In their interactions and personal knowledge, perhaps he was. If you personally don’t know Danny or anyone else involved, your only exposure is what you’ve heard presented and made public. If you personally knew Danny and hadn’t witnessed any of these crimes yourself, you now have a conflicted view of someone who is both your friend and now guilty of 2 counts of sexual assault. While that conviction almost certainly changes your relationship going forward, it doesn’t change how you thought of that individual beforehand.

Ashton and Mila were asked to write letters of character that described the Danny they knew. It doesn’t change the outcome of the trial, but as with matters that carry different sentencing structures awarded by the judge, a judge will often take letters like this to determine what is appropriate. Is there a chance that the defendant will repeat this offense? What punishment, if any, will be restorative to the victims? How does this punishment affect everyone, including families established years afterwards? Is the defendant the same person today as they were when they committed these crimes?

These aren’t matters easily decided and therfore it isn’t surprising to see letters of character submitted either as part of the trial or during sentencing. If there is a patten of behavior, then sentencing might be maximum allowed, but if there’s no clear discernable behavior, then sentencing might be light.

I don’t know all the details that was considered, but based on my knowledge from reports, I think 15 years concurrent would have been appropriate. However, I don’t have all the evidence or material to make an informed decision. I don’t look upon these letters ss reflecting poorly on Ashton or Mila as they were just doing what was asked of them to help give the judge the context necessary to carry out an appropriate sentence. They aren’t guilty of doing anything wrong, more than the lawyers defending a now convicted and sentenced rapist.

How does Russia want our help? Strange that they’re asking the West to help with the Ukranian drone attacks, but they have my support.

I try to use both equally, because I’m always on the hook for picking the “doomed” standard in any 50/50 contest.

I can relate to that. It usually isn’t a coin flip for me though. I’ll align with some technology over another because I truly can see an advantage. That technology might be the underdog from the beginning. Consider that we’re evaluating Firefish vs. Lemmy vs. Kbin whereas all of them combined are the underdog for certain more well established social forums. I engage with all three (and others still), because I don’t know the future.

That’s the same theme of a reply I made yesterday. I read the article and might have even boosted it myself because as a fediverse citizen, I’m concerned about any government agency seizing an instance like this. The “well known racist” claim is demonstrably false, because I still don’t know who they are talking about nor would I know the person behind a username.

I think a human might consider the meaning about what is being said whereas an LLM is only going to consider what token is the best one to use next. Humans might not be infallible, but they are presently better at detecting obvious BS that would slip undetected past an AI.

Maybe this is an opportunity we haven’t considered. This is the chance to create a Turing CAPTCHA Test. We can’t use Glorbo to do so, because it has been written, but perhaps it makes sense that there is a nonsensical code phrase people can use to identify AIs, both with markers intentionally added to LLM training models, buried in articles written by human authors, and a challenge/response which is never written down and only passed verbally through real human-human interactions.

Grandview seemed to do the best in clearly identifying the character 0. Is it an O, 0, I, l, or 1? Even without an example of O clearly visible in the sample text, the shape of 0 was very clear and seems like it should stand apart. Not the only reason to select a font, but it might be important to some.

For a business, I see this as a strong benefit for this design. The work done for a company is the property of that company by most hiring contracts, so the work done on a remote system can by tightly controlled. At the same time, it would allow someone to use their own thin client to do both professional and personal work and keep things isolated. For someone doing freelance work, it makes sharing a natural extension of that process and access can be granted or revoked as it relates to contracts. That seems like an advantage to corporate IT departments.

As for individuals, I don’t see how this takes away ownership. Regulations will be updated to allow users to request their data in compliance with GDPR requests, so nothing would become completely locked up. Should that be challenged ever, I don’t think any jurisdiction would say that Microsoft owns the data. What a user will be able to do with the bits they receive is a different question.

Long term, there is some benefit to this sort of concept. You aren’t going to have as much freedom to turn your cloud based OS into a custom build, but what you will have is a machine which will never have down time for patches and security updates. The user will be running their app remotely, using all the power and hardware of a data center, and the instance of the app can migrate from one host PC to another, seamlessly without any perception to the end user. Furthermore a user can access all their applications and data from whatever client they are using and it will migrate this session from their terminal, to their phone, to their AR HMDs.

It isn’t going to be a change which happens over night, and it will be more like how car engine have become less user serviceable but more reliable and efficient. It will be a different experience for sure, but it has potential value beyond being a way to charge people subscriptions.