Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dragdeler]

a

[nenjin]

but one could think there'd be some civil duty to offer such insurances with how protest is like the most prominent right.

"Civil duty" is usually opposed to "make money." The reason insurance fails to pay out is they allot coverage based on margins. That's why they re-negged on flood insurance claims for Katrina by claiming a hurricane is not a flood. The amount of money they would have had to pay out for all the damage across the states was too much to bear, so they just creatively interpreted the policies they sold people so they didn't have to pay out.

So I'm guessing even if they had a "social unrest" policy, when it came time to pay out they'd invent some justification for why they don't actually need to. One person's business gets burned during a riot? Sure, no problem, honor the policy. An entire city worth of businesses gets torched during a riot? Well, now it's time to get creative with interpreting policy language.

[Random_Dragon]

I think that kinda hints at the big moral of the story here: If greedy assholes actually cared about civic duty, we wouldn't have 90% of the problems discussed in this entire thread.

[LordBaal]

In the incredibles the boss of the protagonist puts it on a very blunt way. The more people they pay the less the company gets. In theory if it gets out of hand it migth actually bankrupt the insurance company, just like if everyone decided to take their money out of a specific bank in a moment it would bankrupt the bank.

Basically is a gamble, and since most of the time horrible things aren't happening to large groups of people that are clients of the insurance company they win money. When massive things like this happens to a large group of their clients they, depending on their size (number and location of clients vs affected clients), pay up everyone without problems, pay up everyone till red numbers, or pay up everyone till bankruptcy, or maybe pay up everyone gradually over an amount of time to avoid bankruptcy?

And then there's the option of fuck around and reinterpret the terms, like it was an hurricane... sure it was, and one of the consequences of hurricanes are floods you morons. So unless they go as far to specify they won't cover hurricane caused floods is dickery on their part. If they do specify it and you did not read it, well, is your overlook.

[da_nang]

Kenosha trial update:

The defendant breaks down on the stand, and the prosecution's cross-examination is a disaster. The prosecutor has been shouted down by the judge several times now.

The defense has stated they're drafting a motion for mistrial with prejudice. Allegedly, the prosecutor is acting in bad faith by twice trying to violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, and also by trying to bring in, without preclearance from the judge, evidence that was ruled in a pre-trial motion to be inadmissible.

And to be fair, a mistrial without prejudice would favor the prosecution. So perhaps the prosecutor is out fishing today.

[LordBaal]

 Just saw the crazy "kid" crying (guess that is what the defense was going for), the judge screaming at the prosecutor for some reason is beyond me and then, the one thing that do offends me, the prosecutor tried to drag in the old "videogames create murderers" tired excuse?

I mean, sure, call of duty is a shity game, but videogames are sacred you moron!!! Don't bring such precious arts down to this shity shitshow were someone tries to pin down "a kid chose to have an assault rifle because of videogames" instead of, you know, "WHAT THE FUCK DOES A KID WITH AN ASSAULT RIFLE AND WHY IS THAT EVEN AN OPTION?"

[nenjin]

"“I cannot legally possess or carry a pistol because I'm not 18 in Wisconsin. I believe it's 18 in Wisconsin for a pistol, but with the rifle, I knew I could possess that rifle. I knew I couldn't buy it but I knew I could like take it, to like the shooting range or possess it,” Rittenhouse said. "

"“This big, long AR-15 really got in the way whenever you tried to help someone, right,” Binger asked."

Only in America is an AR-15 a substitute for a handgun. Jesus.

Honestly, it sounds like the prosecutor is setting themselves up for failure. If the judge is biased toward the defendant, and has ruled some evidence inadmissible....attempting to introduce that evidence in the middle of testimony is basically handing the defense grounds for a mistrial, which the judge would seemingly be more than happy to grant. WTF are they thinking?

[Rolan7]

I believe the dipshit kid is sorry he gunned people down. Not important. After he gets off easy I'm going to be prepared for the next homegrown terrorist pumped out by the alt-right media lobby. They think they're scared now, because of some lies they slurped up? Wait till people stop taking alt-right violence on the face.

Pacifism failed, the left is seen as "violent antifa city-razers". Optics doesn't work when they control the narrative. Pacifists just keep getting beaten and murdered pointlessly.

I don't care what happens to this dumbass, but I'm going to do whatever I have to to feel safe. For now that means continuing to hide who I am in public, but most people don't have that option. Asking them to let themselves be victimized is disgusting.

[da_nang]

They're arguing over pinch and zoom, JFC.

On a non-vectorized image, the "lossless" way of zooming is to scale each pixel up to some NxN square that has the same color value as the original pixel. This essentially gives you larger pixels, and it doesn't alter the image. If the original has poor resolution, then the zoomed up version would still have poor resolution, just with bigger pixels.

The "lossy" way, however, is to use some form of interpolation or machine learning to fill in those NxN squares with some suitable color values. This does alter the image. Sure, zooming in on a large-resolution image won't be too much of an issue as long as the details you're zooming in on aren't too small. But zooming in on a poor resolution image, e.g. something happening far away from the camera, could lead to the interpolation or machine learning algorithm introducing details that aren't there or are misleading.

Example, take any image and downscale it until it is just a few pixels large. Imagine how much data was lost in that procedure, and now imagine that the zoom algorithm is supposed to upscale it back to the original from the downscaled image. Neither the lossless method nor the lossy method can be expected to produce a faithful replica of the original from that downscaled image.

In technical terms, you are limited by the sampling frequency. Upscaling isn't going to perfectly recreate the higher frequencies.

Therefore, great care should be taken when presenting upscaled images to the jury. If the original is too small a resolution, then the upscaled image can be unduly prejudicial.

EDIT: Another way to put it is to compare it with a magnifying glass on an analog image. Zoom in enough and eventually you'll start to see the printed dots or the splotches of chemical products from exposure to light.

[None]

Strictly going off the above...

What the actual fuck is this trial? Is this justice?

I may gnash my teeth, but I get it if he gets away on self-defense based on the letter of the law, but what the fuck is the rest of this clown show? What's with the judge? What's with the prosecution?

[Micro102]

So if what I just read is accurate, the judge refused to admit as evidence, Rittenhouse stating weeks before the incident, that he wished he had his AR to shoot people at what seemed to be another protest???

And of course, the judge's ring tone is the Trump rally theme song...

[nenjin]

Either the prosecution has such a zealous hard-on for prosecuting Rittenhouse they're willing to ignore instructions and jeopardize a verdict because they think they can sway the jury.....or they're banking on the judge being removed from the trial due to bias.....or they've secretly been paid off to throw the trial. I can't think of a good strategic reason for doing this, unless they think the case is fucked anyways and are just going for broke.

Regardless, this shit all sounded fishy from the minute the judge gave specific jury instructions about how to characterize both the victims and the shooter. Unfortunately, I don't think there's the political will in Wisconsin to do anything about it. The state is pretty much red through and through.

The ring tone though.....FFS.

Edit:

Watching Rittenhouse testify.....there is something not right with that guy. Like he's got the mental capacity of a small child.

[None]

That could be the PTSD from shooting people.

[Frumple]

Either the prosecution has such a zealous hard-on for prosecuting Rittenhouse they're willing to ignore instructions and jeopardize a verdict because they think they can sway the jury.....or they're banking on the judge being removed from the trial due to bias.....or they've secretly been paid off to throw the trial.

I've seen commentary that it's also possible they're just flat out fucking incompetent, largely due to how softball our system makes it for prosecutors most of the time. If the killer had shot a cop instead, the prosecutor probably would have skated through to a conviction doing exactly what they're doing, basically, and may be used to doing just that.

[Random_Dragon]

Prosecution not used to having to put in actual effort, what a shock. :/