Lol. Yes I am! How did you know?? 😜

Not sure how uncommon you’re looking for, but I think I already did this.

I chose Sage.

According to some quick googling (read: not sure how accurate this is), Sage wasn’t in the top 500 names for my birth year, but my given name was top 100.

Though both names I’ve used have been trending towards more common for most of my life. Looks like my original name is now a top 35 most common, but Sage is still outside the top 100 for females and outside top 300 for males.(Really wish there was more data for the popularity of nonbinary names. I think Sage is probably one of the more popular enby names, so maybe it’s not all that uncommon, depending on how you define it.)

Yo same. It’s truly amazing. I’ve had great effect with it in League of Legends. I’m sure this applies to other games, but in League, it’s a good rule of thumb that the whole team committing to the wrong play is better than half the team committing to the right play. So if you and your pal disagree with the call, but all three other players are going, you should go as well.

But nobody has time to type all that right before a teamfight. So. “Apes together strong.”

The meme says to denounce US sanctions. I think this commenter was pointing out that would also mean opposing the sanctions currently on the Russian oligarchs.

Not a fan of Maro’s response here. The complaint was that the competitive environment feels less engaging, and he basically just said “but we’re throwing even more money at it, so you shouldn’t complain.”

It’s not a solution. How is that extra manpower being used to actually promote competitive play? Moreover, does he not see that the focus on casual has side effects on competitive? There needs to be more focus on outreach to competitive players, not just putting more people on the team.

Idk, feels like he missed the mark on this one. It’s not about bad design, it’s about bad promotion and engagement, not about the amount of resources being devoted to it.

This is good advice, I appreciate it. But I should clarify, I definitely won’t be launching my practice before I’m comfortable with the OS. I’m probably going to take some other user’s suggestions and do some test runs on my home machine to figure things out. I’m not launching tomorrow, there’s no real rush. My current contract runs until May 2024. So I’ve got 6 months ahead of me to figure things out.

Oh I’m aware the OS is free. The affordability I was asking for was for the actual computer to run it. I guess that part wasn’t Linux-specific. Mostly just looking for a good option for a work computer that will last a while. Will probably just get some kind of refurb laptop, I’ve always had good success with those.

But if someone has a specific recommendation I’m all ears.

Yes, mostly paperwork and email for sure. Some basic spreadsheet stuff for tracking clients and payments and whatnot, but there’s also programs for that.

One less common, yet essential, thing I haven’t gotten a specific response on yet, is converting word docs to PDFs with searchable text. Not sure if you know things about that, but it popped into my head while responding here so hopefully someone who sees this knows something.

And, a generic thank you to everyone who has responded, this has all been very helpful. Even if I don’t respond to you specifically, I appreciate it.

Yeah some counties use pointlessly complicated programs to distribute videos. I often have to try a few different players on windows to find one that works. If VLC has trouble with something, are there others you’d recommend as well?

This seems like a good thread to ask this… I’m sure I could find the answers I need myself but frankly I trust the userbase here more than most online articles.

As my username hints at, I’m a lawyer. I’m considering starting my own firm as a solo practitioner. I need a computer and/or laptop for it, and as a new business my budget would be pretty tight. I’ve mostly only ever used windows, but I’m getting fed up with the bullshit, so I’m considering going with Linux.

I assume Linux is capable of doing everything I need, which is primarily handling word documents, viewing PDFs, watching evidence videos, and online research. But my concern is that some of the more commonly used video types might have trouble on Linux, or that some of the word document templates I use in Windows might have compatibility issues.

I’m also nervous about using an OS I’m not familiar with for business purposes right away.

So I guess I’m asking a few questions. What is a reliable yet affordable option to get started? Are my concerns based in reality or is Linux going to be able to handle everything windows does without issues? What else might I need to know to use Linux comfortably from the get go? Is it going to take a lot of time and effort to get Linux running how I need it to?

For reference, I do consider myself to be somewhat tech-savvy. I don’t code or anything, but I’ve built my last two home computers myself and I’m not scared of general software management, I just don’t make it myself.

So, yeah, sell me on Linux, please.

Hmm. I’m annoyed at my lawyer brain, all I can think about is how this would actually be a very interesting case. At least, based on my understanding of U.S. Torts law, which is not my practice area (but which is bar tested and a required law scool course). Don’t take any of this as real legal advice.

But, there’s a concept known as the eggshell plaintiff rule/doctrine. Basically, it states that if the person you injured is unusually fragile, you’re on the hook for their injuries regardless of whether they’re a typical result of the action you took. So, here, while the typical result of pulling a finger would be a fart, the puller may be on the hook for the entire damages of a lost arm.

However, undercutting that is the defense of consent. The “victim” here clearly consented to the activity which led to the injury, and should have known that the action may likely result in the loss of an arm, based on the lack of tendons/muscles/skin/everything.

I’m gonna have to save this to show at conventions and see how people think this would play out. I’ll totally be the coolest kid in school then. In your face, Mark.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I don’t think there’s really a number of years to put on it to make it appropriate. But I’m sure the lawyers discussed all the points you raised in negotiating this sentence. These numbers aren’t pulled out of our asses, there are guidelines (almost certainly, again, not barred in NY) which help ensure similarly situated defendants are sentenced similarly.

What I’d like to hear more about, is whether the judge also ordered some kind of anger management counseling. I think that’s what she needs more than a longer sentence.

If we truly want to balance the goals of protecting the public, adequately punishing the defendant, and also rehabilitating her, I don’t think a few more years either way is what makes the biggest difference. I think it more depends on what she does with that time. I’m not sure what the situation is like within New York prisons as far as counseling goes, but if they have good programs, it’s hard for me to imagine, if she takes it seriously, that 8.5 years of good counseling wouldn’t be helpful to her, and to society at large.

I also think she could make all those gains in counseling, again, if she truly takes it seriously, within a couple of years. But then, I could probably be convinced that 2-3 years isn’t long enough for causing someone’s death. I’ve seen people get that for having the wrong amount of weed on them.

But then we get into the larger discussion about the entire prison industrial complex. We need some kind of change with how our prisons operate. Exactly how that looks isn’t the point here. I’m just trying to point out that there’s a bigger picture in play, and hope that people will consider that in the future.

In the end, nothing we say here has any impact on her life or the issued sentence. But it might have a difference in how people perceive and talk about the system as a whole in the future, so I think it’s important to not lose sight of that.

Defense lawyer here, though not in New York so take this all with a grain of salt, I just felt I should put my 2 cents in based on the vibes in this comment thread.

It is weird for a judge to go against a joint recommendation, which seems to have happened here. It takes something extraordinary. The article indicates that the judge felt she didn’t truly feel remorse for her actions, which could do it, but doesn’t always do it. But, to me, just the fact that the judge went against a joint recommendation will always raise an eyebrow. Usually, if the sentence isn’t harsh enough, the prosecutor won’t agree to it, and if it’s too harsh, the defense won’t agree to it. So joint recommendations are almost always followed.

Yes, it’s “only” 6 more months, but that’s really not insignificant.

Now, to all the people screaming about how it’s not enough (and especially to the one person saying she should have her citizenship revoked (???)), I wonder, how many of you are also against the prison industrial complex we have here in America? I challenge you to think beyond your initial emotions. Is this death tragic? Yes, absolutely it is. It was senseless violence for no good reason. So I agree, it deserves a harsh punishment.

But everyone keeps calling it murder. Not every killing is a murder. I also want to challenge people to watch their language. Murder carries with it an intent to kill. A shove does not intend death, regardless of who is being shoved. No, it shouldn’t have happened, yes, it’s tragic, but it was not a murder.

Now, all of you calling for 20+ years, really think about what you’re saying. Do you think this person has no chance of rehabilitation? Those are the people we put away for life. I don’t think that’s the case here. She fucked up. Obviously. She deserves to be punished harshly, and make no mistake, she is. 8.5 years is a LONG time. Think back to where you were 8.5 years ago. Were you the same person? I doubt it. Now, do you think she might better herself in those 8.5 years? I think it’s very likely, though again, the prison industrial complex makes that less guaranteed.

Sentences have many goals. Some of the primary goals are punishment, protection of the public, and rehabilitation of the defendant. Does this sentence punish her? Yes, a lot. Does this sentence give her a chance for rehabilitation? I’m not sure on that one, but that’s because it may, if anything, be too long, and cause her to get too used to life in prison, and increase her likelihood of recidivism. But that’s not her fault, that’s the fault of the prison industry. Does this sentence protect the public? I say yes. She lost her temper once and it’s now going to cost her 9 years of her life (if you include the duration of the case). That’s a hell of an incentive not to repeat.

Alright, I think that’s all I really want to say. But please, everyone, in the future, try to think about how our prison system really works, and how much you support it, when you’re discussing individual crimes, not just when you’re talking about the system as a whole. I think most people on this site lean left, and therefore should support reducing the prison populations, but this comment section has me worried with everyone here frothing at the mouth to give MORE prison time, when the sentenced amount should be enough to satisfy our sentencing goals.

The Civil Rights Act was passed in large part because of it. Is your argument that the Civil Rights Act changed nothing? Because that’s silly. Or were you just not thinking, and trying to score internet points? Because that’s also silly. You’re being silly.

My understanding is that it was created in response to a ton of Musk spam which was primarily positive, when he was first emerging as a popular figure. People got fed up with hearing about him, and started Enough Musk Spam to point out how absolutely terrible he actually is.

Nowadays, there’s much less positive Musk news, so it feels more like a misnomer. But it was started as an attempt to highlight how bad he is. Seems to have worked a bit, tbh.

Criminal defense attorney here, confirming this is correct in at least every jurisdiction I’m aware of.

But as always, it’s best to contact a lawyer in the same jurisdiction of the court to know for sure.

Do you have the exact numbers handy? That’s not something I’d heard. Not saying you’re wrong, I’d just like to see the actual breakdown.

Regardless, I think my overall stance will stay the same. This isn’t a black and white issue. And I still trust them FAR more than anyone else in Congress. Even if they didn’t get all the workers everything they asked for once. And let’s be clear, the workers still got a lot from those negotiations. They’re in a much better spot now than they were. No, it doesn’t mean the fight is over, but the wheel of progress turns slowly, especially when one party is throwing every resource they have to get it to spin backwards. Small wins are still wins.

Or to put it in American terms: you can win by 5 touchdowns or a single extra point, either way, your record looks the same. Sure, it feels better to win by blowout. But it feels a LOT worse to lose.

I don’t even necessarily agree their right to protest was undermined. There were 12 unions negotiating during that period. Only four of them were wanting the strike to continue. It’s a weird situation, and you’re right, we can’t pretend to know what went on behind closed doors. But to me, it looked like 4 unions were trying to hold the rest hostage and force everyone to keep striking when they didn’t want to.

Regardless, this certainly isn’t something anyone should be villainizing The Squad for. They’ve done more for progressive rights than any group of congresspeople in recent memory. People who are still salty over it should maybe take a moment of introspection and figure out if they actually think The Squad are bad people, or if maybe Right wing media got ahold of the one time they weren’t 100% on the side of unions and workers and ran it into the ground as a way to diminish support for them.

To me, it’s almost certainly the latter.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/congress-votes-to-avert-rail-strike-amid-dire-warnings

You might want to look into what happened a little bit more. A minority of the unions were trying to hold the negotiations hostage. It’s not as black and white as you’re painting it.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/congress-votes-to-avert-rail-strike-amid-dire-warnings

So… He’s Sokka?