been legitimate. If tech makes an effective contribution to military action, which includes much more innocuous stuff than major defense contracts, it's a valid target.
> They're cut from hardened steel using wire EDM, a process that erodes metal with controlled electrical sparks, achieving tolerances within a few microns.
They're made by sinker EDM, not wire. The physics are similar but it's a radically different process.
> But in an assembly system like LEGO's, small errors accumulate. Stack ten bricks end-to-end and the cumulative tolerance is ten times larger.
That's not how these tolerances work. The super tight tolerance is the interference fit on the stud. This is a diameter. You don't stack diameters together. Each connection is independent. Where you can get tolerance stackup is brick height and stud spacing. Although even here random errors tend to cancel out as you mix lots.
>LEGO's system reveals timeless truths about manufacturing. Process control beats precision machining. A stable, repeatable process produces better results than chasing the tightest possible mold tolerances. Invest in monitoring rather than just tighter specs.
The whole article says the opposite. Lego relies on precision machining and tight tolerances. Process control is necessary in addition to these.
reply