The legal (il)literacy on HN is astounding. The punishment isn't a fine, it's a civil judgment being awarded to the eight Colombian families that sued... this is the third paragraph in the article:
"Following a civil case brought by eight Colombian families whose relatives were killed by the AUC, Chiquita has been ordered to pay $38.3m (£30m) in damages to the families."
Because in non-legalise common English usage, "fine" just means "financial (usually) penalty for wrongdoing".
A civil lawsuit doesn't need to be anything like a speeding ticket from a legal point of view, from a normal person's point of view they can both result in a "you did something wrong, now you have to pay an amount set by the legal system".
Yes, people make mistakes, especially when common usage of a word like "fine" doesn't align precisely with legal use. In my opinion it's getting upset about not everyone having a concrete understanding of the legal system that there's no need for.
Where's the discontinuity, they just assume everything that happens in court is the result of actions by the gov't when it's not just true. I don't get your tone, as if people making mistakes is a concept I'm not familiar with. That's not what I'm discussing, I'm discussing widely made mistaken assumptions from an otherwise incredulous crowd.
Generally, it's a distinction without a meaningful difference. The people you're complaining about don't really care whether or not it's government or civil action. They care that these people are getting away with murder and mass extortion and the only penalty they face is a meager chunk of the profits.
I'm glad that some victims are getting some recompense, but frankly, justice has not really been served.
> Generally, it's a distinction without a meaningful difference.
Seems like you might be as confused as they are!
> The people you're complaining about don't really care whether or not it's government or civil action.
They do, because it's always in the context of how the "gov't" levied a fine on some business, when it was actually a civil suit and there's no governmental action at all.
> They care that these people are getting away with murder and mass extortion and the only penalty they face is a meager chunk of the profits.
My feeling is that you're the one confused with what other people think and care about, not the other way around. I'll leave it there and agree to disagree, as you've been ignoring the points made by both of us who replied to you.
Might I suggest asking a friend who you trust to read the thread and share their thoughts with you - because I thought we just disagreed, and I didn't think much of your opinion, but saying that either of us have "made up scenarios" means you're just completely misunderstanding something we've said (giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't write that knowing it's nonsense in the hope that it saves you face).
“ (III): Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities[26][27]
This convention sets out the accepted procedure for a state making a declaration of war. It provides the basis on which, in international law, war reparations may be demanded.”
You telling me a country initiating a war has the right to then ask for reparations for the damages and destruction they caused on the country they initiated the war against? That's so freaking absurd that it is actually funny!
I can only guess the wikipedia article is only a summary and the real convention could be around who is to blame for the war and other factors. Otherwise that's just so ridiculous that it actually encourages declaring wars on countries!
By the way, that summary only says "It provides the basis on which.. war reparations may be demanded". If anything I bet it sets out 'restrictions' on when countries can do that.
Who cares when it's the US. Laws only apply for the weak-handed. They controlled the Iraqi government anyway, and they were stealing all of its oil as they wished regardless. The reparations were only the icing on the cake.
You don't have to rely on (faulty) memory, the very Wikipedia article mentions that the USA was a signatory of the Hague treaty.
As an aside it is pretty hilarious in hindsight that at the time all the countries who are now permanent UN Security Council member (which its associated veto powers) were in favor of a binding international arbitration court, but it was vetoed by the powers of that time like Germany.
> it [the US] doesn't believe in the concept of human rights.
Unless when China, Russia, Iran or DPRK violates humans right according to their Secretary of State; in that case they cry an additional Mississippi river over human rights violations.
Operationalization is the process of defining a measurement of a phenomenon.
It's often talked about in reference to measuring intangibles, but it also applies to other measurements. Temperature, for example is operationalized by setting the marks on a thermometer and using them to gauge the temperature of an object. Additionally, measuring the infrared radiation and inferring the temperature by way of the Stefan–Boltzmann law as a infrared thermometer does.
Notably, these aren't measuring the velocities of particles constituting an object and averaging their magnitudes which is the formal definition of temperature.
Likewise, the measurement of sex drive must be defined in order to take such measurements. Often, zero care is taken to the conscious decision to operationalize measuring mental states which is a terrible way to do science - may as well use dowsing rods. Or in other words, how can we be sure the thing we think we're measuring is what we're actually measuring?
To be cyclical they’d need to have elements in reply to a post made after they were created. Including back references is a way of adding more parents, not children.
You are referring to providing a sequential post ID past the current latest? That is more of a quirk of their naming convention than a product feature. UUID's, for instance, would not support this, and checks could be made in either case to prevent it.
I feel they could onboard so many more users by having a fiat frontend that doesn't refer to blockchain. But maybe they're targeting crypto natives so users don't get shocked by price variability etc.
If you have cheap electricity and a $5,000 AntMiner you can mine profitably. I would expect the halving to push out those who have more expensive electricity, not necessarily the smallest operators.
I guess this is a good thing for increasing coverage of neglected areas. But given how cleverly LLMs can hide hallucinations, I feel like at least a few different auditor bots should also sign off on edits to ensure everything is correct.
Do you think its kyriarch's ideas that drive oppression? The corporate egregore hungers for profit, and will squeeze every ounce of value from the world that's not nailed down, ie consciously resisted. The man has already heard of "longer working hours," and the only thing stopping their implementation is our self-respect.
Not just self-respect, law. In particular, FDR's New Deal. 40 hours, overtime, unemployment insurance, social security, right to unionize, and more.
Capital interests have been working hard to erode these over the last 80 years with notable success, but the importance of legislative victories cannot be understated. Early 20th century labor relations were egregious all around the world, and they did not improve because capitalists developed a conscience. Many places went straight socialist. We saw how that went. In America, we didn't need socialism because we had Roosevelts. This worked out better for all involved.
I use Google like this unfortunately, I just search random things that come to mind if I want to know more.
Example: I see a squirrel nibbling at a pinecone or something. My brain literally thinks to search "squirrel diet pinecone" or "what do squirrels eat pinecone" and if I have my phone on me I search that. Otherwise I just search it when I get home.
I did an experiment where I ditched my smartphone for a year and this thought pattern went away. When I picked up the smartphone again the thought pattern came back.
Your search terms make sense to me though. Whereas “my eyes hurt” seems like a crazy search term to me. I would ask something like “eye pain causes” rather than just tell Google my eyes hurt haha
