Thank you, this is a much better overview of the facts of the case. The sentence feels a bit harsh but I guess it was a conspiracy to break the law.

I’m confused about what law was actually broken here.

Assuming the poll is designed correctly it should be plenty.

You’re not wrong but it’s still a distinct crowd from the Rittenhouse type people. Usually the enlightened centrists are very concerned about violence but I guess the courts gave them a shield to suddenly be comfortable with killing in this instance. Maybe I was naive to take their stated opinions at face value.

Well, I didn’t get that sense. They seemed more like “enlightened centrist” kind of people. But who knows.

Yeah I was pretty shocked at how widespread his defenders were. Regardless of whether what he did was technically self defense or not, it’s clear he’s a bloodthirsty right-wing fanatic. There’s no need to defend his public image, even if you agree with the verdict.

The worst thing is I’ve never consented to them having my DNA but they have half of it anyway thanks to my brother…

Are you? You’ve already jumped to spreading an outlandish theory that has no evidence behind it. That’s not what I would consider reserving judgment.

Will you disavow this theory if no evidence subsequently emerges?

Show me one iota of evidence that suggests Biden is involved in this.

And by the way, crime in NY is near historic lows.

The right may not have good ideas, organizational skills, charm, ethics, understanding of economics, history, or politics, or strength in numbers, but they do have the one thing more important than all of these.

Money!

Yeah Bing Chat had sources for a while (not sure if it still does) and when I checked the sources, the frequently didn’t contain the claim in question. So even if you get it to cite real pages, it just doesn’t work the same way as human citations do.

I’d prefer if they didn’t have to but I guess if that’s the only option. If only there was some way to provide housing to people in need…

Honestly this is a good example of where a justice system that doesn’t revolve around incarceration would be better. Obviously this isn’t a situation society can just let fly but what becomes of this child now that their mom is locked up? Nothing good.

Edit: or maybe she isn’t, the article doesn’t mention any possible sentences.

This seems really detached from what we know of the situation. I would ignore these types of takes unless they’re based on on the ground information. Many people want to believe so strongly that their government is just that they will find a way to justify anything, including mass-murder of civilians.

But I hope more details of what actually happened will come out in the coming days.

Is there an intended meaning here or just weird for the sake of weird?

Is that how this technology works? I’m not the most knowledgeable about tech stuff honestly (at least by Lemmy standards).

Pirating isn’t stealing but yes the collective works of humanity should belong to humanity, not some slimy cabal of venture capitalists.

This might be better for wealthy people but it’s hard to see how this would benefit the very poorest who are in most need of health care. What does this solution do for them?

I read the article. But it’s a separate article so it has little bearing on the quality of the one OP posted here. How do you feel it’s relevant?

I think you’re arguing with a person in your imagination more than with me.

What exactly do you think I won’t change my mind on? That the article posted was of poor quality? If so, that’s true. It should have presented the available evidence clearly and indicated its sourcing. I am interested in additional information, but it’s not relevant to my original assessment.