i don't want it to be part of the document because it's implicit

i was just talking the other day to someone about how it's a bit weird the way that interfaces in #golang are implicitly satisfied... there is some other features of the language that work the same way, and avoid complexity... like, Go actually uses semicolon statement separators, but they are implied by newlines except after a small set of specific operators, comma, infix operators, so you don't have to remember them, one of the most annoying things about C/C++/etc

the document has headers, the headers are structure, the parser can scan the headers and voila, table of contents.

in actual fact, also, you probably didn't know this but in the top right of the document viewer, also even if markdown, github has a menu of the - same thing - as the TOC

i have also been using an interesting asciidoc plugin for intellij that is based on ascidoctor and JCEF... it has a top bar that stacks up your current header level and the next levels up from it directly (sorta like a series of back buttons with further context)

the editor doesn't sync the position between the two but it does jump the editor if you click on a header to the header you clicked on the preview

just the fact that it can automatically have a proper ToC is big for me, because a document that is more than a few screenfuls without an index is really troublesome to navigate, and hyperlinking can introduce other problems, though it does make side-by-side stuff easier, that is more important for editing than viewing anyway

That's all correct AFAIK. And I might be wrong. A defensive strategy depends on the prosecutions strategy, and if they disclose how they disprove it, that gives the prosecution a chance to find a different way of proving the accusation. Maybe they should be required to have one strategy and stick to it and not have iterative back and forth attempts... Yeah, I think I'm wrong.

I doubt the supreme court will rule on that point, they will rule on something else.

I don't know for sure, but I thought the principle was that the plaintiff needs to disclose a strategy, because the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and then the defendant can act accordingly. If it were not for the plaintiff's action, there would be no court case, no waste of funds, etc.

Putting this particular case aside, and even the details of this rule, IMHO it is best if all parties are as forthright and upfront as possible. Justice moves faster and wastes less public funds when neither side hides their strategy. If you hide a strategy, when it eventually comes out, the other side should have the right to delay the case as long as it takes for them to prepare a proper response to it. And that just delays things far too long.

I can't rule on the particulars of this rule and possibly it's misapplication. I'm making a general statement about how things ought to be.

As for whether Storm should use any legal tricks that benefit him, of course he should. He is not in a position to opine on how justice should operate like I am. His position is a position of defense.

Tariffs are taxes on the poor, disguised as patriotism.

Deepseek R1 671B is quite good!

Comes up with accurate and useful information.

Unfortunately no web search in venice yet.

gm

Dear Nostr,

I ask this question not as a judge of people who embrace the term "value for value" exchange—no chosen turns of phrase will ever perfectly represent reality. I ask because I often observe how the shorthand we use in language, even if created to express shared ideas more concisely, can come also, in time, to represent moral posturing. Also, the question is not intended as a denigration of the idea of profiting.

My experience in many domains is that people and groups are rarely, if ever, trying to execute value for value (or win-win) exchanges. If you're trying to "profit", you're explicitly trying to gain more in energy and resources than you give away in energy and resources, even if this difference is come by indirectly (i.e. costs experienced by "someones" or "somethings" unknown to you in the entire chain of resources.)

This idea of "profit" seems similar to how wild animals and organisms use some kind of advantage they have over other animals and organisms, which, in turn, leads to their ongoing survival in the wild.

If the above are accurate, are terms like "value-for-value" and "win-win" closer to virtue signaling than accurate descriptions for what is taking place? Would a terms like "direct exchange" or "straight trade" be more honest and correct?

All thoughtful responses are appreciated, regardless of length.

Sincerely,

Alison

#bitcoin #nostr #asknostr #grownostr #plebchain #v4v #btc #bitcoiners #psychology #nosterplebs #finance

What are the actual odds of this happening?

Same

No, it expands the note area. The left bar used to be twice as wide. The bottom bar is just a sliver.