You could expand that to a general principle for all criminal cases: select one judge that matches the demographics of the defendant as closely as possible, one that matches the victim, and one that differs to an equal degree from both.
He was originally jailed for life but at an appeal doctors told the court the rapes arose of sexual frustration arising out of his marriage to an “ambitious and demanding” wife. The sentence was reduced and he spent only about two years in jail.
Why are rapists seemingly the only category of offender judges always manage to find sympathy for?
The “editor’s note” indicates that it’s not part of the original article—it would be misleading to insert it in the middle of the article if it wasn’t written by the attributed author.
It’s at the very end of the (desktop) article, immediately following the paragraph
“The path to unification might require fundamentally reconsidering the nature of physical reality itself,” he said. “This theory demonstrates how viewing time as three-dimensional can naturally resolve multiple physics puzzles through a single coherent mathematical framework.”
To its credit, the article does include a pretty thorough disclaimer:
Editor’s note (6/24/2025): While Kletetschka’s theory of three-dimensional time presents an intriguing new framework, its results have not yet been accepted by the broader scientific community. The theory is still in the early stages of scrutiny and has not been published in leading physics journals or independently verified through experiments or peer-reviewed replication. Publishing in Reports in Advances of Physical Sciences (World Scientific Publishing), while a legitimate step, is not sufficient for a theory making such bold claims. This journal is relatively low-impact and niche, and its peer review does not match the rigorous scrutiny applied by top-tier journals like Physical Review Letters or Nature Physics. For a paradigm-shifting idea to gain acceptance, it must withstand critical evaluation by the wider physics community, be published in highly regarded journals, and provide reproducible predictions that align with existing evidence—standards this work has not yet met.
My kingdom for the lord of all horses!
Since 1995, I’ve always associated Ian McKellan with his iconic portrayal of Richard III.
Which colored my impression of Lord of the Rings a bit.
The dam company is going to be verifying who they’re paying.
Are they, though?
Or are they just going to sign off and pass the bill on to the government?
You could end up with Waking Ned Devine, where everyone in town vouches for everyone else because they all stand to benefit.
“When dams are built, large areas are flooded and people need to be relocated,” Láng-Ritter said in a press statement. “The relocated population is usually counted precisely because dam companies pay compensation to those affected.”
So the locals are incentivized to inflate their numbers?
IMO the focus should have always been on the potential for AI to produce copyright-violating output, not on the method of training.
Why would the article’s credited authors pass up the chance to improve their own health status and health satisfaction?
Critical paragraph:
Our research highlights the importance of Germany’s unique institutional context, characterized by strong labor protections, extensive union representation, and comprehensive employment legislation. These factors, combined with Germany’s gradual adoption of AI technologies, create an environment where AI is more likely to complement rather than displace worker skills, mitigating some of the negative labor market effects observed in countries like the US.
“Happy birthday to the ground!”
She and her coauthors speculate that framing hardships today as civil rights violations evokes comparisons with the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, which makes contemporary problems appear less significant and therefore less worthy of government action. […] Surveys were conducted in 2016 and 2019…
Six to nine years ago, it was easy to make the case that virtually everything had improved since the 1960s and that evoking that era made modern issues look relatively minor in comparison. But now we have federal agents rounding people up en masse and shipping them off to foreign prisons without a hearing—there are at least some dimensions of the current situation where a comparison with the 1960s accentuates how serious things have become.
Or The Game?
It was the power station near Arak that the IAEA had been monitoring.
If you think they’d be open to it, try Bayes’ theorem. Ask them to give percent likelihoods for the following:
A. The odds that the government (or whoever) is trying to kill everyone, before taking the evidence of excess deaths into account
B. The odds of seeing excess deaths for any possible reason, not just their conspiracy hypothesis
C. The odds of seeing excess deaths if the conspiracy hypothesis were true.
Then logically, the odds of the conspiracy being real given the excess deaths should be A*C/B. If you disagree with them on the outcome, you must disagree on one or more of the assumptions (probably A—if it’s B, you can find the objective odds by checking historical data).
If you still disagree on the prior assumption (A), you can set aside the excess deaths argument and ask what other evidence led them to form that prior assumption. Then you can repeat the process until you either reach agreement or they’re left with an assumption they have no evidence for.
You could restrict it to cases where the victim and defendant belong to significantly different demographics, then.