State of Things
-
@surreality said in State of Things:
And those consequences are almost never, ever for them. Which is intensely frustrating.
This is why I'm pro-Nazi-punching.
Seriously. Punch them. Hard.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
Sexual assault being deemed a pre-existing condition was the case before the ACA, and so will be again if states claim the waiver exempting them from having to insure those with pre-existing conditions.
So if you ever had to seek medical help because of an assault, you may be disqualified.
-
Diseases hidden in ice are waking up, so what can possibly go wrong?
-
@Paris Technically, it's worse than that. Even if you never had to seek medical help for it, you have to declare it, or risk fraud.
Like we need another way for abusers and rapists to get a power/control trip rush out of their crimes.
That increase in premiums should be charged to the criminal, dammit.
-
Sick Until Proven Healthy.
-
@Ganymede said in State of Things:
@surreality said in State of Things:
And those consequences are almost never, ever for them. Which is intensely frustrating.
This is why I'm pro-Nazi-punching.
Seriously. Punch them. Hard.
Will you defend us in court when the Man ultimately collars one of us? Because I will totally go on a nazi punching spree if I know I have decent representation.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
For anyone who's not sure if racism is largely a thing of the past... perhaps a look at this article first, and then a quick read through the comments section? The latter is as... interesting as the main article.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@Arkandel It is way too early in the day for the amount of vodka that requires. Goddamn.
-
Anybody who reads an unmoderated comments section (and about 95% of the moderated ones) gets what they deserve.
Don't read the comments. It's a basic rule of the modern Internet.
-
Btw @Ganymede, this is what I meant about automation in the legal profession.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@WTFE said in State of Things:
Anybody who reads an unmoderated comments section (and about 95% of the moderated ones) gets what they deserve.
...
...
...
I ... I don't even ... I can't ...
Aw screw it.
IRONY!
-
I was wondering when someone would catch on.
-
This would be an abject failure in practice.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede How come? (Non-rhetorical question - IANAL).
-
@Ganymede said in State of Things:
This would be an abject failure in practice.
Because it already is, with the most basic of things.
Take, for example, the automatic redacting of social security numbers. And then, read this article.
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2011/05/25/studying-frequency-redaction-failures-pacer/
This document reveals a failure rate of roughly 10% back in 2011. The software for the federal court's PACER system is largely unchanged since then, but let's suppose that the rate is reduced to 5%. Based on the same paper, roughly 0.1% of papers filed have an SSN on them. So, that means, for 500,000,000 million documents, there are 500,000 documents with SSNs, and of these there are 25,000 failures. I suppose that 25,000 revealed SSNs -- for bankruptcy clients too -- isn't a huge data breach, but it is a substantial ethical breach as far as attorneys go.
You really can't depend on the software. At all. Automation is good to pick up printed fonts, but is terrible at hand-writing, a form of memorialization that lawyers still use and rely on constantly. And, no, old fucks aren't ready to change their ways.
So, no. It's a non-starter, really. Not for a reasonable firm, at least. Most large firms whore out their document reviews to legal mills that carry substantial malpractice insurance, and none of those mills are going to incur the liability of relying on software.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede said in State of Things:
This document reveals a failure rate of roughly 10% back in 2011. The software for the federal court's PACER system is largely unchanged since then, but let's suppose that the rate is reduced to 5%. Based on the same paper, roughly 0.1% of papers filed have an SSN on them. So, that means, for 500,000,000 million documents, there are 500,000 documents with SSNs, and of these there are 25,000 failures. I suppose that 25,000 revealed SSNs -- for bankruptcy clients too -- isn't a huge data breach, but it is a substantial ethical breach as far as attorneys go.
Allow me to play devil's advocate. Giggle. Ahem.
-
Isn't this assuming that given such a massive number of documents human beings would have had a significantly better rate of success reading the numbers?
-
With humans there are tiny margins to improve the failure rate; you can offer better training, fire employees and try to hire better next time, but you might or not be successful. With software you can identify potential problems (is it the camera? the lighting? the OCR algorithm?) specifically try to fix them.
-
Accuracy might be important but so is speed. If processing all those millions of documents takes 100x the time machines do it then the end result might be worse than having to deal with the failure rate (and always factoring in (1) above). Oh and cheaper. Much cheaper.
How wrong am I?
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
-
@Arkandel said in State of Things:
- Isn't this assuming that given such a massive number of documents human beings would have had a significantly better rate of success reading the numbers?
It may, but the use of the program does not absolve the attorneys from their duty to keep client information confidential. The program, to a certain extent, encourages the sort of laziness and complacency that has led to the dullness in legal minds that I have noticed over the past few years.
Most attorneys use the software and then comb over the documents again to check for accuracy. This means the attorneys have to review the documents anyway.
- With humans there are tiny margins to improve the failure rate; you can offer better training, fire employees and try to hire better next time, but you might or not be successful. With software you can identify potential problems (is it the camera? the lighting? the OCR algorithm?) specifically try to fix them.
You can try. The responsibility for failure ultimately falls on the attorney, not the software company. Ergo, it is better for the attorney to do their own checking, which obviates the need for the software as a tool to accomplish the task.
- Accuracy might be important but so is speed. If processing all those millions of documents takes 100x the time machines do it then the end result might be worse than having to deal with the failure rate (and always factoring in (1) above). Oh and cheaper. Much cheaper.
Cheaper, yes. But cheaper isn't always better. Not for the client; not for the justice system; and certainly not for an attorney's malpractice carrier.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
About online racism, something I ran into:
Pepe is considered a hate symbol because if you go over to 4chan's /pol board right this very moment you will find a huge number of anti-Semitic, racist and and hate-mongering memes featuring him. 4chan users use Pepe as an image macro, a short-hand for far right political views that are mainly defined by a hatred of almost anyone non-white. In fact, a common question on /pol, so common in fact that the pinned first post warns about asking it, is if a certain group is "white", since all non-whites are degenerate in their eyes.
Remember kids, if you think any place on the internet is bad... there's always 4chan.
-
The story behind Pepe the Frog makes me sad as hell, and is really telling about the power of the internet to make something innocuous into something atrocious. It was created and used for years with zero hateful associations, but because it was adopted by fuckstains (HELLO 4CHAN USERS THE NEXT TIME YOU INVADE THIS BOARD, YOU ARE HORRIFIC FUCKSTAINS) so completely it's now pretty much impossible for it to mean anything but white nationalist/anti-Semitic garbage.
-
Interesting. I hadn't heard of this... but it just goes to prove a few things.
Anything can get all twisted and turned to mean something entirely opposite... but the sick thing is that people then believe that new meaning. It just goes to show how easily swayed and driven today's people can be, out of ignorance.
That's the scary part.
You could take a picture of, I dunno, a daisy in a pot and post a meme of hatred, get a huge internet segment to push it as a joke, and suddenly I would bet that daisy sales at florists would plummet.
Doesn't that scare the shit out of any of you?
