Basman

As she confessed to the murder of her three kids, it's just a question if she goes to jail or the psychward. There's a strong argument to be made that she's basically insane but also mishandled as mental patient (IE. her carers are responsible for the incident is the argument they want to make). That said, I don't think being able to plead insanity should relieve one of culpability. It feels like a loophole to get away with murder, and it does get used like that broadly speaking. I also think that because she's a women she gets treated with kid's gloves, as if women aren't capable of responsibility. It's weirdly sexist and infantalizing. Like, they want to make the case that it was largely the fault if bad psychiatry and that she's basically not culpable. Idk man. A man in the same court room would have a much harder time garnering sympathy. Sorry for going there.

Technocratic delusion. The world operates on feelings and intuition. You don't want to live next door to a child murderer. You don't want Breivik to be your children's school teacher. Releasing him after 10-20 years on good behavior is completely unacceptable, even if technically he'll never kill again. The community themselves will kill him. He would get curb stomped at Majorstuen station by a drunk bearded middle-aged man

No, that's stupid and overly idealistic. With that logic you can kill people and be released again on good behavior. It completely shits on the victims. 21 years is nothing compared to a life. It's a joke. This liberal compassion undermines the victims of serious crime.

I think the west in general is overly soft on crime. Especially when it comes to serious crime. I think murder should lead to capital in most cases. Like the perpetrators feelings are more important than the victim. Won't somebody please think of the child murders feelings?

I'm quiet introverted and I can experience anxiety interacting with people, but I've found that usually I handle conversation quiet naturally. Often I realize that I didn't have to think about what to say or how to respond. It's natural. It's more about your inner state. How comfortable you are mentally.

Norwegian jails are fruity as. They have to play games to keep Breivik locked up.

I think that's mostly a K12 problem. But the whole system is so bourgeoisie. Statistically you have to be preppy to make it regardless. And that largely only happens for upper-middle class children. And 4-5 years for a degree, my god. It's so slow, beurocratic and expensive, just like learning a real life skill.

Preserving elite status would be one of them. But yes, it's mostly people's attachement to their royals that is the deciding factor. You don't need them, but they need you.

There's no guarantee of length if your institutionalized. They assess you every year and release you if your clear. She could be released 5 years from now. Especially if you think she's lying, because she's not actually insane then. Being institutionalized is not punishment. Shows again how binary Massachusetts insanity defense is.

It's just set up such to be overly binary. It's impossible to prove what went on in someone head. Not having to prove insanity is basically taking someone's word for it as far as I can see. It's exactly why most of the US got rid of that standard after some dude that tried to kill Ronald Reagan got aqcuited on insanity.

It's funny, because degrees are at the same time both required in a lot of ways but at the same time highly over-evaluated relative to what it actually does. Probably due to over-supply of workers relative to available jobs. About 80% of a degrees value is signaling. It's the main reason to get one, to not get filtered. Degree filtering is insanely practical for businesses swamped with applications. I think this is quiet problematic for society, and not just because I'm salty. We are getting more educated than before just to get a job. We are working harder, delaying adulthood for longer (hello fertility) just to stand still in terms of socio-economics (hello Starbucks employee with a masters degree). And higher education has failed meritocratically for the most part, as class is the biggest predictor of educational attainment (even when it's free). Which isn't really surprising, considering that university as an institution has always been about reproducing elite status from the start, back when they produced priests and shit. And it doesn't even create workers that necesarilly benefit society that much either, outside of certain high impact roles. Like, during covid we saw who we consider "essential workers". Not the office rats with their fancy degrees. Bus drivers and grocery clerks contributes more to society than most people with degrees. And we look down on them. I've thought about this a lot.

I studied philosophy for a year and ixd for about one semester before dropping out. Absolutely hated it. Never really wanted to go in the first place. Never believed in the promise of university and thought of it as over-hyped. Still do. Studying academic philosophy did equip me with some rationality skills, though I haven't retained an iota of philosophical history, which was about 70% of the degree. Like Kant and shit. Not that I care to remember. If anything, philosophical history disgusts me. It's a waste of time except for the soft rationality skills you might learn. Academic philosophy as a discipline is very much up it's own ass. Correction: academic philosophy is more like 90% philosophical history. It's largely a scholarly degree. That's exactly what people don't want to do. University is the closest we have to a rail road in life. Get a degree then work for someone else. Boom.

I mean yeah, but also, you can't know for certain with our current evidence what went through her head exactly. Best you can do is estimate, and I personally estimate that she's culpable, IE. she knew it was wrong.

Betting on AI right now is very bold.

I haven't gone terminally online in depth, but there's too much doubt about her insanity to confidently say she didn't know what she was doing as far as I can see. It looks obvious to me, idk.

Jury left basically guessing at Lindsay's mental state during the killing. And there are no good options for a verdict. Probably why insanity should be proved as opposed to vice versa.

The whole case boils down to whether or not she was psychosic during the killing, which basically we only have her word for. There's no conclusive evidence of psychosis. Massachusetts law is rather binary when it comes to insanity as culpability has to be proven beyound a reasonable doubt and that you can be aqcuited just on doubt of one's sanity. Your either guilty or not. Ideally, a sort of compromise would be ideal in my opinion, like guilty but insane, but that's not on the table. This article discusses how Massachusetts law is outdated: https://www.thefp.com/p/law-inadequate-lindsay-clancy-trial

Nordic model is just a progressive twist on when religious states ban prostitution. The goal is essentially the same, to make the problem go away. They don't want prostitution to be a thing in the first place, but with a layer of plausible compassion. It fails because it's wrong on multiple levels. It's impossible to ban prostitution entirely. It's a form of labour like any other. Women are fully capable of choosing sex work. The belief that women can't choose to become sex workers willingly on their own acoord is sexist to a mythological degree. Laughably wrong. Ensuring labor rights is a proven way to tackle fairness, abuse and safety for all types of work in general. There's no reason why sex work should be any different.

Too many fake jobs in game development now. Imagine needing 2000+ people to make a mediocre uninspired remake of a 20+ YO game that took less than 200 people to develop. Office politics and justifying your payroll become more important than making actual art and it weigh down development. No clear decisions are ever made. No one is accountable for anything. That's how you get toxic positivity and lame writing in modern games (see Concord). The budget balloons and safe and samey design rules to hedge the bet. And even when they are successful they will still struggle to just break even. It's like a workout. Over an hour and it's no longer a workout. Over 200 devs and it's no longer a dev team. It's a corporatocracy.

There's some truth to it because the overall market is smaller than if it would be legal. Germany is pretty bad with trafficking I believe. You need to regulate the market itself with labor rights as a start at least. But I always felt that the nordic model was motivated more by puritanical ideas of sex and a woman's worth more than anything else.

Nordic model is just a soft ban on prostitution. On a side note, I've started to really notice this sexist cultural attitude of women not being capable of being responsible for their actions. It's silly. If you don't think women choose to become prostitutes you haven't met any hookers. It's telling when the le feminist are the managerial class HR types in that video.

Anonymity makes you less personable. You have to just about overcompensate to overcome that, which isn't realistic to expect of people.

No it wouldn't 😂 You'd have a nice deep discussion in person and then go straight back to arguing about women on the forum.

I think around 200 is the upper limit. Lots of generational games where made with around 200 devs, like Skyrim and Halo.

Gameplay looks like Uncharted. Nothing to cream your pants over.