Recent comments in /f/news

bananafobe t1_je29nra wrote

Reply to comment by 1Koala1 in Maryland Court of Appeals reinstates Adnan Syed's murder conviction by nowhathappenedwas

It's possible there's a kind of hindsight bias here.

The original intention of the podcast may have been less about arguing for his innocence than about examining a complicated murder investigation without a clear correct answer. The podcast going viral and the takeaway many had about him being innocent may have retroactively became what the podcast was primarily about.

42

Plenty_Branch_516 t1_je29c0e wrote

Reply to comment by Iohet in BBC News: Clearview AI used nearly 1m times by US police, it tells the BBC by Gigglemind

"Just" short for justice is a finicky concept. As technology improves what can be considered the boundary for privacy begins to falter.

In a photo someone else posted? Your privacy is gone. Connect to public wifi? Your privacy is gone. Ping off a cell tower? Your privacy is gone. One of your relatives use ancestry.com? They can trace you to any DNA found even if you aren't in a criminal database.

Point being, you are not in control of your privacy. Far from it.

One doesn't need to give permission to join the pool of public data. In fact it requires significant effort to avoid it and in rare cases retract information added to it. A right to privacy is usually considered just. However, as our technology improves and it becomes easier to link disparate sources of data together, that right to privacy is eroded. Potentially even sold for a pitiful sum.

Don't get me wrong though. It's all a net good. For most of us, privacy is an incredibly cheap price to pay for the boons we are getting in science and technology.

0

3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je299ry wrote

Reply to comment by hellomondays in Maryland Court of Appeals reinstates Adnan Syed's murder conviction by nowhathappenedwas

This is just vacating the last motion to vacate hearing, which was not conducted properly.

Some key notes in today's judgement:

> We note that, although CP § 8-301.1(f)(2) requires the court to “state the reasons > for” its ruling, the court did not explain its reasons for finding a Brady violation. See State v. Grafton, 255 Md. App. 128, 144 (2022) (Brady violation requires proof that: (1) the prosecutor suppressed or withheld evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the accused; and (3) the evidence was material). > > It did not explain how, or if, it found that the evidence was suppressed, despite the lack of affirmative evidence that the information had not been disclosed, and the statement in the motion to vacate that, “[i]f this information was indeed provided to defense,” the failure to utilize it would be ineffective assistance of counsel. > > The court also did not explain how the notes met the Brady materiality standard. Additionally, the court found that the State discovered new evidence that created a substantial likelihood of a different result, but it did not identify what evidence was newly discovered or why it created the possibility of a different result."

Also

> We note, however, that, if there is an in-chambers conference, the judge should put on the record what was discussed in chambers. See Poole v. State, 77 Md. App. 105, 120 (1988) (at the conclusion of a chambers conference, the court should announce on the record, “at a very minimum,” what was agreed to during the discussion), aff’d, 321 Md. 482 (1991).

Source: https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2023/1291s22.pdf

17

Aazadan t1_je28s1t wrote

Reply to comment by z500 in Twitter source code leaked online, court filings show by Picture-unrelated

Blocking counts as engagement on every platform, even spam mail counts unsubscribing as being worth the same as reading it.

The only impactful way to block is client side, so that it looks to the server like you’re not engaging at all. Anything you do that tells them to not send you data generates value for them.

1

Iohet t1_je27ow8 wrote

Reply to comment by Plenty_Branch_516 in BBC News: Clearview AI used nearly 1m times by US police, it tells the BBC by Gigglemind

I'm not even sure it's not just. If you publicly post something that ties you to an illegal activity, that's on you. If you privately post something, you're afforded some level of privacy, but, again, once you give it to Facebook, they're the ones served the warrant, not you, and they don't give a shit about you enough to fight it. So, really, just don't do it.

Absolutely push your legislators to ban this type of data collection, but, in absence of that, just because new methods of accessing old public data are better doesn't mean the concept is no longer just, and one should be aware of that before they say anything that could hurt them

3

ArbitraryMeritocracy t1_je2715w wrote

Reply to comment by easy_payments in Hundreds of thousands to continue strikes and protests in France | France by bnh1978

> Democrats aren't exactly pro labor either.

I did further reading and I learned that my state is really against unions.

Here's some other stuff:

>Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Division. The National Labor Union was founded on August 20, 1866, in Baltimore, Maryland. It was the first attempt to create a national labor group in the United States and one of their first actions was the first national call for Congress to mandate an 8-hour work day.

>In early 1866 William Harding, who was then president of the Coachmakers' International Union, met with William H. Sylvis, president of the Ironmoulders' International Union and Jonathan Fincher, head of the Machinists and Blacksmiths Union. At that meeting they called for a formal meeting to be held August 20-24, 1866, in Baltimore, Maryland. On the first day of that meeting the National Labor Union was born. Also, on that first day various committees were created to study different issues—one of which was focused on the 8-hour system.

>On the third day the committee on "eight-hours in all its respects" met and made their recommendation. In the Union’s final list of resolutions made on August 20 of 1866, was their resolution calling for an 8-hour work day, the first such national call. While this call went unheeded at the time, and the organization folded in 1873, this was only the beginning of the campaign for an 8-hour work day.

>Over the ensuing decades, this idea would wend its way through the country and by 1912 it made its way into the progressive campaign of Theodore Roosevelt. The slogan for the movement became "Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest and eight hours for what you will." In 1916 William C. Adamson introduced the Adamson Act. While this act was specifically aimed at railroad workers, it gave the 8-hour campaign a real boost when it was passed in September 1916. Railroads immediately protested, but in 1917 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law in Wilson v. New (243 U.S. 332).

>The increasing power of unions along with state governments legislating working hour limits and the federal government’s expansion of the use and enforcement of the 8-hour work day, meant that the 8-hour work day become even more wide-spread. But it didn't end there. The passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act (sometimes known as the Wages and Hours bill) gave even more protections, setting the maximum workweek at 40 hours for other industries and provided that employees working beyond 40 hours a week would receive additional overtime bonus salaries.

Emphasis my own. I thought the cobbler's union was the first.

3

Affectionate_Talk781 t1_je26ozv wrote

Reply to comment by 2ndtryagain in Hundreds of thousands to continue strikes and protests in France | France by bnh1978

But our current system actually spends more of a % of our GDP on healthcare than most euros do so it is not a matter of pure dollars. It comes down to the current system being inefficient in dollars per healthcare gained. We essentially have the worst of both worlds of it being mandatory but mostly private, thus allowing them to gauge prices. You also have the very unhealthy state of American citizens making healthcare prices more expensive

3