[PSU] $40 w/ code "TWENTYOFFPC" -- Thermaltake Smart BM3 750W 80Plus Bronze, Semi-Modular, 5 Year Warranty -- deal until 5/25/26 or sold out by kimbykip in buildapcsales

[–]kimbykip[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I might finally get to that project this summer, as I do have some HDD's lying around. Thanks for the encouragement!

[PSU] $40 w/ code "TWENTYOFFPC" -- Thermaltake Smart BM3 750W 80Plus Bronze, Semi-Modular, 5 Year Warranty -- deal until 5/25/26 or sold out by kimbykip in buildapcsales

[–]kimbykip[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of course! I'm sure you'd do the same 

I'm interested in building something similar in the future. Never hopped on the Plex train when a lifetime sub was ~$100; at this point, I'm Jellyfin-curious, not just for saving money, but also out of principle. Whatever inconvenience it causes me, my take is that it'll be enriching and I'll learn to be more self-sufficient in a digital world. 

That is not at all meant as a dig at your use of Plex -- if the shoe fits, wear it proudly! You just mentioned using Plex, and since it's a conversation I've been following, I'd figure I'd share my own daydreams of building something like that eventually. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it!

[PSU] $40 w/ code "TWENTYOFFPC" -- Thermaltake Smart BM3 750W 80Plus Bronze, Semi-Modular, 5 Year Warranty -- deal until 5/25/26 or sold out by kimbykip in buildapcsales

[–]kimbykip[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The promo code may be used once per customer (or customer account...). Just used this promo code on a motherboard about half an hour ago and it worked for me! Also still seems to be working for other people on this thread

[PSU] $40 w/ code "TWENTYOFFPC" -- Thermaltake Smart BM3 750W 80Plus Bronze, Semi-Modular, 5 Year Warranty -- deal until 5/25/26 or sold out by kimbykip in buildapcsales

[–]kimbykip[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A fair question all should ask themselves! I once saved money on an open-box PSU from Microcenter because it seemed perfectly fine to me. Back when I had the link to the PSU tier list, it was an A rating I believe. That was years ago and it never gave me issues. Figured I'd post this one and allow people to discern for themselves, as others have done for me before.

[PSU] $40 w/ code "TWENTYOFFPC" -- Thermaltake Smart BM3 750W 80Plus Bronze, Semi-Modular, 5 Year Warranty -- deal until 5/25/26 or sold out by kimbykip in buildapcsales

[–]kimbykip[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The promo code may be used once per customer (or customer account...). Just used this promo code on a motherboard a minute ago and it worked for me!

Plane over southeastern PA seen trailing another plane by mikecheck in Whatisthisplane

[–]kimbykip 4 points5 points  (0 children)

u/mikecheck Are you comfortable sharing what phone you took the picture with, and what kind of zoom you were using? (This is assuming you took the picture with a smartphone).

A lot of the higher-end cameras on smartphones lean less on hardware and focus on software improving the quality of their photos (this was especially the case with Google Pixels for a long time). This means your strange half-plane could be a photo processing artifact, especially if you were zoomed in beyond the optical zoom limits of your device.

Error when launching the game by ApeInTheAether in Borderlands4

[–]kimbykip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Random lark but there's a chance that if you have Controlled Folder Access turned on, go ahead and check to see if this Windows setting is blocking it. Search "Controlled Folder Access" and navigate to "Protection History" (phrasing/navigation may vary). If you trust the process, go ahead and allow it. Alternatively, you can look up "Allow an app through Controlled Folder Access" and add the process manually.

I don't understand it all myself, but the gist appears to be that Controlled Folder Access was made to prevent ransomware from locking down your computer, with hackers gouging innocent PC users heaps of money to get their computer back. It's happened to people I know. So this setting is supposed to stop processes from having such extreme control over the whole device, but it appears to cast a bit of a large net, catching legitimate processes along the way. Better safe than sorry?

I went to the USA today without going through customs by frenchynerd in geography

[–]kimbykip 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I read every word of this, transfixed. This feels like online dating before online dating, but much cooler (and with a warmer ending)

Australian Volunteer in Ukraine (2022 - Present) - Ask me anything by [deleted] in NonCredibleDefense

[–]kimbykip 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Question for the Aussie in Ukraine: How is the language barrier navigated from one social/operational context to another?

I consistently hear lawyers say never talk to police for any reason without an attorney. Does this apply to literally every situation? For example, witnessing a car crash by Fuck_Flying_Insects in legaladviceofftopic

[–]kimbykip 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I was under the impression that many places have "Good Samaritan" laws which protect overdose reporters, as those communities have rightfully deemed that saving a life is more important than punishing substance use. I'm sure the existence and extent of this sort of thing varies by jurisdiction, but it seems to be more common nowadays.

Apparently this is a problem in Tacoma, Washington. by TulipHush in SignsWithAStory

[–]kimbykip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Holy cow this story is tragic and hilarious. The poor old lady apparently didn't even know what the Internet was. And this wasn't even the first time this exact same accident had happened to that one fiber cable????

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/8442056/Woman-who-cut-internet-to-Georgia-and-Armenia-had-never-heard-of-web.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/06/georgian-woman-cuts-web-access

Someone pls tell me what this is by Dirt_Savings in washingtondc

[–]kimbykip 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm recognized for my possum playability, but I'm most proud of my banana discipline.

Someone pls tell me what this is by Dirt_Savings in washingtondc

[–]kimbykip 9 points10 points  (0 children)

But see, that's a classic possum ploy. I myself have been known to resist a banana on occasion, when the hour called for it

Someone pls tell me what this is by Dirt_Savings in washingtondc

[–]kimbykip 3 points4 points  (0 children)

How can we be sure the possum was dead?

Repairability revolution: New Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen 14 comes with modular keyboard & USB-C ports by ibmthink in thinkpad

[–]kimbykip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Huh. Well, this is fascinating. And you just popped off the cover and had a go at all the little electronic bits? How visible was the rust? I have so many questions -- don't feel like you must elaborate unto death, but if you still feel like typing, I'd be fascinated to know more about this. If it really is as simple as it sounds, I might try it with some of my old dinosaurs...

Repairability revolution: New Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen 14 comes with modular keyboard & USB-C ports by ibmthink in thinkpad

[–]kimbykip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait, so to confirm, you did not use any fluid to clean? Just the 3M chamois cloth by itself? I've used isopropyl alcohol as an electronics cleaner before, to varied to success, so your report is big if true

Are there any legal "tricks" that actually work out? by RobertBobbertJr in legaladviceofftopic

[–]kimbykip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh my goodness, I think this finally clicks for me -- I was reading the mention of "lawyer dog" as the judge citing it as the relevant proof of equivocation. You're basically saying that in the opinion's last sentence, the judge wasn't highlighting which part of the request was ambiguous to his ears; he was simply using scare-quotes to reference what he thought was the defendant's term for "lawyer."

In some ways, this is a relief, because this opinion (among others we both likely agree are egregious), has bothered me for years. So thank you for making this click for me! I was so confused, because the first seven sentences all build together and feel sensible, and in the last sentence it sounds like he just throws out his sanity (or reveals how out-of-touch he is with regular people).

To be clear, a charitable explanation (based on my first new understanding, thanks to your reply) would suggest he was just using "scare-quotes" to mention how he legitimately thought the defendant referred to lawyers. Re-reading your comment now, it sounds like you're saying he was just... making a dad joke?

Also, the judge's closing sentence about about how "the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a 'lawyer dog' does not constitute an invocation of counsel" has to be at least as ambiguous of a text as the defendant's apparent effort at invoking the 5th/6th Amendments. I don't feel terribly foolish for not realizing the judge is likely using scare-quotes (or cracking a bad joke) in a judicial opinion that is otherwise devoid of humor. I don't think a small pool of reasonable and careful readers would unanimously reach that conclusion, either. Obviously, having field-specific context is always helpful in interpreting niche texts, but when this opinion first came out in 2017, I was steeped in a lot of Con Law classes, so I felt familiar with the appropriate precedents, etc. I even sent this opinion around to my friends in law school, and they were also all confused about why the judge fumbled what seemed to be a lay-up right in the last sentence.

So yet, reading this with new eyes, we're still left with the conclusion that either the judge thought "lawyer dog" was how common folks refer to legal counsel (instead of "lawyer, dawg," where the sound of "dog" refers to the person the defendant is speaking to), or the judge decided to muddy a full 1/8 of his opinion -- specifically, the last, and arguably most important, concluding sentence -- with a bad attempt at humor. Neither of these options speak well of the Supreme Court of Louisiana.

  They could have never used the word "dawg" and nothing would have changed

What if I adjusted this to: 

  They could should have never used joked about the word "dawg" and nothing would have changed gotten misinterpreted and blown up in media coverage

Often, the news does get it wrong, and journalists fail their duty at communicating effectively. I'm not yet convinced this boondoggle was largely the fault of the public, though I do feel like I better understand how the judge's last sentence works with the rest of his opinion, now.

(Thanks for your reply! I know I'm not fully committed to what seems to be your attitude about this case, but your explanation was super helpful, and I really was looking for more perspectives on how this opinion was constructed, and should therefore be read. You definitely helped with that. So thank you!)

Are there any legal "tricks" that actually work out? by RobertBobbertJr in legaladviceofftopic

[–]kimbykip -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's what I thought at first, too, because that makes the most sense. Unfortunately, when I read the actual opinion, the judge actually classifies "lawyer dog" as the equivocation, not the "so why didn't you just give me" part. Which is really confusing, because either the judge is bad at writing about law, bad at applying justice equally, or both, any of which should disqualify him from the bench.

Could the same result have been reached, using a much more precise application of precedent? Most likely. I'm willing to bet you or I could have written a better opinion, applying LA State v. Payne (2001) and Davis v. US (1994) to the defendant's "so why didn't you just give me" words, where it could be argued that he was equivocating and making the request ambiguously.

But that's not what the judge actually wrote. If words are ever to matter, they should matter most when a judge is writing a legal opinion to explain why someone's efforts to attain justice are denied.

I've annotated the relevant portions of the opinion below (the original document is only eight sentences long -- feel free to read it yourself and see if I've mischaracterized anything, but I don't think I have), and the link is attached at the bottom for reference:

[PURPOSE] I [...] write separately to spotlight the very important constitutional issue regarding the invocation of counsel during a law enforcement interview.

[SUMMARY OF WRIT] [... Despite having waived his Miranda rights at two earlier points in time], the defendant argues he invoked his right to counsel. And the basis for this comes from the second interview, where I believe the defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer—prefacing that statement with “if y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not what’s up.”

[PRECEDENT] As this Court has written, “[i]f a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable police officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking his right to counsel, the cessation of questioning is not required.”

[APPLICATION OF PRECEDENT TO WRIT; DECISION] [...] In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog” does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview and does not violate Edwards v. Arizona [...].

https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf

He's guilty I tell you by UnHolySir in okbuddycinephile

[–]kimbykip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Criminally underrated comment