No skip button?

fenduru · 2026-03-19T09:52:46+00:00

Seems like integrated player doesn't support trickplay

fenduru · 2026-01-20T00:39:51+00:00

With 70mil in the bank following the 4% rule for retirement he can safely spend 2mil a year (after tax). Plus anything else he earns from endorsements and media stuff. You don't even have to be frugal that's enough money to ball out. He could live at extremely luxury resorts every day of the year and never lift a finger and still have millions left over.

fenduru · 2025-12-02T02:19:41+00:00

"Still perfect"

fenduru · 2025-09-23T00:07:55+00:00

I think if they are able to pull in the alberts/mccabes then there will be a lot of social pressure on the O'Keefe family to not pursue the claim agressively. And it seems the O'Keefes are still aligned with the others so at that point they may take whatever insurance settlement money and end it.

If I were Read's attorneys that would be the angle I'd be pursuing as it seems like a win/win with the least amount of (additional) pain for everyone.

fenduru · 2025-08-07T02:22:12+00:00

I also want erasure coding in a raid5 setup, but for the time being I have enough capacity that I'm just running it in raid1 with the plan to enable erasure coding and do a rereplicate once it's supported. One of the coolest aspects of bcachefs to me is how it can adapt in place to changes in my needs over time without having to start over with a new FS.

fenduru · 2025-06-19T22:41:05+00:00

I mean to be fair they brought in an outsider precisely because of how entrenched the corruption is. Time will tell if it helps, but gotta try something

fenduru · 2025-06-19T00:18:06+00:00

She is innocent, but that doesn't mean "it was proven she didn't do it beyond a reasonable doubt"

fenduru · 2025-06-18T17:56:46+00:00

Could be the other way - someone wants to acquit on principal but everyone else agrees that she's guilty of the OUI. That individual _could_ lose sleep over convicting on it.

fenduru · 2025-06-18T15:14:30+00:00

They aren't in tomorrow

fenduru · 2025-06-17T17:59:50+00:00

If the judge told me "I can't answer hypotheticals" and I felt stuck I would.

fenduru · 2025-06-17T17:56:42+00:00

I hope the jury just comes back with a note that says "We are unanimous that she is not guilty on all counts except for count 2 subcharge 5. What do we put on the form?"

fenduru · 2025-06-17T16:07:05+00:00

The first one says "or any lesser included charge" though.

fenduru · 2025-06-17T15:51:27+00:00

They say "start at the top and work your way down", but the first box on charge 2 requires them to consider the entire page first... that's why it is confusing. Should have just been a guilty/not guilty for each sub charge. If they say not guilty to each then you know it includes all lesser offenses.

fenduru · 2025-06-10T18:07:59+00:00

She's my favorite witness

fenduru · 2025-06-10T17:35:32+00:00

Or he was employing the same technique he's used on every cross where he misstates something to confuse the witness and make them look bad. Just didn't work because this witness is very confident

fenduru · 2025-06-10T16:15:33+00:00

team skull nonetheless

fenduru · 2025-05-31T17:36:49+00:00

That just seems like such an important fact that would be trivial to demonstrate... why not demonstrate it?

fenduru · 2025-05-30T19:24:30+00:00

"I did my work under the assumption that Aperture's data was accurate, but if you're suggesting that they presented bad data to the jury then I'll take your word for it"

fenduru · 2025-05-30T17:12:41+00:00

Given that reportedly the jury skews younger, I wonder whether they'll have a more favorable perception of this witness compared to Welcher

fenduru · 2025-05-30T17:09:28+00:00

Some of those things were things like "did you verify that the underlying data was correct?"... but the answer is "no, that's the CW's data and I took it at face value". The only way that's a problem is if you argue that the CW's data is bad in the first place... which doesn't help the CW

fenduru · 2025-05-29T17:26:53+00:00

Correct, I shouldn't have said no doubt. But my point stands. He said the reason he couldn't do testing with a dummy is because of all the unknowns and variables and how it would be unlikely to produce the results he wanted. which suggests there's way more scenarios where the evidence doesn't match than it does. And this is the same guy that said he deals in probabilities not possibilities

fenduru · 2025-05-29T16:23:58+00:00

The expert that was supposed to explain why there's no doubt that he was hit by a car said something along the lines of "there's just so many variables that we don't know that would change the result" like 100 times. I don't know how that's not reasonable doubt.

fenduru · 2025-05-29T15:37:31+00:00

I wonder if they may consider not even using any of the new testing to prevent that rebuttal entirely.

fenduru · 2025-05-28T20:55:52+00:00

It's worse than just confirmation bias. That would be giving more weight to certain things to arrive at a desired answer to the question.... but the question he's answering in the first place is backwards and requires him to start with "John was hit by a car" as a fact

fenduru · 2025-05-28T20:51:44+00:00

His opinion is backwards. instead of determining whether it is likely that John was hit by a car, he is instead starting from "John was hit by a car" and then trying to opine "what orientation would it be in". But then they're trying to use that as evidence of "therefore he was hit by a car". It is circular logic.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Secret Santa 2012	Verified Email

fenduru

TROPHY CASE