@Willie - eviltoast
  • 0 Posts
  • 84 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle











  • I mean, they’re useful instructions. How often at the time did you need to take a photo of the tv? And you were likely not going to know how the photo looked until you got it developed, so it’s important that you get the photo right the first time, because there may not be a second chance, since you’ll have to run down to the pharmacy, grocery store, or wherever you get your photos developed, and wait for them to come back to see that you messed it up or not, and by then, your parents may have turned the console off.





  • There’s not really any use for them. There are really no tasks they can help a normal person with in their everyday. I guess you could talk to it like it’s a person, but that’s sad, and is probably unhealthy, and you should probs just talk to a real person instead.

    Now if you do some specialized tasks, like programming, but aren’t very good, I guess I can see some use for them.

    I’m having trouble seeing any uses for them beyond those though.


  • While there’s no ‘and’ after ‘(A)’, it appears that’s the standard format for a list like this. Every list of x, y, and z in this bill is written in the same way. It seems like it’s supposed to be written like you would a list you give in English. There’s a list of conditions under which a prisoner can be transferred to a prison closer to their home when near release time, and the conditions are listed in the same exact way.

    ‘‘(2) TRANSFER TO INSTITUTION CLOSER TO RELEASE RESIDENCE.—A prisoner who is successfully participating in an evidence-based recidivism reduction program shall be considered by the Bureau of Prisons for placement in a facility closer to the prisoner’s release residence upon request from the prisoner and subject to—
    ‘‘(A) bed availability at the transfer facility;
    ‘‘(B) the prisoner’s security designation; and
    ‘‘© the recommendation from the warden of the prison at which the prisoner is incarcerated at the time of making the request.

    There’s no way they will allow you to transfer to a prison that has no space for you, so long as you can fulfill both B and C, it’d be physically impossible! It’s clear they intend for you to meet all 3 requirements, just like in the segment being discussed by the supreme court in the article. There’s also like a seven item list of responsibilities the Attorney General has in the bill too, formatted with the same (A); (B); ©; … (G); and (H) format. And there’s no way they let the dude just pick which task from the list he’s responsible for. Once you become familiar with the bill’s format, it’s extremely clear how this is supposed to work.

    I feel like that specific issue is pretty cut and dry, but that’s just me.


  • So I looked it up, and the law appears to be worded like this:

    ‘‘(1) the defendant does not have—
    ‘‘(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
    ‘‘(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and
    ‘‘© a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;’’

    So let’s simplify this into English. Because the header says that “The defendant does not have” and then has subsections, we will append that idea to the start of each subsection.

    The defendant doesn’t have more than four crime points

    and

    The defendant doesn’t have a 3 point offense

    and

    The defendant doesn’t have a violent 2 point offense.

    Simplifying it down like this makes it seem like the way it is written is the more strict way the supreme court decided on. It sounds like the supreme court is correct in this case, but they don’t know why they’re correct, since their reason is all wrong.


  • Let’s look at it this way.

    Condition 1 is to disqualify anyone with 5 or more crime points.

    Condition 2 is to disqualify anyone who has committed any crime that is worth 3 crime points.

    Condition 3 is to disqualify anyone who has committed a crime worth 2 points, but only if it is a violent crime.

    So basically, they intend for a violent crime worth 2 points to disqualify you, and they intend for any 3 point crime to disqualify you as well. And they intend for having 5 points to disqualify you.

    Worrying about the value of added points is missing the point of the wording of the entire set of rules. Especially if there exist crimes worth 1 crime point. There’s a whole range of crimes you can commit and still qualify.

    You could commit:

    Up to 4 crimes worth 1 point each.
    Up to 2 crimes worth 1 point each, as well as one non-violent crime worth 2 points.
    And up to 2 non-violent crime worth 2 points each.

    The point of condition 1 is to put a cap on the amount of crimes worth 1 or 2 points you can commit.

    I hope this helped you understand it the way I understand it.