Search Ideas
2408 ideas match your query.:
[Force is] cheaper than paying jurors their market rate for their time.
Force reduces legitimacy because there’s a greater risk of abuse and bias in jury selection.
Voluntary choice makes the process more legitimate, not less.
The same issue comes up with conscription, say: there’s honor in defending your country voluntarily, if you decide it deserves defending. But if you’re forced to defend it regardless, your efforts aren’t a reflection of merit or legitimacy anymore.
Take the POV of a third party from another country. Let’s say you’re European and you observe, from afar, the US being attacked by a foreign adversary. You also observe millions of Americans signing up the next day to defend America. That would mean something. Europeans could note this development as proof that America has values that are worth defending. But if Americans were instead conscripted, this signal would be lost.
I think the best justification is legitimacy: people accept a court decision better if it was made by their peers, instead of a government employee. That is important in places where the government is not trusted, or trustworthy.
Making juries voluntary doesn’t mean getting rid of them.
Trial by jury has been central to English Common Law legal systems “since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.” So you could say it is simply a matter of tradition.
It’s still arbitrary if it doesn’t address your objections. That’s a violation of consent and thus irrational.
If the legislature approves, doesn’t that mean the force is not arbitrary? Since whatever they decide goes through an objective approval process.
By that logic, the government could arbitrarily force you to do anything the legislature approves of.
The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory.
Not necessarily. It might just mean that courts are bad at persuading people to be jurors.
… if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
By that ‘logic’, America never could have abolished slavery because freeing the next generation would have been ‘unfair’ to slaves. What a stupid argument.
Why does John Doe deserve your best effort? He’s a random stranger to you. Why should you care what happens to him? What has he done to deserve your effort and consideration?
This stance sounds like sacrifice/altruism.
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
This sounds like sacrifice/altruism.
Shouldn’t use ‘this’ in isolation. Use a noun with it.
You actually want people who don’t care. You need neutrality.
I’ve asked Gemini to explain it:
1. Auto-Closure (Insertion State)
When the user inputs an opening delimiter, the system immediately injects the corresponding closing delimiter and places the caret (cursor) between them.
Input: (
Buffer State: (|)
Logic: insert(opening_char) + insert(closing_char) + move_caret(-1)
2. Type-Through (Escape State)
If the caret is positioned immediately before a closing delimiter that was autopaired, and the user types that specific closing delimiter, the system suppresses the character insertion and instead advances the caret.
Context: [text|]
Input: ]
Buffer State: [text]| (Not [text]])
Logic: if (next_char == input_char) { move_caret(+1); prevent_default(); }
3. Atomic Deletion (Regression State)
If the caret is between an empty pair of delimiters, a backspace event deletes both the opening and closing characters simultaneously, returning the buffer to the pre-insertion state.
Context: (|)
Input: Backspace
Buffer State: |
Logic: if (prev_char == open && next_char == close) { delete_range(caret-1, caret+1); }
4. Selection Wrapping (Transformation State)
If a text range is selected (highlighted) and an opening delimiter is typed, the system wraps the selection rather than replacing it.
Context: |selected_text|
Input: [[
Buffer State: [[selected_text]]
Logic: surround_selection(input_pair)
5. Markdown-Specific Heuristics
Obsidian applies context-aware logic for Markdown syntax (e.g., * or _). It often checks word boundaries to determine if the user intends to bold/italicize or use a bullet point.
Context (Start of line): | + * + Space -> Bullet list (autopair disabled/consumed by formatting).
Context (Middle of line): word | + * -> word *|* (autopair enabled for italics).
As of 9087189, the footer automatically hides and shows based on scrolling behavior.
Try it out and let me know if this doesn’t help.
As of c08f508, the footer automatically hides and shows based on scrolling behavior.
Try it out and let me know if this doesn’t help.
This might be a difference in dialect. In New Zealand (and I assume other places, like maybe Australia, UK and Ireland) it is common to use ‘must not’ to mean:
a) ‘ Is forbidden to’ (the meaning you are familiar with),
or
b) ‘necessarily cannot’, usually in a deductive way.
Example: “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he must not be home then.”
This is much more natural to me than “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he cannot be home then.”
This might be a difference in dialect. In New Zealand (and I assume other places, like maybe Australia, UK and Ireland) it is common to use ‘must not’ to mean:
a) ‘ Is forbidden to’ (the meaning you are familiar with),
or
b) ‘necessarily cannot’, usually in a deductive way.
Example sentence: “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he must not be home then.”
This sentence is much more natural to me than “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he cannot be home then.”
This might be a difference in dialect. In New Zealand (and I assume other places, like maybe Australia, UK and Ireland) it is common to use ‘must not’ to mean:
a) ‘ Is forbidden to’ (the meaning you are familiar with),
and
b) ‘necessarily cannot’, often in a deductive way.
Example sentence: “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he must not be home then.”
This sentence is much more natural to me than “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he cannot be home then.”
From what I recall, it’s a scam in Germany, too. From skimming the article, ~all of its criticisms apply there as well. For example, “Organic food has a larger impact on climate because of the greater area of land required to farm it.” I don’t see why that would be different in other countries.
I disagree. In case of mass starvation, GMOs and the like make sense. But besides that, I am for eating food that grows without human intervention.
Food quality [in the US] is worse than third world countries.
That seems like a wild claim to make, seeing as you can safely drink tap water in the US but not in third-word countries. That tells us something about the concern for the safety of consumables in the US. I cannot imagine that food safety in the US would be anywhere near as bad as it is in third-world countries. I mean… India? Nah.
Organic food is a scam. Participants in double-blind experiments can’t tell what’s organic and what isn’t. Organic food hasn’t been found to be healthier than non-organic food. The ‘organic’ label was never even meant as a health endorsement. It’s just a way for stores to charge you more. Don’t be a sucker.
https://news.immunologic.org/p/organic-foods-are-not-healthieror