clnq (u/clnq) - Readit News

clnq commented on Germans among the unhappiest people in Europe ec.europa.eu/eurostat/sta... · Posted by u/vinni2

chfritz · 2 years ago

Being German and having left Germany I have a suspicion why: they enjoy complaining too much. However that also raises an important question that is only brushed on in the Context: how do you control for a "cultural bias to complain". In a culture where negativity and complaining is frowned upon, you'd imaging you'd get higher scores -- even though the people don't actually feel any different from the ones that like to complain.

clnq · 2 years ago

Which country has an anti-complaining bias? I’m guessing it would be somewhere people are empowered to solve their problems. High purchasing power countries?

The US and UK used to both be kinda stiff upper lip countries in the 90s but now are full of complaining.

Does anyone have experience moving somewhere and noticing it was much less complainey?

clnq commented on Epic vs. Google: Google Loses theverge.com/23945184/epi... · Posted by u/modeless

troad · 2 years ago

> There’s need to act like this and your comment doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion.

Does yours?

I mean that in earnest, not as a dig. You're posting legal analysis without even rudimentary legal knowledge, and I think that's worth noting and responding to.

It's also worth noting you only admitted you were not an expert once your initial post was debunked, and that in your corrigendum you manage somehow to add many additional substantive legal claims. Without any apparent additional legal knowledge.

If you did the same on a programming topic, there'd be an army of people ready to downvote you, because most of the wonderful folks here on HN are versed in programming, and could easily see through that. But this doesn't hold true for law, and you're in a position to mislead. Noting that contributes to the discussion by helping a reader discriminate signal from noise.

clnq · 2 years ago

> It's also worth noting you only admitted you were not an expert once your initial post was debunked

No, that was in the original comment. I added only the paragraph prefixed with EDIT.

My friend, you are just picking a fight on the internet. You don’t actually know what the comment was and yet you say you do. Please do not.

Alternatively, please tell me how my comment is misleading now, if there truly exists an argument in your comment beyond an ad hominem. That would be more useful.

clnq commented on Epic vs. Google: Google Loses theverge.com/23945184/epi... · Posted by u/modeless

troad · 2 years ago

It's kind of wild to see someone confidently posting legal analysis while obviously lacking an understanding of - uh - precedent.

clnq · 2 years ago

I clearly stated “I’m not an expert on this” and publicly corrected my mistake to not mislead readers.

Don’t fulminate, my brother, see comment guidelines on HN for more info. There’s need to act like this and your comment doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion.

clnq commented on To revive Portland, officials seek to ban public drug use nytimes.com/2023/12/11/us... · Posted by u/mikhael

rjbwork · 2 years ago

I actually don't think we should decriminalize. Just legalize it and let people get pure product at dirt cheap prices.

There's no reason to fund crime (drug dealers/organized crime), maim and kill users, push users into poverty, and generate and push the externalizes of drug use onto the rest of society. This is the choice we have made and continue to make a society under a prohibitionist regime, decriminalization or not.

clnq · 2 years ago

I think selling hard drugs being criminal is OK. But the US should actually do something with the severe addicts rather than just tossing them in prison, or creating laws against that and leaving them on the streets.

Mandatory rehabilitation would do a lot. But rehabilitation would work much worse in an environment where relapse is easily attainable, anyone who has had any kind of addiction will tell you that.

I think part of the problem is people with no real experience pushing their narrative. Many honest drug addicts will tell you the actual solutions that will be around wholistic rehabilitation: withdrawals treatments, reintegration into society, no permanent records, removing stigma. And some would prefer to be funneled into that rather than go to rehabilitation by free will. Free will stands no chance against a heroin or meth addiction.

My family member works in a psychiatric clinic in Central Europe. They deal with severe addictions. They have proper rehabilitation programs with dedicated facilities where people with severe addictions that have led to mental disorders learn to reintegrate with life, attend job interviews, take care of themselves, and so on. I have spent my childhood around these people as family members of clinicians would attend various events (Christmas parties, weddings, funerals, other outings, etc) and I have not felt threatened by anyone in rehabilitation.

But yeah, what I see in West Coast cities is threatening. It’s a day and night difference between that and proper care for hard drug addicts though. West Coast is what ignoring the problem looks like. Central Europe is what solving the problem looks like. In both cases, hard drug sales are not legal.

And the solution is ridiculously simple. If someone is acting out in public due to drugs, police would be called. The police would deliver them to a psychiatric clinic in a municipal hospital. The clinic would put them in a ward and on a rehab program, start withdrawals management, set up a social worker for employment, and so on. It would take several months to rehabilitate someone and some people would go through the program a few times. Not all of it is easy and the taxpayer pays for the healthcare. But that’s the cost of solving this problem, and that does solve it.

clnq commented on Kids with cats have double the risk of developing schizophrenia medicalxpress.com/news/20... · Posted by u/wglb

clnq · 2 years ago

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-modern-heart/202...

clnq commented on Epic vs. Google: Google Loses theverge.com/23945184/epi... · Posted by u/modeless

Kranar · 2 years ago

>The next time someone sues Apple for this, there will be precedent.

Trial courts don't set precedent, only an appellate court or higher can set a precedent, and that precedent is only binding on lower courts.

Since trial courts are the lowest courts, their decisions are not binding on any future trial and as a general matter do not set any kind of precedent.

clnq · 2 years ago

Ah, thanks for the additional knowledge. I’ll edit my comment for clarification.

Epic Games v Google is going to appellate now, though, isn’t it?

clnq commented on Epic vs. Google: Google Loses theverge.com/23945184/epi... · Posted by u/modeless

xwolfi · 2 years ago

Be mindful that in practice there is very little difference between civil and common law systems: the ceremonies appear different but the spirit is the same: past decisions heavily impact future decisions since that's the only way to keep things fair, society changes decisions in a softly evolving jurisprudence in both systems, juries are consulted but not all powerful since they can be driven by revenge sentiment etc.

Like you I was born and raised in civil law (France) and now have been living for 10 years in common law (Hong Kong), and the difference is almost invisible: Judges obey parliamentary decisions in both, whether you call that laws or constitutional amendment or even political pressure. They also ensure consistency of decision when needed but are ready to launch a little revolution if they feel society has changed (gay marriage in Hong Kong is in the air, for instance)

clnq · 2 years ago

Yes, ultimately our morals, culture, and sense of justice gets enshrined in law. But I did feel a big difference between living in a common law country and a civil law one.

There was a sense in business circles in the latter that what is not legally a crime, one cannot be punished for. So there was a bit of a drive to exploit that for profit. If something becomes forbidden by law, it’s “verboten”. It cannot take place, no matter how ethical it might be.

It’s much less clear in common law countries, where you could be tried and be unable to defend yourself for immoral things. Or you could break the laws but have such a strong moral argument for it, it is possible to defend. So generally, people and business are more considerate of each other, less stone cold bureaucratic. But that invites ambiguity in the legal process, even if the ultimate forces shaping it are similar to civil law. And you can get different outcomes in similar cases, like Epic Games v Apple and Epic Games v Google. These cases started out very similarly.

In civil law countries, if something was prohibited by a code, then it would be penalized, there wouldn’t be much debate in the courts. I think this is why the EU keeps fining these large tech companies all the time, it’s like a non-event, whereas it’s much more difficult in the us.

That is what I observed. Of course, what you say is also true.

clnq commented on Epic vs. Google: Google Loses theverge.com/23945184/epi... · Posted by u/modeless

MuffinFlavored · 2 years ago

How is this not all true for Apple and its app store?

clnq · 2 years ago

Well, it’s common law, not civil law. So lawyers, juries, judges and so on all heavily influenced the Epic Games v Apple outcome, as they did in Epic Games v Google.

The next time someone sues Apple for this, there will be precedent. But then again, Epic Games v Apple might be used as precedent in Google’s appeal.

EDIT/correction: Apparently, only appellate and higher courts can set precedent for case law. So it might take a bit longer for Epic Games v Google to set a precedent, while Epic Games v Apple has already been dealt by a higher court. The next time someone sues Apple, there might not yet be precedent set by Epic Games v Google.

In theory. I’m not an expert on this. But this doesn’t happen as often in civil law countries I lived in (EU), where the law doesn’t apply before it’s written, and when it’s written, it applies universally.

Things will even out in the US over time, I think. There will be case law for what’s allowed and what is not for everyone.

clnq commented on Europe's geography 'kind of reshaped' as Paris-Berlin night train returns theguardian.com/travel/20... · Posted by u/edward

genman · 2 years ago

I think that instead of this trains bullshit we should instead make the lag in the air travel shorter and invest more into CO2 neutral aviation fuel and batteries.

clnq · 2 years ago

Why one or the other?

clnq commented on If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing pluralistic.net/2023/12/0... · Posted by u/jay_kyburz

shinycode · 2 years ago

My example was a illustrate a point. It could be a game or a productivity software, movies, music anything.

You can find any reason to steal, economical, hunger etc the point I making is that the motivation to make a copy does not make it legal.

Do we tolerate some form of theft for moral or other reasons ? Yes sure. But because I, as an individual, have my own reasons not to pay for something and decide to make a copy of it, that does not transforms my action to a perfectly legal thing.

Maybe we can’t do anything about software being copied but that doesn’t magically make laws and IP disappear with it and makes copying software legal ?

I was answering to the comment « nothing is taken ». Because the content is the result of an effort from other people being paid, the content has value. The fact that we can make infinite copies of it makes a single copy worthless because it’s not being burnt into a piece of plastic ?

clnq · 2 years ago

There are moral principles, and legal principles. Legally, you are right. But the moral perception of piracy is shifting, and broadly speaking, this entire debate is in the moral/philosophical realm.

Legal systems ultimately enshrine the human morality in law. Common law - through case law, civil law - by committees that the legislators consult, religious law - by morality described in legal texts. We're not talking about any of it though. We are talking about day-to-day things, like what does it mean to steal, what kind of consequences it has, are these consequences real or supposed, and other such things.

Law is generally blind to externalities of an action. An action itself is legal, illegal, or undefined in law. We're not in this domain if we talk about the consequences of piracy or how someone might feel about it. We are having a conversation on morals.

Shifting morals will eventually shift the law, of course.