They never pursue court trials, because it's too much work. But they'll pursue plea deals, because there's this gigantic pipeline and everyone in it (including public defenders) is on the same team: Team Make Him Plead.
Because of this, no true justice is possible. Trials don't just try the defendants, it forces the prosecutor to prove that there really was a case and that they weren't just trying to bully someone who felt it was hopeless and would rather get out of pre-trial jail early. It forces the cops to actually make a fucking case, rather than rely on horseshit to lock someone away that can't bond out.
And no reform is possible. If you explain any of this to someone who actually understands it, they panic and say "but the prosecutors wouldn't even be able to bring 1/50th of those cases to trial, the system would overload" as if that were a bad thing that they couldn't. In the same way that you're not caught in a traffic jam but rather you are traffic, you're not caught up in these problems... your apathy, your ignorance, your rejection of boat-rocking, in short you are the problem.
I'm not sure I understand the point. For small home networks, there is no bandwidth difference between this and streaming solutions like Jellyfin. Yes, this was a cool technology, and if some large provider like AT&T wanted to use this to broadcast channels to everyone at once it would've made more sense than streaming... but even for that use case the world has moved on. Does anyone watch scheduled television anymore except local news and sportsball?
> Does anyone watch scheduled television anymore except local news and sportsball?
Yes, especially for folks not at home. It’s common to see multicast used in places where internet bandwidth is constrained, but network maybe not so much.
For example, maybe you have an older hotel, or a cruise ship or a hospital or a retirement home. It’s expensive to just buy better internet backhaul, and it’s expensive to retrofit those rooms, and you can lose a lot of money for every day the room is down.
But, with multicast, you can use the legacy internet connection and the legacy wiring in the room, but easily/cheaply ensure every room has a working TV with full broadcast TV or satellite TV, and anyone watching that is not pulling 5mbps to 10mbps from your internet backhaul.
It also all works from a single remote control, and it doesn’t ask you to log into anything, it doesn’t need your cell phone for anything, etc.
It’s niche, but there’s a number of places where it makes sense.
Yes. I watched scheduled TV less than 3 (waking) hours ago.
I have a gigabit down, and a ~50TB local Plex server.
Sometimes, well… often, it’s just nice to channel-surf as a low-commitment way to find something to watch, to be surprised by something, etc. I’ll otherwise frequently be paralysed by choice and/or fall back on the same playlist of shows, over and over.
Plenty of others online have documented similar experiences. It’s why there’s an ecosystem of projects looking to emulate traditional TV experiences using Plex / local media libraries. To use a Claude-ism: it’s not just nostalgia-bait, there are genuine advantages to watching things this way. I’ve been doing it long enough for any novelty / shine to have worn off.
To demonstrate...multicast TV distribution on a home network?
> For small home networks, there is no bandwidth difference between this and streaming solutions like Jellyfin.
Jellyfin and multicast TV distribution are not the same things, though. They're very different.
Some other things that are very different include: The temperature of Lake Superior, my mother's collection of weird ceramic houses that light up, and red herring.
> Yes, this was a cool technology,
Multicast has ceased to be a cool technology? That's hot.
> and if some large provider like AT&T wanted to use this to broadcast channels to everyone at once
They do that.
> it would've made more sense than streaming
They do that, as well.
> but even for that use case the world has moved on.
All of it? Uniformly?
> Does anyone watch scheduled television anymore except local news and sportsball?
We should not use multicast TV distribution on home networks for local news and sportsball?
IPTV from your ISP is typically multicast (even if your connection is point-to-point), and if you have more than one network behind your router (for example, you have separate networks for wire clients, owner's wifi and guests wifi) you need to understand hot it works to setup your router correctly that you can watch IPTV on any device in any of yours networks.
What would be great is if there was a “box” I could program 50 or 100 digital channels to IPTV channels and just flip channels on the tv and the box changed IPTV sources.
anything like this that’s consumer grade available that works with M3U playlist
When the media server is only intended to broadcast a single stream 24/7 whether it is live from a newsroom or real-time from a media library, and there is no need for end-user-interaction with the media server itself, multicast only requires the server to serve to a single IP address and any clients on that network can just tap into it at any time through the routing hardware. The server just pours its streaming data into a single widely-accessible IP address and doesn't need to have any idea how many clients are active at all.
So multicast is when you want hardware outboard of the server to do all the distribution, the maximum number of simultaneous client users is then not limited by the server resources since the server itself only serves that one stream to a single IP address no matter how many users or not tap into the stream beyond that point.
The more familiar default approach for more common servers and routers is not multicast, but regular unicast instead. Where the server allows individual asynchronous interactions directly with each user like you expect in a common office network (or the internet), hardly anything identical is intended to be accessed simultaneously by the clients. But of course the server then needs to handle the distribution to each user individually like in a basic office network, which can add up to a lot of IP connections for the server to contend with compared to only a single IP if it was multicast.
So the number of simultaneous users is then limited by the number of connections that the server itself can maintain under unicast, which is an un-necessary additional bottleneck that can be avoided by using multicast if everything on that "channel" is going to always be simultaneous anyway.
Why would the first AI we create necessarily be "rational"? In every other type of software we've ever built, it's always been far more likely that we build malfunctioning, difficult-to-anticipate examples. Any reason it'll be different this time? If psychos and lunatics are rare (arguably they're not) it's because evolution has purged them mercilessly ever since there have been humans at all.
Optimists will be to blame when we're extinct. Not that anyone will be around to care.
>Actually, that big stink people made over killing third-party Reddit client access was all powermods, because doing your job as a moderator is nigh-impossible with the standard Reddit tools. That's why we had so many subs get blacked out in protest, an
I sort of got the impression it was because of that back when it happened. But when I say it out loud everyone protested reddit because the moderators didn't have what they needed to ban people unfairly and clamp down on free speech it just sounded a little weird.
>That is, the vaccination subs that want to talk about vaccines have no tools to prevent people from the antivax subs from coming in and changing the narrative by downvoting everything vaccine positive[
I remember suggesting such a tool, long ago, when you could still talk to the admins on IRC. Would've been in 2008. I suggested that it would be possible to either ban or have votes ignored (by a moderator) of those people who were voting wrong. Hear me out... if the subreddit was r/tomcruiseisawesome, and there is a person (or many) constantly downvoting Tom Cruise submissions (or upvoting Tom "Cruise sucks!" submissions), then they're just in the wrong place and causing trouble. They retorted that the moderators shouldn't be allowed to see who votes on what, but when I pointed out that you wouldn't have to let the mods know who voted what, just give them the tool that says "banhammer everyone who downvoted/upvoted at least 3 of these" they shut up and stopped talking.
So, they've wanted it to be this way for a very long time.
A moderator has, presumably, chosen n posts, and by doing so has indicated that if you've downvoted (or upvoted, their choice) at least however many of those, you're on the shitlist in their subreddit. No AI needed, the moderator was the one to determine that you were criticizing something and that in their subreddit the criticism is unwelcome.
Where to allow them to do this with posts outside of their subreddit is an implementation detail.
>There are levels of depression (or other circumstances) at which people are actual drains on their family.
Committing suicide almost certainly guarantees further suicides within that close family. Children especially... years later. In certain social circles (teenage suicide), it heightens the risk of further teenage suicides, even among non-peers in some cases.
Unless the facehugger has just laid an egg in your gut, suicide is never rational and its consequences will play out over decades.
When teenage suicide clusters hit all the small towns within 50 miles of each other, you're positing that they were actually half-siblings and didn't know it, eh?
I'm glad people like you downvote me, it lets me know that I'm right.
The world record holder vegetables are all grown in Alaskan summers, up north... where they get 20+ hours of daylight per day. Dunno, maybe the CAM plants would do bad (pineapples) but just about everything else benefits.
>Why use someone else's non FOSS, locked down linux, when you could
All my life I have had to make do with junk I could get at Walmart or Best Buy. Got tired of it. Cheap plastic shit that would inevitably shit the bed just a month or two after the warranty expired. I'm not making the IT helpdesk wages I was making 30 years ago... fuck that. While I couldn't spend ten grand on home networking, I could finally spend a little something on hardware that's not total shit.
Got the CCR2004-16G-2S+. No stupid ONTs, either, just the SFP+ modules. Plenty of backup 1gig ports if I get a third WAN (thinking about getting Starlink on standby). Actual proper fucking APs that do seamless handoff (hell, one of them probably covers the footprint of my house, if I'm honest). And no more shitty GUI configuration pages. I just shell in and band out commands on the command line (at least three times til I get the syntax right, but who gives a fuck).
Wish they made something with 3 or 4 SFP+ ports that I didn't need a rack for.
>Now, all the villagers can get cheaper horseshoes, so they don’t have to spend as many resources on shoes for their horses, and can now invest more into what their village is best at, and sell those goods to other villages.
And for a village that had 50 such specialties... they can make do with 49 specialties. Then with 48. And 45 as well. 25 eventually. But some day in the future, their great-grandchildren wake up, and there are no jobs. That Korean factory even ships in tractors, so there's no farm labor work to be had for the 200 who didn't have a specialty. But the food still costs money. And it doesn't matter if the village is gone because those people moved to the city, there's not much work there either. And maybe there are even fewer people to worry about this, because when the moved to the city, those people stopped having children.
> And maybe there are even fewer people to worry about this, because when the moved to the city, those people stopped having children.
> Who is this good for? Is it good for you?
Well, as a global population reduction is sorely needed, this is good for pretty much everybody. There's absolutely no way we can keep extracting resources and polluting at the rate demanded by our current enormous population (which has more than doubled in my life time).
Unfortunately, your theory isn't working, as the population still grows.
>Well, as a global population reduction is sorely needed,
Retards in the 1960s believed such. But the reality is that it's not even needed a little. And subreplacement fertility isn't "population reduces for a bit, then stabilizes"... subreplacement fertility is actually "the population continues to shrink, accelerating and shrinking faster until extinction inevitably ensues".
So you're not really a "I want a lower population", you're part of a death cult that wants humans gone. Forever.
>this is good for pretty much everybody.
It hasn't been good for anyone, except some tiny minority that is measured as much less than 1%.
>There's absolutely no way we can keep extracting resources and polluting at the rate demanded by our current enormous population (which has more than doubled in my life time).
Already shrinking. Visibly, indisputably shrinking. And the western world isn't doing the polluting.
>Unfortunately, your theory isn't working, as the population still grows.
No, it already stopped growing. Ran out of gas, but as the car coasts to a stop you can delusionally pretend that the engine's still on, and that we aren't coasting up the hill. If somehow I were wrong, it wouldn't be unfortunate at all, it'd be a wondrous miracle.
>Which, for me, raises the question why weren't these things passed down? Why weren't the young a kind of apprentices to the old?
Because at that time, the younger generation outnumbered the old. And today, the older generation outnumbers the younger. They grew up in a growing world, and you have grown up in a shrinking world. Not shrinking quite so quickly that you can't help but notice... not yet. We're not Japan, not yet. When you read that heartwarming story about the Japanese train line that stays open until that one Japanese girl finishes high school, that happened because she was part of a shrinking society. Do you think they had dances planned multiple nights per week in her prefecture?
Because of this, no true justice is possible. Trials don't just try the defendants, it forces the prosecutor to prove that there really was a case and that they weren't just trying to bully someone who felt it was hopeless and would rather get out of pre-trial jail early. It forces the cops to actually make a fucking case, rather than rely on horseshit to lock someone away that can't bond out.
And no reform is possible. If you explain any of this to someone who actually understands it, they panic and say "but the prosecutors wouldn't even be able to bring 1/50th of those cases to trial, the system would overload" as if that were a bad thing that they couldn't. In the same way that you're not caught in a traffic jam but rather you are traffic, you're not caught up in these problems... your apathy, your ignorance, your rejection of boat-rocking, in short you are the problem.
reply