Strangled her to unconsciousness… so badly she needed surgery to fix her neck and is still physically recovering.

Thanks, that detail was not in the other story I read on this. If you go into the other thread on Lemmy about this, you’ll see people defending this action by the judge.

No, it’s the “he was charged as a minor as a 17 year old and fulfilled his 6 months of probation and education.”

Disagree for certain violent crimes and above certain ages. Young people don’t fully understand both what they are doing and the implications of what they are doing, that’s true.

However, at 17 nearly everyone knows it is wrong to choke a girl so hard she needs surgery to repair her neck, while filming the assault, and then raping her. And this wasn’t even an isolated incident that he learned from or that happened in a fit of passion that happens more when you are younger. This happened twice, both times with choking, raping, and filming. And apparently he didn’t even show any remorse about learning what he did was wrong.

So no, I disagree that it is always wrong to charge minors as adults. Or, if we are going to agree, then I want there to be harsher penalties allowed for minors who commit certain crimes.

This is something that happens in beach cities in CA. People get drunk at the beach bars and then take the beach bike path home. However, those paths are used by pedestrians and other cyclists going at high speeds.

My local one requires ordering by kiosk, which requires swiping your membership card to start the order. Yes, you can probably ask the person next to you to swipe for you.

It’s not bootlicking, you weirdo. It’s recognizing when one thing is right and one thing is wrong. Just because a company does something doesn’t make it automatically wrong.

I know it might be a crazy concept that is hard to grasp, but the world isn’t totally black and white. It’s almost like bad people can do good things sometimes. And good people can do bad things sometimes. Your way of thinking is exactly the way Republicans justify all the evil shit they do. They are religious, which makes them good people, and therefore everything they do is good. In your case, you think a corporation is bad and therefore everything they do is bad.

The person who owns a trademark or copyright has a right to use that trademark and the onus to defend that trademark from other people using it. We used to allow anyone to call themselves anything they way, and it turned out badly.

Theft is when something you own is taken away. The squatter never owned the domain, only registered to use it. In this case, ICANN owns the domain and allows a registrar to handle who can use that domain. ICANN sets strict rules on how domains can be used, and the squatter broke those rules.

Maybe the judge is a little smarter on actual laws than you are.

This isn’t about an intangible thing being property. This is about the way domains are controlled. Nobody owns a domain, they register the right to use a domain. All domains are controlled and “owned” by ICANN, which allows registrars to handle who can use domains.

They are not anyone’s property.

The point isn’t that intangible objects can’t be property. The point is that domains are not legally owned by people or corporations. You can pay for the right to use one, but you don’t own it.

What sucks is that a lot of commercial companies in L.A. use the .la domain, which is blocked by my company’s proxy.

OK, now is the time to finally win the vi/Emacs war. We just need to convince the GOP that Emacs was designed to help a disadvantaged population compete in the workforce, and we’re on the way to banning it! This will be my greatest success.

Of all the bubbles that needed to burst quickly, this is maybe the one that needs to burst soonest.

They have the legal right to search a phone before it enters the US, but there is no law that says you can’t wipe your phone first.

You are missing the point of this specific scaremongering. Nobody ever said the ultra rich would leave the US if he won. They said (just like the headline and article state clearly) the rich would leave the city, going to FL and TX. It is QUITE easy to keep all your market investments and corporations and even your real estate holdings while living in another state, or heck, even another city within NY.

Your argument makes sense when talking about the federal government implementing a wealth tax, but it doesn’t have much to do with a city raising taxes. The rich are going to stay in NYC because it’s a great city to live in if you are rich, though it isn’t where I want to live if I were poor or even as an upper middle class person. The regular wealthy people have houses in multiple cities in their country and will live in the city they enjoy living in. The ultra rich have houses in multiple countries, but they will still choose where they spend most of their time based on where they like spending most of their time.

One important thing to note is that there are only two types of commercially available rodenticides. The 2024 state law banned one of them, because the WAY that it kills is “grosser” than the other one.

The problem is veterinarians only have a cure to treat dogs/cats that accidentally eat the rodenticide for the one that was banned, and not for the one still available. Before, if a dog/cat accidentally ate rat poison, there was a good chance the vet could easily save your pet’s life. Now, they just say, “sorry, nothing we can do while your pet dies a slow, painful, but not outwardly gross death.”

What is News about it? A private person is dating another private person. Neither are public officials, or even politically relevant anymore.

As the saying goes, “if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a bicycle.”

If he actually did what the state accused him of, then I would be in favor of him spending his life behind bars. But since the ONLY evidence against him is a pair of forensic specialists whose testimonies have been overturned as junk science in 9 different cases already (including the only living one of the two saying he no longer believes in the science he testified about back then), plus the recanted testimony of a jailhouse snitch, then the burden of proof has not been met. There were no witnesses and no other forensic evidence that this wasn’t more than negligence in leaving a 2 year old in a bathtub.

That’s why I have a hard time with the death penalty. A lifetime in jail gives time to find out the state did something wrong (like in this case). Once a person is dead, then we can’t say, “whoopsie.”

Exonerated might not be the correct term. His murder conviction was vacated and death sentence set aside, which is different from saying he is exonerated.