Probably, but if you’re interpreting user inputs as raw code, you’ve got much much worse problems going on, lol.

I will say, the longer I look at that, the less confident I am that there is any difference at all, lol.

If I saw this, I think I’d take and eat one? Like, I do love a good raisin…

It kind of depends on the facts and your jurisdiction. With the button, maybe? With a death note book, almost certainly not.

When proving the elements of attempted murder (or any non-statutory crime), the state has to prove both “mens rea” and “actus rea” (that you intended to do the thing and that you tried to do the thing), but when you’re being charged for something “attempted” you have the defense of “impossibility,” when the actions you are trying to take couldn’t have possibly worked.

Now, that doesn’t cover cases where you were only wrong in point of fact. For instance, buying fake drugs from a cop. But it does cover instances like using a voodoo doll.

There’s more detail on all the above in the illustrated guide to law, which is a pretty solid resource for stuff like this. Here are the relevant sections:

Actus Rea Explanation: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=261

Attempted Crimes: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=344

Impossibly Defense: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=416

I should have been more clear I suppose. I support all of the restrictions that were in place, and I think it’s bad they were rolled back.

My response wasn’t intended to say the changes were bad, but was rather in response to a general sentiment that I was seeing in the comment section. Both on this post and others when the topic of minors in the work force comes up.

My brother in Christ, I literally say in the comment you replied to that all of the protections that were rolled back (including all the ones you just mentioned) are important, and that it’s a bad thing they were removed.

Who are you even arguing against?

That’s not the only comment taking a similar position though. Just an example. I made my own top level comment to address something that seems like a more general trend when this issue comes up.

I agree. Children shouldn’t have to work to support their families.

None of the regulations that were stripped away have anything to do with that though, as far as I can tell.

So that problem exists in any world where we let kids work at McDonald’s for some spending money.

I mean, the comment literally right above mine is about how if we let kids work then they’re gonna be molested by their bosses. That has nothing to do with any of the restrictions being rolled back.

And look, I’m not campaigning against any of the protections that got rolled back. I think it’s bad they did, and would be totally for them being reinstated. 1000%.

And maybe I’m just off base. I feel like I have seen a lot of “children shouldn’t be allowed to get jobs” rhetoric of late in this context. But it’s entirely possible that most people are totally on board with 16yo’s having jobs, and what I’m seeing is just a vocal minority.

I think teenagers having a first job in highschool is an important milestone that we should encourage.

There should clearly be protections in place. I’m not arguing otherwise. But I don’t get this sentiment of it being tantamount to child abuse to let a 16yo get a job at their local movie theater after school to earn some extra pocket change.

Are you saying this didn’t happen?

The gospels were, while written decades after the fact, written by people who were alive at the time. It’s not really a game of telephone.

It turns out that when a guy dies in his early 30s, most of his buddies are still alive 30-50yrs later.

I mean, I agree that it’s unaffordable, and that building up is a solution to that, but homelessness is rarely caused by housing costs being too high.

Most people who can’t afford the rising cost of living in an area either add roommates or move somewhere cheaper.

To end up in a tent in an encampment is almost always correlated with drug use or mental illness.

Which isn’t to say we shouldn’t take care of those people. We should. But lack of housing is almost never the limiting factor there.

Man, no one came out of that article looking good, including the victim. Just a terrible situation all around.

Fair enough. Yeah, that feels kinda weird.

Seems like they should have converted one lady’s room and one men’s room. Have 2/2/2. Though I guess converting a men’s room is probably a bigger project.

Do you have a source for that? It wasn’t in the article as far as I could tell.

I mean, I think “improperly obtained OpenAI’s data” with reference to China, probably means internal trade secrets were stolen. Wouldn’t be the first time China hacked a US corporation and stole all their IP, lol.

I really, genuinely don’t. You may not believe it, but those feel equally charged to me.

But I think that’s at the crux of our disagreement. My lived experience is that that phrase is uncharged, and your lived experience is that it’s terribly charged. This is probably due to regional or cultural differences, and honestly, that’s fine.

We could debate who’s lived experience is the more generalized one. Who is more representative of the average American. But honestly, I don’t know that it matters.

And even if you found out that 95% of people think it’s uncharged (which I’m not saying is the case), it still wouldn’t make it feel any different for you I’m sure, as again, in your lived experience that phrase is tantamount to a slur.

But all that said, I appreciate the discussion about it. It’s always interesting to come across these things that, due to fluctuations in region or age or whatever, both seem so obviously true to each side, while being so polarizing.

And I know I see you around here a lot, and I generally agree with you on stuff. So like, I know you’re not an unreasonable person or whatever. I respect your opinion on the issue even. We just disagree this time.

I’ll do that as soon as you find me one example of a teacher saying "hey there buster brown, why don’t you sit down!”

You probably can’t, because it’s not news worthy, as this wouldn’t be 99.9% of the time. The only reason this is, is because the kid in question was one, Arab, and two, offended. If either hadn’t been true, none of us would have ever heard about it.

But I recall people using that phrase in highschool. I remember teachers using it. That was back in the Bush era, to be fair, but it was pretty normative. We didn’t really have any Arab population, so not much chance of anyone being offended though.

The issue with your counter example is that there’s plenty of times a teacher might use the word terrorist in a classroom. Any history lesson covering the past half century for example. There are precious few times a teacher should be actively swearing in a classroom, in any context.

But if it’s a power dynamic thing, I’d be equally fine saying “I don’t negotiate with terrorists” to a subordinate at work if they were being a particular kind of dick, same as I would with a buddy. Because it’s a normal phrase people say.