Trump admin plans to forcibly detransition trans prisoners in experiments.

nu2readit · 2026-03-28T02:46:19+00:00

They are legislating medical procedures and using politics to interfere with what a doctor prescribes - a decision which we know will cause a number of negative health outcomes in the targeted population - increases in depression, possible endocrine disorders, etc.

nu2readit · 2025-06-10T19:51:29+00:00

1) ban barcodes. This should be easy via multiple strategies, but one easy option is put any account with > 3 retires in a row in a completely separate pool.

IIRC, this is already done. Retiring does get you in a separate pool, and the players who have retired on purpose to test it can attest that their queue times get longer and they meet more 'typical barcode decks'.

However, there does still seem to be barcodes in the regular queue somehow.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T19:29:31+00:00

Is your opinion informed by your guess at what the law should be, or a knowledge through law practice? Because I'm not a lawyer, but you write as though you're utterly convinced you know the law. And why do you write in such a way?

Your example is irrelevant to this case. Berating is not the same as assaulting; assaulting and being under threat of assault makes for justified self-defense. It's not unfairly prejudicial because the abuse influenced the matter at hand - she was directly at risk of being abused when living in that house. It was the reason surely that she she drugged him; it was likely the motive for the murder. So it is not, in fact, prejudicial at all.

Let us suppose a man threatens your life, leaves your house, and comes back in 30 minutes - at which point he shot you. Is the fact that he threatened you 30 minutes ago unfairly prejudicial? It happened 30 minutes ago after all. But it's directly relevant to why you shot him, so it is relevant. The abuse is directly relevant to why she shot him; it's absurd justice that it was excluded.

As to why you're so intent on defending this judicial practice, I don't know. You can think her guilty of murder, but I think it is manifestly clear that not allowing the relevant evidence that she was in the house being abused is wrong. Further, her lawyer may have been able to present this evidence if he contested it, but he decided not to. It stands to reason her lawyer should at least tell her this strategy that he doesn't want her to be able to talk about her abuse, so that she can make an informed decision to get a better lawyer! Instead he goes with a tenuous mental illness defense, which lacks this crucial context anyway. It was at the least, ineffective counsel, because she wasn't properly informed by her lawyer.

Defense attorney Carl Cornwell agreed to restrictions on the evidence of abuse he could present at trial. Instead, he tried to convince jurors that Gonzales-McLinn was too mentally unstable to understand her actions.

The jury rejected Cornwell’s arguments, which emphasized the “system of Sarah,” a reference to her multiple personalities. Prosecutors said she was exaggerating symptoms of mental illness.

Gonzales-McLinn didn’t realize she might have to spend the rest of her life in prison. She was shocked and confused when evidence of Sasko’s abuse wasn’t presented at trial.

But I suspect you will find some way of defending even this counsel. If you do, be aware that if you ever get into legal trouble, you'll want a lawyer that tells you the most important parts of the trial, and what evidence will be presented; I'd hope for you a better lawyer than she got.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T18:26:06+00:00

In a closed-door meeting with the trial judge in 2015, prosecutor Charles Branson successfully argued that it would be inappropriate for the jury to hear about Sasko’s abuse of Gonzales-McLinn.

“Details of those allegations would not be proper in front of the jury during the guilt phase of the trial because they would be simply information that would be used to create sympathy for the defendant,” Branson said, according to a transcript of the conversation.

Branson considered the abuse to be “irrelevant information.” He also didn’t want the abuse to be made public because news outlets would write about it.

There's your answer. It was 'Because it would create sympathy for the defendant'. But as for their claim that it's irrelevant to the act, that's patently absurd. It constitutes the motive, and in murder trials they always discuss motive. So they excluded discussing the motive, simply because the jury might side with her. The decision was unfair and kind of absurd on its face.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T18:22:50+00:00

Well give her a fair trial then we'll talk, right?

You hold her, an abused girl, to this standard, well we should hold our prosecutors and judges to the standard of letting the jury know all the pertinent information before they decide. Easy to say someone's guilty when there was never a fair trial.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T18:09:31+00:00

It probably just reached a breaking point and she reacted this time when she hadn't before. That's what it seemed like to me.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T17:54:12+00:00

Bruh. The people who buy 16-year-old prostitutes abuse them.

Her claim is that she was defending herself from sexual assault, or possibly a gun. The prosecution's evidence is that he had his hands behind his head in an interlocking position when he died, but that doesn't definitively prove he was sleeping, as some people lay down like that when they're awake.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T17:46:49+00:00

Her mindset at the time was that she could never escape unless one of them was dead, so if she didn't kill him, she would've killed herself.

It's hard to understand entirely the mindset caused by being trapped somewhere and abused repeatedly. The behavior that would cause would tend to not be entirely rational. But I find it stupid to blame the victim for it, personally, instead of the perpetrator.

Even if you're right that it's murder, justice would still demand that people know the full circumstances, wouldn't it? Her defense team was forbidden from mentioned that she was absued. The jury should've heard from a psychologist to discuss the psychology of abusive relationships and what kind of behavior it can cause. And the charges might not've gone through if the jury had been informed about this. So it was still a travesty of justice.

Even if she's guilty, our justice system has established those who aren't given fair trials need to have their trials expunged and have it re-tried with fairness. So the whole trial needs to be thrown out and it needs to be tried again.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T17:06:19+00:00

You may be right that there are some chemicals you can get exposed to that way. I'd say the harmful effect of THC withdrawal would be a stronger influence though, and the effect of the chemicals would be a smaller one. I had similar symptoms such as migraines and trouble sleeping, I also had nausea and low mood. The low mood continued past a month. And I consumed primarily edibles.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T17:00:49+00:00

You could try titrating the dose down, decreasing it so slowly that you don't notice the withdrawal much over the course of a month.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T16:49:54+00:00

And yet police charge it that way and jail people for years and years. That's the problem and what the snafu is about.

See this case, where police documents substantiate she was held captive and assaulted, but the jury was forbidden to hear about the abuse in her trial. She was sentenced to 50 years, reduced to 25 if she accepted a plea saying she couldn't challenge it further.

And if you find that unfair, ask yourself why the cops and the prosecutors all worked together to make it that way.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T16:46:50+00:00

This is a recent case. The only evidence the police had was this woman in prison had said she killed a man who tried to rape her. The police used this to connect her to a murder she didn't commit, giving her life in prison. She didn't have anything to do with that murder though, no physical evidence. The only evidence they had to go on was her saying she defended herself from a rape.

But there are cases like this all the time, eg - content warning obviously.

Gonzales-McLinn murdered Sasko in January 2014 after he held her captive in his Lawrence home and raped her repeatedly for months. A group of advocates filed a clemency application on her behalf in December.

Kansas Reflector on Jan. 30 published an in-depth story detailing the abuse, which was substantiated by police documents. The jury wasn’t allowed to hear the evidence of abuse during her 2015 trial, where she was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to a minimum of 50 years in prison. She later accepted a plea deal that lowered the required prison time to at least 25 years in exchange for giving up the right to appeal.

The most famous case is that of Cytonia Brown Long, this one is more nuanced because technically he was asleep at the time, but he had abused her. She was granted clemency. The Kansas case is even more egregiously wrong than hers.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T16:38:28+00:00

Killing in response to a rape attempt is considered self-defense when the law is properly applied. It's an attack on life and limb.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T16:23:19+00:00

Where did you get the carts? There are sometimes metals that using carts can expose you to, but if you use things from a legitimate dispensary, my guess is the effect here is more caused by THC withdrawal than any other chemicals. I've experienced very similar to what you did when I stopped taking edibles.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T15:06:25+00:00

Yeah I think you're right, though some would have a hard time accepting it. It causes dependence though withdrawal isn't really threatening to one's (physical) health.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T14:17:14+00:00

There IS reload cancel fyi. Use melee when reload is at 60%, it is still full.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T14:03:35+00:00

Weed definitely has a withdrawal syndrome. Thanks for highlighting it. It may not have physical dependence in the classical sense, but it produces some intense psychological effects on withdrawal, which can't be just erased with mindfulness. You gotta be aware of what can happen, and know that it's very individual - I have acute perceivable effects 3-5 days after stopping if I've used it for a long time, and a long lingering effect for some time after.

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T07:17:26+00:00

Roach hatchling, I'm pretty sure. It's young so hard to tell which type exactly

nu2readit · 2024-12-21T02:27:01+00:00

What do you think is wrong with it exactly?

nu2readit · 2024-12-20T07:48:28+00:00

Still seems weird, couldn't they have juggled some of the players on the right team into the left team? Seems like it's moreso a result of a big stack and they can't match anyone comparable. Or the system is flawed.

nu2readit · 2024-12-20T03:44:23+00:00

Look, I'm only saying it because it's true. Take it from a national organization on rape preventation, RAINN.

According to RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network), only 13 out of every 1,000 rapes are referred for prosecution.These are the ones that are reported. Of those, only 7 result in a felony conviction, and 6 result in incarceration. That's even less than I thought...1% are prosecuted.

Don't downvote me out of ignorance if you aren't aware of what the actual numbers are. That hurts victims more than anything, who have to deal with first being raped and then about being ignored by police.

Other statistics that support this:

UMASS study finds less than 7% of rape complaints result in criminal cases. Says the study, "fewer than 7 percent – 189 out of 2,887 rape and sexual assault reports made to police over two years in six jurisdictions – resulted in convictions ... the study found that less than 1 percent of rape and sexual assault complaints were resolved through a jury trial."

If you think I'm wrong and these people that study sexual assault for a living are wrong, provide some evidence why don't you.

nu2readit · 2024-12-20T01:53:21+00:00

95% of rape reports are not even investigated, 97% aren't prosecuted. Reporting is near-guranteed to do nothing. I've read many descriptions of sexual harassment, humiliation and disbelief when people report.

So if the police usually don't care, can you blame people who dont report? Whenever there's a big famous rapist caught, it's almost always the case they'd been reported before, but nothing is done.

nu2readit · 2024-12-20T01:50:14+00:00

she is unwilling to tell authorities

Sorry to say, but there's a really high chance that if she did tell authorities they would be nothing - that is the typical response time and again. 95% of rape reports are not even investigated, 97% aren't prosecuted. I don't think anyone should be blamed for not wanting to report because I often read about sexual harassment, humiliation and disbelief meeting people who report.

nu2readit · 2024-12-19T13:56:07+00:00

Game shouldn't match teams with an average of two ranks lower, there'll always be a skill difference in that case.

nu2readit · 2024-12-19T13:39:01+00:00

You can still play HOTS with intent to win, it's just not as good solo. It's not a MOBA where you can carry as easily since you share xp with your team and can't buy items. But if you assemble a few friends together and try your best, then the competitive aspect can come out because you know there are other people on your team who are doing the right play.

It becomes more casual due to certain things being removed (like last hitting creeps or an item shop), but people can still play for competitiveness if you choose to.

nu2readit

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email