bedwyr

Yeah, first the Tories maybe 5-7 years back or so cancelled juries for crimes with less than 1 year imprisonment, then Starmer's labour party just upped it to all crimes less than 3 years.

In the late 19th century they also passed a law where if they thought jury tampering was going to happen they could just do it with a judge, idk how often they have used it though.

For once yes. Grand Juries at the time of the Constitution were a safeguard against arbitrary and unjust prosecutions. The rulers have since changed what a grand jury is to make it the opposite, a tool of the prosecutors.

Luckily the prosecutors for this administration are so arrogant and incompetent they haven't been able to maintain that facade of trustworthiness which the masses still afford to dickheads in suits with position.

Of course the judges are so bad it often doesn't matter, especially when it's in a shitholy jurisdiction, like those protesters at the Texas Ice that got kangarooed by their dipshit hanging judge down there under preposterous, blatantly unconstitutional charges, cancelling the 1st amendment.

I bet the manufacturers of these surveillance systems leave a wink wink way for authorities to slip a name in their systems as a hit for something too.

Common Law is better than codified law. That's the only reason we have juries and don't just let judges decide the fate of the accused. Can you imagine, in this country, judges the sole decider of your case?

The reason that the UK and US have had such cuntish law enforcement is not because of english common law. It should be noted the UK cancelled some of common law's basic tenants, like the right to a jury trial, not only afforded to indictable offenses, any crime with less than 3 years imprisonment is decided by their famously haughty aristocratic judges now.

Flour, ripe banana, water, yeast.

0 and # repeatedly used to work, but it doesn't now, not the last 5 + years, I try it regularly if stuck on the automated corporate customer service loops. Idk about chatbots that don't pretend to be a real person though.

Don't the llm's know lots of programming? So if it knows and answers it's a chatbot, but what if it doesn't tell you?

I wonder if sarcasm could be used, and if you could suss it out from it not recognizing it as a person would?

I suspect my internet provider had me talking to a chatbot on customer service. I wonder if there are ways to tell.

That doesn't sound like Annie Archive's fault. Eveything has been scraped that they can access. If you run a free service, like wikipedia or AA, there is no way to stop them, as the law is in silicon valley's pocket. No?

We can't stop these ai companies at the point of piracy, not without the law. We have to find other ways, such as [redacted.]

Then they plagarize that data though, using it without attribution or payment, which is aganst copyright law. If a person did this they would be stopped. Because it's big money, the law doesn't apply.

I have an exciting investment opportunity for you! Because you are so naive, I figured I would explain the joke as you clearly would not get it on your own judging by your comments on this thread.

Tell it to someone that doesn't know that you have 0 credibility.