Reyali

Unless fines become a % of a person’s wealth. Make everyone feel it equally.

I’m responding a second time because I think this is an important point to make as a top-level response.

the suffering of a living victim is an essential part of what makes rape rape.

This is a fucked up take. This says that a rape victim must suffer, and if they aren’t suffering, then it wasn’t rape. Just, no. People process things differently. Some will be more and some will be less traumatized by being raped.

Forcing a particular experience onto a victim, saying they must feel a certain way, is just so incredibly problematic. A victim can feel whatever they feel and process a crime against them however they want. And the way they do so doesn’t change whether a crime was committed against them.

Edit: And with a very literal reading of the statement, it also says that if someone kills their victim after raping them, then it’s not rape—because there isn’t a living victim who is suffering. I’m sure that’s not what you meant, but it’s important to think about these things and how we convey them.

From the details given, it’s not clear if the person was dead or only unconscious at the time of the assault and it’s not clear whether the attacker knew either.

I’m not clear on your second point; you say that it doesn’t seem right that defendant knowledge matters in one case and not the other. So if:

1. Defendant commits arson not knowing they kill someone in the building > call it murder
2. Defendant sexually violates a body not knowing if they are dead > don’t call it rape?

It seems like not calling it rape is what would apply a double standard here based on defendant knowledge.

Our society treats bodies as an extension of a person; for example, we do not harvest organs from a body if the person didn’t consent to be an organ donor while they were alive.

Your focus on the victim’s suffering as what determines the severity of the crime seems problematic to me. If a victim doesn’t let being raped destroy their life, do we not punish the rapist as severely? We distinguish between manslaughter and murder based on pre-meditation and intent, even though the victim is still dead in both cases, and similarly I think that focusing on the attacker’s actions and intent should be the key factor in calling their actions rape.

If the defendant were going to a morgue or funeral home and defiling bodies, I may feel differently but given the timing here it feels way too grey to not treat it as rape.

FWIW, I’m coming at this conversation as a rape survivor myself. I know the level of mental devastation it can cause. And personally, I don’t think that treating the sexual assault of someone who may or may not have been dead yet (and if they were dead, had been so for no more than 30 minutes) as rape takes anything away from the severity of the crime or my experience as a victim of it.

And anyway from a semantic perspective, according to the article it is being charged only as attempted rape.

I mean, the dead can’t consent.

Also the article says “unresponsive passenger.” We know now the person was dead, but that doesn’t mean the rapist was clear on that fact at the time.

In your heart I think you know the answer or you wouldn’t be posting here like this. No, it’s not normal or healthy. That person is not a friend, and he seems dangerous to be around (maybe not for physical reasons but definitely for mental reasons).

Continue to be secretive and distance yourself from him; that’s not asshole behavior, that’s self-preservation. I hope you are able to separate yourself and get free from this person and in time find actual friends who care and support you for who you are.

Happy birthday!

Can you explain what you mean? Because I think we’re reading a very different meaning into it.

I read it as clever wordplay to acknowledge that one’s anecdote is not the same as data (by putting “data” in place of “dote” in ‘anecdote’ due to the similar sound). Considering that “argument from anecdote” is literally considered a type of fallacy, highlighting that one’s own experience is not scientifically rigorous enough to be considered data seems to be in alignment with general thinking on the matter.

Then again I’ve just learned that in 2020 the OED actually published “anecdata” literally as a facetious/disparaging plural of “anecdote,” so perhaps that’s why you take issue with the quote?

Plural of anecdote isn’t anecdata

I love this. Thank you.

Yeah, that’s on OP. The article is actually titled, “Understanding Aggregate Trends for Apple Intelligence Using Differential Privacy.”

Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article.

The entire thing is explaining how they are upholding privacy to do this training.

1. It’s opt-in only (if you don’t choose to share analytics, nothing is collected).
2. They use differential privacy (adding noise so they get trends, not individual data).
3. They developed a new method to train on text patterns without collecting actual messages or emails from devices. (link to research on arXiv)

I agree the wall is convincing and that it’s not surprising that the Tesla didn’t detect it, but I think where your comment rubs the wrong way is that you seem to be letting Tesla off the hook for making a choice to use the wrong technology.

I think you and the article/video agree on the point that any car based only on images will struggle with this but the conclusion you drew is that it’s an unfair test while the conclusion should be that NO car should rely only on images.

Is this situation likely to happen in the real world? No. But that doesn’t make the test unfair to Tesla. This was an intentional choice they made and it’s absolutely fair to call them on dangers of that choice.

There are also multiple branches of Quakerism. I greatly appreciate the person above speaking about it because they truly covered the way the Quaker meetings I was raised in are and the kinds of people I have spent so much of my life around.

However, there are other branches that don’t deserve the same praise. There are evangelical Quakers and while they aren’t as bad as what that word usually implies, they also aren’t exactly deserving of the description above. Nixon was born into one of the evangelical Quaker branches.

Source: grew up Quaker. Literally have a minor degree in Quaker studies, lol. (It’s been a while and I’m not active in any meetings or organizations these days, but I’ll always be grateful for the values it instilled in me and the community I found from it.)