Eh, not really. As the original commenter said, ~94% of cases brought to trail still result in guilty verdicts.

However, ~72% of cases brought to trial don't get convictions on every charge, just some of the charges. It's possible that the defendant may feel that the jury will convict them of a lesser charge than the plea offering the prosecution puts on the table.

I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet, but almost all the viruses that actually kill the host are viruses from other animals that spilled over into the human population.

Still, it's a 95% chance of a guilty verdict.

Weaker cases tend to go the route of the plea as the state tends to offer reduces charges in hopes to avoid chancing it at trial. Also, if there is any weakness in the case, the judge might throw out the case or the state might drop it before it ever reaches trial.

It’s an equivalence thing so you can compare the efficiency of ICE, BEV and PHEV vehicles.

They just compare energy consumption and convert it to if that energy was from gasoline.

Are you heating your coffee in a microwave? If so, the liquid can become superheated - that is, raised above its boiling point without actually boiling. Adding sugar creates nucleation sites on which gas can form, so the liquid suddenly and violently boils.

If you aren't microwaving, then I'm not sure what else could cause such a reaction.

> If a case is in trial, there is a more than likely chance that the case is that solid...

I'm not sure this is true. Open and shut cases tend to plead out. A primary reason a case goes to trial is that the defendant won't take a plea deal because they have a strong case for innocence.

It is about the flux. If you are storing heat, you will feel hot. If you are loosing heat, you will feel cold. Temperatures almost don't matter.

Take a steaming hot shower, when you're done get away from it, you will feel cold even though your place is ar room temperature. You're actually loosing some heat.

Take a very cold shower, you will feel hot because you're storing it.

If you're close to not loosing neither storing, you will just feel neat.

Putting your foot outside the blanket just makes you store less heat. Plus yes feet have a lot of blood flows that helps the thing.

More mass means higher gravity. Higher gravity requires more speed required to escape the atmosphere. More speed requires more fuel, or more fuel efficiency, or a lighter rocket. We can't reduce the weight of the rocket itself too much because of the materials we're working with. We can't make the fuels we're using much more efficient because that's just the way chemical combustion is. So the only way to get more power is more fuel, which means more weight.

We can currently juuuuust balance the amount of fuel (and how much force that fuel can generate) against the weight required to lift that fuel and the rocket and a payload. The Saturn V was the biggest rocket we could make at the time of the Apollo launches, and we needed every bit of it to get to the Moon. In sixty years we've not been able to make massive advances in rocket tech, so the SLS is very close to the Saturn V in overall specs, relatively speaking. If we're just ahead of breaking even on that now, you can see how an increase in the requirements would put us behind the curve.

That doesn't mean a 50% larger Earth would result in us never leaving it, though. What it would mean is we'd need to come up with better solutions to one of the above variables - better materials that weigh less, more-efficient fuels, or a better design than igniting a ton of fuel and pointing the exhaust at the ground.

[deleted]

It is primarily due to the fact that prosecutors have broad discretion in what cases get brought to trial - they rarely bring cases where guilt is in question, as acquittals look bad on their record. In cases where a guilty verdict may be questionable, they will plead the person down on lesser charges or simply not bring it to trial at all.

For this reason, upwards of 94% of cases brought to trial result in convictions on some or all charges - the prosecutors simply don't press the other cases.

There is also an extensive jury selection process pre-trial, where the prosecution can exclude jurors they feel would be unable to render a fair decision after viewing all of the evidence.

Something like 95% of all jury trials result in some conviction, and the majority of criminal cases never make to trial. If a case is in trial, there is a more than likely chance that the case is that solid, that is not that hard to get all jury members to agree.

Peer pressure. We have pretty good anecdotal evidence that when there's one or two holdouts that they will give in and go with the majority. Part of that is also that prosecutors are pretty good at identifying and excluding potential jurors who are likely to hold out for ideological reasons.

If the judge feels they should be able to reach a unanimous decision he will send them back to deliberate more.

Viruses aren't really alive in the way that we think of it, and don't have any particular drive to do anything. The interaction of a host and a virus results in more virus being made, so that virus continues to exist, but it's neither trying to kill its host or to survive.

Because it is a very controlled situation. Juries are instructed on what the law says and how it is to be interpreted, and are presented with facts relevant to the case. They aren't supposed to make their decisions based on feelings, guts, ideology, intuition, attractiveness etc.

In many cases, the legally relevant facts, when presented clearly and interpreted according to the law, are very clear. There are, of course, notable exceptions.

I'd like to point out that a lot of them have shuttered. The Weekly World News, for example. Which is too bad, that thing was hilarious.

Viruses aren't thinkers, they are pushed by laws of natural selection, and those laws can find more than one "good enough" solution, and they often do.

It's true that natural selection often pushed viruses to be more mild but the exact opposite can happen, where natural selection pushed viruses to be super heavily virulent, infect millions of cells, make billions of viruses, cause the organism to spread the virus to a lot of other organisms, and finally die off. Thing is, at least in humans, these viruses "burn" through population rather quickly, and then population becomes immune to them.

Check out deadly yet not-so-dradly viruses, like measals or smallpox. If population of humans has never been exposed to these diseases previously, they will absolutely ravage that population, think native Americans after European arrived. That's maybe 90% of population dead. Yet for most of us measals is not that deadly.

But how do juries so consistently avoid the problem of one random person just not being convinced of guilt while everyone else is sure the crime was committed?

that's the whole point they are there ot begin with they are required to study the facts and arguments presented and reach their own conclusions.

a conclusion of " i dont know" is not acceptable since the system relies on the assumption of innonence any other verdict other than guilty resulting in the defendant walking.

for this purpose, in the cases where its required the jury cna take as long as it is necessary but they must reach a unanimous conclusion.this cna evne mean they are arguing among themselves(but no coercing) in order ot sway the other memebers ot their field.

what host 'needs' to survive? The host just needs to live long enough to pass the virus along.

Your question is unclear. All birds walk. Pigeons, chikens etc. Parrots also jumps quite a lot

A lot of them don't nessessarily kill us. Our own immune system trying to fight the virus does itself in.

What do you mean with erupt?

dont take viruses are strategic thinkers, their only goal is to hijack the host's cells in order to replicate and the fate of their host is not something that's conisdered unless it hinders its aiblity ot do the 1st.

evne if the host dies as a result of the virus, if its not disrupting itsd aiblity to hijack its aiblity ot replicate there is no pressure to change.

Because the vast majority of viruses are able to infect an additional host before killing the first one (if it even kills at all), killing the host is not a genetic disadvantage.