The biggest improvement to readability is to capitalize the beginning of sentences. There’s no need for a toggle. Don’t default to making your writing unreadable, please.
We don't follow "rules" in war anymore, according to "Secretary of War" Pete Hegseth. We show no quarter and take no prisoners, we pursue "maximum lethality, not tepid legality."
That's American policy now. The gloves are off, no holds barred, everything and everyone is on the table. So I guess we reap what we sow.
A refactor and then a feature implemented on that refactor is tightly coupled by definition. It would not make sense to implement the feature and refactor independently, because you’d be wasting time implementing a feature that you would have to refactor again.
This is literally the point of stacked PRs. You implement the refactor in branch A, then branch B is created on top of that so you can implement your feature. Then you make separate PRs, one for merging branch A into main, and another for merging branch B into A. The GitHub feature just provides a nicer UX when interacting with such PRs by clearly showing dependency and allowing you to merge a stack together.
But it enables incremental addition of errors and you can decide later what to do exactly, so I still tend to see it as an advantage.
It is like defer the error handling and centralize later.
If you want to handle an error in place immediately, prpbably it is not an exception what you want.
But if you need it is a fatal error, I do not see any harm, since the most you will do with that exception is to unwind and log or telemetry or whatever to tracke the errors.
“A retreat may feel more relaxed than the office, but it is still a workplace, and the power dynamics don’t disappear,”
Ah, so sad :( Another story of a person who believed other people in the workplace too much.
These kinds of exercises are unfortunately a waste of time. If you’re honest, you’re walking into a minefield. But if you’re not being open, then no one is really getting to know anyone else in any meaningful way. In the end, a bunch of money and time is spent with zero value gained.
And given that this was about someone sharing their experience with a medical procedure to help them process the death of a parent, the company will probably lose the lawsuit, wasting even more money.
What a tragic waste of resources. Also, my heart goes out to this person. Loosing a parent is terrible.
> Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
In America, the defendant generally has the right not to testify against himself by remaining silent, both in court and when questioned by agents of the state out of court. Not a right to lie. This is why criminal defense attorneys advise everyone to shut up, shut up, SHUT UP without a lawyer present. Police can and will attempt to catch you in a provable lie.
> the most authoritarian places in the world wouldn't charge defendants for "lying"
What on Earth is this second part of your comment supposed to mean?
Do you expect to be able to lie to the government in an authoritarian country? And not be arrested if they catch you in the lie there? And not be charged or worse if they consider the lie serious?
Alright. Most places would investigate crimes and charge you for them before they look at your defense itself, so I had several worries about that
One of which is self indications (even of things that cops didn't know about or couldn't prove) that would allow them to just question anyone into admitting even a parking offense, but I guess you can shut up indeed
I was worried that they could use any crime in a broad area and just force everyone to say with who they were and what they were doing, but you can also shut up
I was also worried than on investigations with no real crime involved, they could just go play jeopardy and ask you what you were doing minute by minute, and get you to talk until something gets inaccurate (while they have cctv but you have no vcr in your brain). But again, you can shut up.
When I'll be in America, I'll remember not to talk to cops.
Not even to 911 as emergency calls are error prone :
You said someone was attacked by a suv and knife when it was a pickup truck and machete, you go to jail
> Not even to 911 as emergency calls are error prone : You said someone was attacked by a suv and knife when it was a pickup truck and machete, you go to jail
Very few states have anything resembling this specific federal statute, and one doesn't typically call 911 to obtain service from federal law enforcement agencies. And in the case of a 911 call specifically, "heat of the moment" and "good faith" do a lot of work.
Unless you obviously intended to mislead an emergency services response, you will not be criminally implicated from good faith statements made during a 911 call regarding some incident you merely observed as a bystander.
> I was worried that they could use any crime in a broad area and just force everyone to say with who they were and what they were doing
In authoritarian countries, that absolutely happens. In America and the West, police are generally expected to have reasonable suspicion of anyone they detain to interrogate, and the length of detention is also limited if no evidence validating suspicion is forthcoming. They could not simply arrest everyone in the proximity of a crime, and geofence warrants are controversial exactly because that was the standard in the analog world.
> I was also worried than on investigations with no real crime involved, they could just go play jeopardy and ask you what you were doing minute by minute, and get you to talk until something gets inaccurate
Again, they must have reasonable suspicion to even detain you. You are reasoning about law codes as if they were literalist computer code for a compiler. The law, at least common law in America, is written by and for humans who are expected to exercise good faith as a part of enforcing and interpreting the law.
Do know your right to remain silent, and ask for a translator and consular assistance if detained or arrested. Police departments will provide these things because attorneys in court will question the reliability and admissibility of any testimony in the absence of their provision.
Don't worry too much about police if you're in America to visit. They're ordinary people who mostly want to catch criminals who are hurting their community. Bad apples are rare, and bad apples who harass someone on a tourist visa are rarer still.
Technically they deceived an officer to delete (potential) evidence for them a duress PIN in a context where they implied it was a normal PIN.
But also I don't think a duress pin _usage_ should be legal, _during a lawful search_ (not unlocking your phone is a different topic, similar a duress pin which restarts your phone in lock-down mode to prevent extraction of encryption secrets from memory is another topic).
The reason is quite simple, allowing it would mean allowing actual criminals to delete evidence, which isn't desirable.
Through the "during a lawful search" part is the very important part.|And independent of weather or not the search in this case was lawful, _it shouldn't have been_. Boarder police expanded search powers should be limited to finding _physical_ smuggling/illegal goods, not phone searches (for _many_ reasons). And definitively not for a citizen without warrant, as this effectively means fundamental rights don't apply to US citizens when re-entering the US, which is ridiculous and IMHO should be found unconstitutional (sadly probably won't). (Also labeling activists as terrorist is a huge no-go for a state of law, so is making up supposedly committed crimes).
So while using a duress pin during a lawful search should IMHO always have some legal consequences, using it during a unlawful search should be fully allowed. But this still kinda sucks as finding a search unlawful requires a judge. Still if phone search in general aren't legal without warrant (IMHO they shouldn't) this would be a pretty simple case and the police should be required to drop charges without going to court if it's fully clear it is their fault...
you had answers here. I'm trying to understand why our leaders can get away with lying so much and it being obviously in the public record, with videos on YouTube etc, and there being no recourse or accountability?
Is it true that the law is only selectively applied to some people?
Yes and did you see how Biden issued dozens of pardons before he left office absolving several leaders of their lies and whatever was actually persecuted to the "crime" level?
Seems if crimes are only crimes for normal people, theres rarely actual application of law for everyone. It instead shows itself to the governed as a system of control for them for the benefit of the leadership (since their friends absolve them of crimes, and also participate in the systematic neutering of any other forms of justice opposing their friends privileged behaviors).
Not saying this as a political thing to target one side like Biden/right and say Trump/left is clean. I'm saying I notice this in all levels both left and right.
