litchralee

IANAL. In a jurisdiction such as California, USA, there is a distinction between a criminal summons and a subpoena. The former is when that person is being charged with a crime, and the latter is when they are being ordered to give testimony to a criminal or civil trial. The difference as applied to the OP's scenario is that some treaties allow for criminal defendants to be extradited to a requesting jurisdiction to stand trial. But I'm not aware of any treaties that permit extradition to give testimony.

Indeed, in the 21st Century, when a person whose testimony would be greatly useful cannot appear in person for a tribunal, for whatever reason, the next best thing is to have them show up via telepresence. It accomplishes the goal of obtaining testimony, but does not imperil the physical or legal safety of the witness. In a civil trial, this is fairly straightforward to arrange, but in a criminal trial, there may be some concerns about the US Constitution's 6th Amendment, specifically the Confrontation Clause, that requires an opportunity for the accused to examine the witness.

But seeing as the title of the question specifically says "defendant", we might tackle the question of when someone overseas is charged with a crime. There are a few things that have to be determined, including jurisdiction, venue, and nexus. These are, grossly oversimplifying: the legal authority of a court to hear a case, whether the court is the most appropriate, and whether there is sufficient connection to apply the laws of a particular jurisdiction. Other locales may refer to these concepts differently, but the idea should be much the same.

Jurisdiction must be established over the person in question. That is, a potential defendant must be bound to the orders of the court, or else this is an entirely moot exercise. So obviously, someone physically within the judicial territory (eg California) is probably within the jurisdiction, but notable exceptions include diplomats and federal officers. Likewise, someone who was in the state but fled the authorities already pursuing them (eg fleeing a hit and run by driving into Nevada) did have jurisdiction for the relevant time of the crime, even though they're not physically still in the state.

Venue is the choice of which court should hear the case. Suppose we're using the hit and run scenario again, would the case be eligible to be heard in every single country that the motorist passed through while fleeing? Generally no, since the most appropriate venue would be the place where most of the facts occurred, which is usually where the crime occurred. That said, when it becomes impossible to try a defendant at the first choice of venue, the next choice can be used. This sometimes happens because a crime is so notorious that it'll become impossible to guarantee a fair trial. In California, a trial can be ordered moved to a different county, in this scenario.

But also possible is for a "foreign" court to exercise venue but applying California law. This is unlikely for criminal cases, but possible for civil cases, usually when a contract dispute specifies "the laws of California shall apply". In such scenario, another state court (or a federal court, whether within California or not) can apply the laws of California and render a verdict under the same principles and precedences that a California trial court would render. This even includes a process for "certifying" a question to the California Supreme Court, for matters where no precedence can be found, in order to get an authoritative answer for what California law says.

Finally, there is nexus, which is more about suitability of bringing the case. After all, certain crimes are still crimes even after fleeing the original place. If the same motorist from earlier flies out of Las Vegas airport directly to Edinburgh, Scotland, it may be possible to extradite them back to California if an extradition treaty is in place, or if the Scottish authorities approve of California's request to extradite even without a treaty. But in the alternate, the Scottish prosecutors might be able to charge the crime locally, even though it happened in California, and impose a penalty as though the crime occurred in Scotland. But this greatly depends on whether Scots law specifically allows such charges.

In the case that it does, nexus would be what tilts the decision to do the trial under California law in California, or Scots law in Scotland. If the crime turns out to be an attempted murder in furtherance of the Scottish Mafia (??), then a Scots law trial would make more sense. But if it were an attempted murder of ex's new beau and all events relate to the north coast town of Fort Bragg, then a California trial would make more sense.

There’s already a form of punishment from visa requirements meaning if the defendant has a passport from a “third world” country: their travel movement is restricted making any potential vacations a headache, but that alone doesn’t work if the defendant has a strong passport

I'm not sure if this is a thing in the USA. If someone has fled the jurisdiction, and has not been tried in absentia, then they have not been convicted, merely that they're still wanted. If anything, the USA would actually be very willing to welcome them to the country in vacation, because the moment they step foot off the airplane, USA jurisdiction comes into full force and that person can be immediately arrested and charged with the crime, assuming the statue of limitations has not run out. And given that many felonies have their statue of limitations tolled (read: paused) when an assailant is beyond the territory, this is a definite risk for someone who might be wanted by state authorities. Per the Full Faith And Credit Clause of the US Constitution, an arrest warrant from any one state has the same effect as though it came from the local state. So sheriff's deputies at Orlando Airport (which serves Disney World) could not decline a California arrest warrant, if they would have acted on a Florida-issued arrest warrant for the same crime.

(As a side note, so-called sanctuary jurisdictions do not run afoul of the Full Faith And Credit Clause, because courts in those jurisdictions are prohibited from honoring certain orders from any court, whether within or without the state. So long as the sanctuary legislation prohibits giving effect to both local and out-of-state orders, there is no constitutional issue. There may be other issues, but not one premised in this Clause)

The USA does not have the power to invalidate the passport of a non USA Citizen or non USA National, but since USA airports do not have international zones, this effectively might deny that person from being able to transit via the USA, such as wanting to go on vacation from their new home in Scotland to Disneyland Tokyo via Dallas/Fort Worth airport.

the defendant hasn’t even been to the country in person where the crime took place but are considered a suspect due to their interactions with those on the ground who executed the crime in where it occurred.

In California and the USA at large, guilt by association is not a thing. If they have not been to the territory where the crime occurred, the courts are unlikely to have jurisdiction and venue, and it's a very weak argument for nexus. The exception would be if this person has specifically orchestrated the local crime, directing it so thoroughly beyond a mere tangential connection. There are, frankly, few crimes that will meet this bar, but terrorism, conspiracy, murder-for-hire are a few that come to mind. And even then, the burden on the prosecution will be to prove a specific intent to aid in a crime within this state, as opposed to a lesser intent.

Consider that ransomware attacks do not care about jurisdiction, and whether the victim is in California or Copenhagen doesn't really change the nature of the crime. Such remotely-operated crimes are usually not charged at a state-level but are done by USA federal prosecutors, for whom extraterritorial jurisdiction is much more commonly applied, especially for computer crimes that are pursued by international consortiums.

But even this would still require finding the assailant, figuring out how to get them to a venue that can apply meaningful jurisdiction, and securing a conviction. Sometimes going into hiding is indeed a viable way to avoid prosecutors, but that's hardly a way to live life.

TL;DR: it depends

For an explainer of the theory behind the "language modeling is compression" paper, this video by 3Blue1Brown is especially relevant: https://youtube.com/watch?v=l6DKRf-fAAM

Adding to the other comments, even when certain fruits can indeed be grown in places besides California, there's also the matter of infrastructure. Not specific to oranges, Pacific Fruit Express (PFE) supplied refrigerated train cars for long-haul distribution of fruits from California's Central Valley out to the East Coast. Because this was the early 20th Century before mechanical refrigeration was widely available, cooling had to be done using the same approach for centuries: ice.

In this regard, California was blessed with the Sierra Nevada mountain range, where water could be frozen into ice and then transported by rail on the now-Union Pacific transcontinental railroad to Sacramento and then down to the entire Central Valley for keeping food from spoiling during the long journey out east. The fact that these fruit-laden railcars had to go through the mountain pass again meant they could be topped up with more ice, and when the empty train car returned from the East Coast, it could carry ice back down to the Central Valley again. A virtuous cycle.

Basically, fruits not only need to be growable, but also the transportation infrastructure must exist. Sure, Florida also had railroads in the early 1900s but it was not really well connected to the rest of the Eastern Seaboard. As a side note, this is a contributing factor to the Confederacy's loss in the American Civil War, since different railroad gauges meant they had more difficulty mobilizing by rail, specifically for materiel. Whereas the industrialized North already used standard gauge everywhere for their mainline trains. So even if Florida did have standard gauge going into the 1900s, the different rail companies involved would not necessarily have had good enough relationships to easily schedule the necessary cargo trains to do a full run from Florida to the population centers up north. These are all frictions that never plagued the now-Union Pacific, which could run basically effortlessly from California to Chicago and eastward beyond. And of course, Florida is not known to have ice-making weather.

And now with an advantage of over a century, with the California fruit industry already built up, what would be the point to build up the same infrastructure but in Florida? It would be expensive and there's no need for it, not unless California is about to secede from the Union.

Technically yes. In fact, that's exactly what smartphones do when they operate as a wifi hotspot: packets come in from the mobile provider and are IP routed to the Wifi network, and vice versa. Whether this happens using Legacy IPv4 and NAT, or with prefix-delegation on IPv6, it's still routing.

Let's also not forget inheritance tax, which directly addresses the problem of hoarding wealth and perpetuating inequities across generations. If supposedly "self-made" people "earned" their billions, then their heirs should have no problems earning their own as well.

In California, property tax is adjusted annually regardless of which way it goes. But if it goes up, it is capped at 2% per year, due to Prop 13. If the assessed value drops, then the reduction in property tax is not limited.

As public policy, this has been devastating for local funding, being the primary means for funding local school districts in this state. When the education prospects of children are subjected to the whims of the wider economy and/or how hot (or not) the local property market is, this is a recipe for inequity: well-off areas are willing to tax themselves extra (beyond the Prop 13 2% cap) and get good schools for it. But poor areas cannot afford even the existing tax, because property tax is regressive and consumes a larger proportion of poorer household budgets. Meanwhile, the state abdicates its role in funding education, because they believe the locals would vote for more taxes for education, even though it's plainly obviously a Zip code lottery.

But I digress.

I believe you have the current meta understood, yes.

I know that most people actually get places by having stuff to show off e.g projects, clubs and GOOD GRADES

From what I've seen with how my company handles intern applicants, there are at least two different tracks: the first track is indeed people that have GPAs and coursework that is immediately impressive to any recruiter working on commissions. But the second track is where applicants make an impression to our engineers staffing the company's booth when on-site for career fairs.

My take is that engineers have a better gauge for aptitude and generally fitting-in with the company culture, miles above what an external recruiter or a company HR person could ever assess. This makes for higher quality interns, whom could later be offered a full position. And fortunately at my company, the process for assessing applicants from either track still ends up before an interview panel of technical people.

My advice then is that in tandem with a mass approach to resume distribution, also seek out in-person career fair opportunities. These opportunities won't exist after you've left uni, and it's a good way to both understand a prospective employer and also make a good, in-person impression. And if you do this, do brush up on exactly what those prospective companies work in, and put your most appealing strengths forward first. Even just asking them questions but using correct industry vocab is a differentiator.

Happy cake day btw!

Yes

Better to use an old architecture whose patents have expired, and implement it on a new, smaller process.

I'm not aware of any examples of an old architecture that was largely reused while ported to a new process, without requiring extensive redesigning of the analog components. Old processor architectures are a product of their day, making assumptions and decisions about the silicon paths that would be wholly invalidated if brought as-is to more-modern processes. It is nowhere near as simple as a copy/paste job of SystemVerilog or RTL.

To invest even one hour of design time to update, say, the 1970s Intel 4004 design (10 micrometer process) into the 2000s (130 nm) would be more expensive than just using RISC-V for free, which has already been fabricated using 22 nm, among other processes.

I can't say I've looked too much at RISC-V (yet), but someone once painted the following picture for me: if AMD and Intel are duking it out for supercomputers, while ARM works its way up to servers and down to microcontrollers, who serves the absolute smallest use-cases? As in, what if my whizz-bang product genuinely only needs a 300 Hz -- not MHz, not kHz -- processor to do some truly banal calculations? How can I possibly convince a silicon fab to build such a niche and tiny chip at scale?

In this context, scale would be however many could fit a single 300 mm wafer, and takes into account the fixed cost of the wafer itself, and then the price premium for smaller manufacturing process that would fit more chips onto the same wafer. At such low clock frequencies, the chip could be made using ancient lithography machines for dirt cheap.

But ARM would almost certainly not entertain the request to do consulting work for such an incredibly low-end chip, where the ARMv8 and v9 architectures would be vastly overpowered.

For these sorts of economically infeasible ideas, RISC-V brings to the table the possibility that some small-batch ASIC consulting firm would work with their customers to churn out some mindboggling processor designs. Because when the architecture is free (as in beer and as in speech), it releases the designers from constraints that today's designs must have.

some ominous comments stating that it is practically unmaintained (which is not true)

Objectively, I can see that the last commit to the default branch was in March 2026, and that the 10th newest commit was back in September 2025. Of these 10, 3 are new features and 6 are fixes and 1 is documentation. I also see in the issue tracker that no project developer replied to the two newest reports, which were reported 2 weeks and 2 months ago.

As a subjective opinion, the explanation that Conduit is essentially rock-solid and this doesn't need much upkeep or commits, that is just not credible. The Git history shows fixes and new features, but at a rate that averages just one commit per month. And some of those commits are literally one-line changes.

But let's suppose that the maintainers are uninterested in small UI or quality-of-life features, and only make changes when it crosses their threshold for what is "important" enough. That's a choice, sure, but let's see if that holds water. Here is the project's response to an issue opened in January, with the response being in February that confirms a logic bug and schedules it for the next release.

That was three months ago. No updates. No mentioned branches or PRs or merges. All while this bug remains in place. And that's understandable for FOSS project developers, for whom the project is not their day job.

But in any circumstances, the totality of the evidence does not inspire confidence, let alone a determination that Conduit is "rock solid". And that's even before looking at the code.

TL;DR: the premise of the question is wrong. Conduit is not maintained.