Oh good, you actually know what you are talking about.

Quick question: when the jury renders a verdict, is is only “thumbs up/thumbs down”? Or do they need to give any justification? Can they flat out say “The evidence is overwhelming, but we find the defendant Not Guilty because he is oh, so pretty!” and have that stand up? Or do they simply say “Not Guilty” and we never find out why?

… the things you quoted don’t back up your statement. You quoted:

If they can’t all agree, this is called a hung jury, and the Judge will have to declare a mistrial. A mistrial does not mean that the case is over. After a mistrial, the prosecutor can choose to try the case again.

If they don’t all agree, it’s a mistrial in NYS, and although he doesn’t get convicted right then and there, the State can try the case again. He is still in jeopardy, unless he runs for President, I suppose. That would be a interesting turn. (nvm, he is only 26, and can’t run for President yet)

The only way for him to be out of legal jeopardy is for all the jurors to agree to let him off. They can do that by agreeing that the State didn’t prove it’s case adequately enough. Jury Nullification is when the jury says “Yeah, the State proved he did it, but it doesn’t matter, it is in the best interests of Justice that he shouldn’t be punished”. And I really doubt you will get 12 New Yorkers to say that.

If that does happen, the State has very little recourse after that. They can’t try him again, and have extremely limited avenues for appeal. (But they can appeal: see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict). One key thing I get from that is that jurors still need to deliver a rationale for their verdict, even if they nullify. If they say “we find him not guilty because of that chisled jawline”, with no further justification, that may qualify to get overturned.

Lemmy’s not gonna like what I have to say, but jury nullification is simply not going to happen here. It will require the entire jury to agree, and as popular as this POV is here on Lemmy, I sincerely doubt you will be able to sneak 12 NYC jurors through jury selection that are inclined to do this. Maybe for some other non-violent crime, but not for walking up to a man in front of the Hilton and shooting him dead, no matter what his rationale is. They all walk down Sixth Avenue regularly, they’re not gonna all agree to hold this guy unaccountable for murder in broad daylight. (Particularly when they all mocked Trump for saying he could get away with it, one avenue over.)

Now, it is possible that one person might sneak on the jury who finds that Mangione is a sympathetic figure, and insists on not convicting him. But that is a different situation. When the jury is at a fundamental impasse and can’t agree on any verdict (a hung jury) the judge will order a new trial and they do it all over again. And, it’s also possible for Mangione to get let off entirely if the prosecutors are morons and make fundamental errors. (Case in point: Trump’s Georgia trial, where Trump managed to run out the clock due to the prosecution’s unforced errors). But if the evidence is really there, I really doubt 12 New Yorkers will agree and say “Yeah, he did it, but shouldn’t be punished for it”.

Hmm, there may be a long game going on here. Making Elon the Speaker is total nonsense, of course. But if enough Republicans insist, and we have another protracted Speaker battle, it may go past Jan 6, when the Electoral Votes are counted. Can they even be counted if there is no Speaker to convene the House? If they are not counted, it goes to a contingent election. But can there even be a contingent election in the House if there is no Speaker?

Keep this up long enough, and we end up with President Vance. Boy, will that make Trump upset. All his cases that are “on hold” start up again. And the new President starts his immigration crackdown with one very visible illegal immigrant who broke the rules when he came here…

Ah, makes sense

Why would a reboot matter?

On the other hand, no one is obligated to listen to you, and freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of said speech. If you voice an unpopular opinion, be prepared to not be popular.

He would never accept a deposit from the interested parties before making this decision. That would be a bribe, and extremely illegal.

He will accept his deposit from the interested parties after making the decision. That is a gratuity, and is now totally legal, thanks to SCOTUS.

All of those points are true for some crypto projects, and untrue for others. There are some projects with their own Blockchain that have ultra-low fees, others with quick transactions, and others whose algorithms are much more environmentally friendly. (There are other projects and tokens they are full-on scams with no redeeming value whatsoever).

And consumer protections are something that can be added to crypto, but out of necessity they involve trusting some entity to arbitrate when protection is required. Cryptocurrency is designed to be trustless, so any protections need to be added on top, like the escrow someone else talked about.

The worst thing that ever happened to crypto was for it’s price to balloon. Because improving all those other aspects that make it usable as a currency took a back seat to “wen moon?”. OG Bitcoin explicitly rejects improving its energy footprint and fee structure because it sees itself as a Store of Value.

He lies to literally everyone but still people regard him high

So, politics is his next move, then?

There is nothing wrong with making a profit. People have to be paid, after all, and that includes the ownership who put the money at risk in the operation to begin with. The problem is when making a profit becomes the only motive.

Every company is established with the purpose of offering a product or performing a service that makes their customers’ better or simpler. If is successful, it grows from nothing to something in a relatively short period of time. Then it gets the attention of the Investor Class, who shovels money into it with the expectation that it will sustain that growth. Now, the focus is on Building Shareholder Value, and the customer is seen as a necessary evil toward that goal.

The worst thing that ever happened was when we decided that public corporations had a duty to maximize shareholder value above everything else. It renders all those mission and vision statements irrelevant. No matter how much the CEO says the firm’s goal is to make the world a better place through selling stuff, we all know it’s a lie. Their goal is to enrich tthemselves, at our expense.

It truly is SOL

Socket, a security firm that helps detect supply-chain attacks, said the back door is “believed to be the result of a social engineering/phishing attack targeting maintainers of the official Web3.js open source library maintained by Solana.”

That’s super interesting. From the sound of it, the Maintainers must have been targeted to force a malicious Pull Request to be accepted. That article showed some of the code from the commit. I am not a Solana developer but understood enough to know what it was doing and that no maintainer should have approved it willingly.

I wonder if those maintainers will end up having any liability for the hack.

Wtf, talking shit about other subs is brigading now? What is this, middle school?

It is my God-given right as a Bills fan to talk shit about the Jets and their fans. It’s a good thing I left there, because if they tried to pull this shit on me I would point out that they are impinging on my religious freedom.

This image leaves out the giant bags of money that spez carries around everywhere

Hindsight is 2020 (hah!), but I will note that Bernie is still sharp as a tack, at 83. If only…

I’m surprised the other ones did better

Maybe, but it’s still the case that slowing down will impart less energy to the collision. Let up on the brake before impact if you want, but you should have been braking once you first saw the deer in the road.

Sometimes those fuckers just jump out at you at the last minute. They’re not smart. But if you click the link, this one was right in the middle of the road, with that “Deer in the headlights” look. There was plenty of time to slow down before impact.

Using your credentials is not hacking, but once he was canned he no longer had authorization to access those systems. Legally, there is probably no distinction between gaining access by actual hacking vs. using credentials that are no longer authorized.

So yes, their IT processes are deficient, but that doesn’t let the guy off the hook or mitigate his punishment.