I've written at least hundreds of thousands of lines of Java code in my career, possibly over a million. I used to be extremely fast at building new features when I worked on a MLOC Java app I'd architected from the ground up. A huge percentage of the characters in that code were not typed by me, but were generated by my IDE.
Did I have an unfair advantage compared to the guys who were trying to get by using Notepad and the commandline?
I don't understand why Texas voters support such inhumane conditions. All these "Christians" who support this kind of cruel punishment need to have a "come to Jesus" moment, literally.
It's because Texas is the OG of human suffering. Texas gave up territory than end slavery: This is why Oklahoma looks so weird (the "panhandle"). After the so-called Missouri compromise, in order to remain a slave-state, Texas gave up that piece of land. Also, Texas declared independence not once, but twice, to remain a slave state. First, from Mexico: "Many Anglo-American settlers were from the southern United States and brought enslaved workers, using legal loopholes like indentured servitude to bypass Mexican restrictions against slavery. They feared Mexico would abolish the practice entirely". And then, famously, of course, fighting to remain independent during the Civil War.
Your point is valid, but it is worth noting that the panhandle territory was a notoriously inhospitable place to try and exist (for European settlers at least, who called it "no mans land"), so it wasn't like Texas was giving up a gem, none of the surrounding states wanted it.
Texas ceded said land to another state, what they viewed as another nation, such that they could keep the practice of human ownership alive and well. The quality of the land is immaterial to this statement, let alone noteworthy
I disagree, I think it adds context that the political climate of the time was more complicated and involved than the original point. It was a place where you couldn't farm and were under constant attack, during that time.
That's why I added the context about European settlers, it was the States that were drawing the lines and they labeled it "no man's land", look into the history of Beaver County.
There is so much nuance with this. On the one hand, Texas has hot enough days where it is inhumane/dangerous to not have A/C. But also plenty of days that are hot, but bearable. There are plenty of citizens not in prison that live without AC and make due with fans. HVAC systems are ridiculusly expensive. $1.5 billion is about $10K a person. Too bad they can't just give each prisoner a window unit for $200 a piece.
> $1.5 billion is about $10K a person. Too bad they can't just give each prisoner a window unit for $200 a piece.
The former almost certainly includes other installation part, utility, and labor costs. Even if you could give everyone a $200 window unit, you'd need to deliver, install, upgrade utilities, maintain them, etc.
Fans have no cooling effect once the ambient temperature exceeds human body temperature, so "making do with fans" is literally making do with nothing.
Those citizens "making do" generally have freedom of movement, free access to cool water, air-conditioned businesses or vehicles, and are not locked down in a concrete facility.
Please take 5 seconds to fact check yourself with a very quick query against your information source of choice.
Over ~95 degrees, a fan blowing on a human acts as a convection oven, increasing body temperature while dehydrating the body.
This is greatly exacerbated in extreme heat.
CDC guidance is to avoid using a fan in extreme heat conditions unless it is combined with a cooling source and careful hydration. Once again, not exactly an option in a Texas prison.
You don't get to decide who is and isn't a "true" Christian when all it takes is to believe in Jesus' death and resurrection, which even the Prosperity Gospel Christians and Christian Nationalists do.
God does. Judging by their actions and the hate they show towards their neighbors, I get to draw the conclusion they’re not following Jesus Christ’s teachings or the Bible.
Just because these people don't worship or believe the same things as your sect of christianity does not stop them from believing in the teachings of Christ. They just don't agree with you while holding positions of power.
Prosperity gospel is a real thing too, also the fastest sect of christianity growing in the world.
Just because people don't follow the teachings of Christ doesn't mean they don't believe in the teachings of Christ? Hey, what did Jesus have to say about hypocrites?
> Prosperity gospel is a real thing too, also the fastest sect of christianity growing in the world.
Which goes to show you the state of Christianity today. Pretty sad.
Yup! I was raised evangelical and the pastors would brush away this passage as not being translated accurately where they would twist it to justify why you needed to give more money to the church because in the next life you'd be rewarded with riches.
~30% of people are wired to feel others' suffering constitutes a 'win', even at cost to the themselves as long as they're suffering less than their counterparty. Add in selection effects and it's pretty clear such people could coentrate in particular industries.
Just because something happens doesn't mean that its intentional. I think this is really a byproduct of having no one that stands up for the injustice. Who is the voice for people in prison? No one wants to take credit for family members that are there and the ones that get out usually struggle to get back on their feet let alone drive change in the system.
I think another good example of this is through public infrastructure. Look at any poor neighborhood in a city and look how little public infrastructure is invested in those areas. Usually big busy roads with no sidewalks, crosswalks, etc. The city doesn't hate those areas, it's just that the people that live in those areas aren't effective (or unable) to lobby elected officials to invest. Also there is a little bit of a self fulfilling prophecy with lack of investment causing less businesses to want to invest, etc.
This is an excuse for Christians behaving like animals by racing to the bottom, you consistently overstate how evil people are for reasons beyond me.
> Take away the shame that normally keeps it in check and people's bloodlust rises to the surface
Let me guess, the anti-christ is right around the corner, Peter.
> It is a rare person who chooses to deny themselves pleasure on moral grounds
No, it isn't. This person is average among us, they are rare among the elites and politicians. You don't need to paint others poorly because of your own self-image nor is it productive to do so
It was average people who attacked My Lai, and only one pilot did anything to stop it.
Most people do not usually want to do evil things and are usually repelled from doing them by feelings of shame or obligation. The moment the average person feels a desire for violence and will not be condemned for seeking it, they are as bloodthirsty as a serial killer. The constraints on people are emotional, not moral.
>People are cruel to prisoners because they enjoy being cruel to prisoners
I don't enjoy being cruel to convicted criminals. I would much prefer they not commit crime, and that there be no need for the punishment.
>especially given that free will is inconceivable;
I too, have no free will in the matter. I am just a clockwork mechanism, operating as the random universe has not only ordained, but I cannot operate otherwise. Coincidentally, the nature of my mechanism makes me immune to your arguments, and no change in behavior is forthcoming. Fun, huh?
>mass incarceration and poor prison conditions seem to increase crime
Statistics say otherwise. Crime is down across the board the last few decades.
>If we are to have prisons, let's be honest about why they exist: people like them.
I agree. I like criminals being locked away from the rest of us.
>I too, have no free will in the matter. I am just a clockwork mechanism, operating as the random universe has not only ordained, but I cannot operate otherwise. Coincidentally, the nature of my mechanism makes me immune to your arguments, and no change in behavior is forthcoming. Fun, huh?
I don't understand what point you think you're proving. Yes, your actions were determined by the laws of physics based on factors outside your control. This implies that it is incoherent to condemn you as a person for an immoral action because you could not have behaved differently. It does not imply that your actions are good or that you should behave the way you do.
I disagree with you and think you are being obstinate. You should change those things. But I don't think you should be caused to suffer, even though you are guilty of causing others to suffer.
>Statistics say otherwise. Crime is down across the board the last few decades.
Look at Figure 1 in this paper and tell me you see a correlation:
Perhaps I overstated the case somewhat. The evidence is that mass incarceration in certain jurisdictions increases crime. But overall, the notion that mass incarceration is one of our best tools against crime is wrong. It is not very effective, very expensive, has deleterious effects on communities, and is cruel. And the notion that mass incarceration is an important tool is so thoroughly debunked by now that I think it's fair to call it an excuse.
I'd like for conditions that lead to people not feeling the need to become criminals in the first place.
Which means, housing first, end the war on drugs, provide access to mental and physical healthcare, provide a reasonable living minimum wage and some sort of UBI for those that fall through the cracks.
He's telling you that so you'll quiet down about the economic destruction even half-assed AI promises to wreak. But that same AI will end up powering the anti-personnel drones when you realize the UBI isn't coming.
Oh, you didn't read the AI savior sarcasm. Or realize he's already back tracked on that.
Anyone that's actually worked a day in their life knows it's all bullshit. Yet Texans keep being the gullible voters they are, giving Sam, Dario, Elon, Mark, and Trump's kids everything they want while their own communities suffer more and more.
>I don't understand why Texas voters support such inhumane conditions.
I'm in Texas. I'm a little confused as to why you think I should care. For those wrongly convicted, I don't want them to get air-conditioning in prison... and for those correctly convicted, I'm not especially worried about making them more comfortable.
The entire point of punishment is the cruelty. It doesn't really work without it... it's unclear if you're quibbling over the amount of cruelty, or if you think that there exists some sort of cruelty-free punishment that the rest of us just haven't heard of.
And here I was thinking that prisons should be about keeping people who can't operate in society without damaging society away from society. I mean, even better would be to find a way to help them operate in society, but apparently we're not even all at the baseline.
1. Even correct convictions can later be found to be wrong. Death is irreversible and financially restituting someone's death can never benefit one wrongfully killed.
2. Unless death is the sentence, a sentence should not result in death. If you don't closely control and monitor when the state can do something, it increases the risk of misuse of that power by the state.
3. If cruelty and punishment really worked, crime would decrease over time, not increase.
4. The AC can be set to 75. That's not luxury but won't kill anyone with heatstroke.
> For those wrongly convicted, I don't want them to get air-conditioning in prison
What a remarkable thing to write. Even knowing that some innocent people are there, you want them to suffer the risk of death and severe harm from heat.
>What a remarkable thing to write. Even knowing that some innocent people are there,
I don't want them in prison at all. You, you're apparently satisfied (somehow?) that they get air conditioning. And you think I'm the psychopath. Something's seriously wrong with you. Leftism, not even once.
I think there's a basic floor for how we should treat other people, regardless of the circumstances. Things like access to food and water, shelter, etc.
I'm going to disagree that the point of prison (as punishment) is cruelty. It absolutely can work without it, but I'll recognize this is nuanced and there are likely those that can't be rehabilitated effectively.
>I'm going to disagree that the point of prison (as punishment) is cruelty. It absolutely can work without it,
This is an absurd claim. How does punishment work without cruelty? Remember, that I allow for people to disagree on the quantity of cruelty (supposing that can be quantified)... so you're proposing cruelty-free punishment. This misses the entire point of what punishment is. Perhaps your reading comprehension is faulty, and you confuse the word with "rehabilitation". I see that alot.
>but I'll recognize this is nuanced and there are likely those that can't be rehabilitated effectively.
Hah! I hadn't even read that sentence yet when I wrote the above! Damn I'm good. Rehabilitation is science fiction. No one has even ever proposed a theory on how or why it's supposed to happen, let alone engineered a method to induce it to occur. On reddit, these conversations are often hilarious, but maybe here on Hackernews it will be glorious. Why do you think you need to do to cause a violent criminal to rehabilitate? If the method is performed diligently, what percentage of violent criminals rehabilitate, and what sort of timeline are we talking? Why do the failures (and let's be honest, there are failures in every manufacturing process) fail? Can these be sorted out beforehand?
But at the end of the day, there is still a big problem. Justice is what society promises to the victims so that they will refrain from revenge; the state must carry out the revenge for them. It does so for several reasons: to discourage eternal feuds, to ensure that the correct culprit is targeted, and to avoid normally nonviolent people from growing accustomed to violence. To satisfy their monkey need for vengeance in the most civilized manner possible. If you fail to satisfy it, then these people are obligated to do it themselves. Rehabilitation alone can't substitute, even if it were possible. For the lesser criminals, incarceration suffices. For those more depraved, we don't want them rehabilitated. It serves no need at all.
My mother spanked me when I misbehaved. She caused real pain as punishment.
It was never cruel.
Punishment and cruelty are not equivalent.
Please note, I am not in favor of spanking children, and never spanked mine.
Now as to your final point, that justice is the state taking revenge on behalf of the victims. I replied to you above that I see the validity of this, and for the same reasons you give (discourage eternal feuds). And for those same reasons Justice is restraint. At most equivalent harm, no more than an eye for an eye.
I think it was your anger that made you say these ethics we both share are bullshit rules designed to hurt your family.
Now in the current case, for that point to stand, we need to ensure that the prisoners have in fact harmed identifiable others. Google tells me "Roughly 40% of inmates in Texas prisons are incarcerated for non-violent offenses". Thus 40% of the time, there is no cause for vengeance.
And where prison is vengeance, if it is just, it needs to be restrained. Not cruel. Not unusual. Just as punishment is not cruelty, justice is not cruelty.
For other readers, as I mentioned above, while I see a valid ethical stance behind NoMoreNicksLeft's anger and hurt, I do not share it. I seek mercy, and as for Justice, "Justice is mine sayeth the Lord"-- in other words, I leave it to God. I find it sick that the US, the "land of the free" has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Look, I've had bad interactions with bonafide unredeemable unrehabilitable psychopaths, and I'd like to see such people locked up for life. But I do not wish them cruelty beyond the innate cruelty of life behind bars.
Then that's what they should have written. Leaving it ambiguous gives us the opportunity to take someone who says cruelty is the point at their word, though. They want people to suffer, they are a sadist.
That's a pretty messed up morality. I don't even know where to start on this one.
How do you align this with "to do what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."
Its also messed up ethics.
The purpose of having the government administer punishment for crime is to prevent vendetta. And from the first time this ever came up it came up as the government saying justice should be balanced. "eye for an eye" == "Punishment fits the crime"
>How do you align this with "to do what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."
I'm an atheist. There is no god nor gods. But if I had to have a god, I don't think I'd choose one of the abrahamic ones. There are many to choose from who aren't big on mercy.
>Its also messed up ethics.
I don't accept your ethical framework. It's a system of bullshit rules made up by people who care for me not even a little to put me and my family at a disadvantage against a civilization that doesn't even want to go on living.
>The purpose of having the government administer punishment for crime is to prevent vendetta.
Then you're doing it wrong. It can only prevent vendetta if the victims feel as if they receive justice... if those who do wrong are punished. If you remove the punishment/cruelty from the equation, they will simply do that part themselves. Unless you're hoping to emasculate and disarm them so thoroughly that they have no hope of doing so... but I guess that was the ethics stuff you were talking about above.
Ok, so as an athiest, could you do what is right, love mercy, and walk humbly with your beliefs?
Your comment on which god you might choose suggest you are not a fan of mercy. Have you ever made a mistake and wished for mercy for yourself? Have you ever received forgiveness that maybe you didn't think was deserved, if even only from you family?
I can agree with you that justice calls for punishment in response to a harm, and thus harming the person who caused the first harm. And if one considers any intentional harm to another as cruelty, then yes, "the purpose of punishment is cruelty". However, justice also limits the cruelty. The earliest example is "an eye for an eye"-- because the prior system was "a death for an eye" or "I burn your village for an eye", and Hammurabi saw that this lead to endless blood feuds. Vendetta, i.e. you hurt me so now I cause you and your family as much pain as I possibly can, that is not justice.
In fact, I was taking your side in this argument. Many others talk about prison as rehabilitation and keeping society safe, totally dropping the psychological need of the victim for some sense of vengeance. And while I agree with those others, and prefer to leave the vengeance to God rather than to the prison system, I took your side and legitimized the victims need for vengeance.
I am sorry that you have such anger that you saw this as bullshit rules from someone who doesn't care for you and wants to disadvantage you.
>Ok, so as an athiest, could you do what is right, love mercy, and walk humbly with your beliefs?
What has caused you to conclude that any of those things are right? Mercy, benefit of doubt, leniency... these are for the remorseful. We live in a society that doesn't even seem to know that word.
>However, justice also limits the cruelty.
Within reason. Haven't seen much evidence that we currently need to limit it. This isn't 1700s England where anyone is getting the noose for stealing loaves of bread.
Show me some excessive punishment, I might agree with you. "They have to live with the summer heat like everyone had to do so, convicts and the innocent alive, until 70 years ago" just isn't excessive.
Rehabilitation has never really been the point of the US prison or even correctional system at all.
The fact you can serve your time, earnestly work on rehabilitating yourself, jump through all the hoops, etc. but still be under the economic death sentence more or less summarizes how people feel about it.
It’s basically NIMBY applied to the justice system. Everyone loves to pretend they want rehabilitation but also wants someone else to do it. This shows up in hiring, apartment leasing, social benefits, etc.
>Everyone loves to pretend they want rehabilitation but also wants someone else to do it.
People on the left love to pretend this, perhaps. Those of us on the right make no such pretense. It's about punishment, sequestration, and deterrence in that order. Rehabilitation doesn't even enter our minds.
Why do you pretend? It wouldn't surprise anyone if you were to just be honest and that you don't care about rehabilitation either, it's rather that you don't want a justice system at all. We all know that already. There's no reason to hide it.
Why do you continue to pay taxes for private for-profit prisons?
If you don't see value in the U.S. Constitution and providing human beings a chance at reformation, you should advocate for killing falsely convicted criminals before they enter prision and die of inhumane conditions. Wouldn't that be more efficient for your worldview?
I'd love to see a "murder any criminal" bill named for you. I think you would too, so go for it!
>Why do you continue to pay taxes for private for-profit prisons?
Taxes weren't optional last I checked.
>If you don't see value in the U.S. Constitution
Which part of the Constitution is it that guarantees air conditioning? Did I miss an amendment?
>and providing human beings a chance at reformation
Everyone has not only the choice at reformation, if they choose poorly there's always another opportunity to do so later that day. To do so the next morning. If they have to be bribed for that with air conditioning or anything else, they're as far from it as any human can possibly be.
You have a right to advocate for how your taxes are used. Advocate for killing white-collar criminals before they reach prision, and then closing unused prisions, if saving taxpayer money is the only thing that matters to you. Maybe you'll find enough supporters for your cause to make capital punishment a mandatory alternative to prision for all convicted white-collar felons, like future offenders along the lines of Ghislaine Maxwell and Donald J. Trump.
For those in prision today, they can't be rehabilitated if they're dead due to heat stroke caused by cruel and unreasonable 115 degree heat.
As someone in Texas, who also donates large sums of money every year to the Innocence Project, I kind of understand their position even though I think they have written it poorly. I want anyone wrongfully convicted freed and compensated, and I want our justice system to be better at ascertaining guilt rather than using plea deals improperly to imprison people wrongly. I also want our prisons to be places where we take every reasonable action to preserve the lives of the prisoners, including for sure having air-conditioning.
But I also fully understand the point of prison is /punishment/, which is why it's such a severe injustice when someone is punished when they have not committed the crime. Prison is not supposed to be pleasant and comfortable, and we should take every action to preserver prisoner's lives specifically in order to ensure that they can serve their complete sentences, upon the assumption of fair adjudication. Without clear, just, punishment within society, we will revert to vigilantism and chaos.
The core ethical/moral complexity here to me is not about treatment of prisoners, its about how people become prisoners in the first place in the state of Texas. In Texas we have a long history of racist practices in policing, in the courts, and the use of coercive plea deal structures that have resulted in many people being wrongfully convicted. As long as that situation stands, it would be clearer to argue that nobody should be imprisoned at all, but that's also not a reasonable argument. As long people are being imprisoned, we should ensure they are rightfully convicted and understand that prison is a punishment, and that we should preserve prisoner's lives and health so that they can experience whatever just punishment has been meted out by society for the harm they have caused through their choices and actions.
At the same time prison shouldn't be deadly. 85F versus 110F is the difference between uncomfortable and death.
>Without clear, just, punishment within society, we will revert to vigilantism and chaos.
The problem is this doesn't really seem to have any relation to the punishment. In the US we love to think that beating someone to a pulp has a strong effect on their future actions that lead to the beating but redactivism rates do not show any strong correlations here at all. Things like education, living conditions, and wealth are far more correlated.
> At the same time prison shouldn't be deadly. 85F versus 110F is the difference between uncomfortable and death.
Fully agreed. There absolutely should be air conditioning in prisons in Texas. We need to preserve prisoners lives and health using all reasonable means so that they can receive their just punishment via their sentence.
Of note, however, there are /schools/ in Texas that lack working air conditioning due to mismanagement and underfunding, which I find a far more egregious and wrong circumstance.
> The problem is this doesn't really seem to have any relation to the punishment. In the US we love to think that beating someone to a pulp has a strong effect on their future actions that lead to the beating but redactivism rates do not show any strong correlations here at all. Things like education, living conditions, and wealth are far more correlated.
Agreed, punishment does not help with recidivism rates. You're making a rehabilitation argument. That argument might even be reasonable. That is not why prison in the US exists or how they are operated. They are a form of punishment, that is their purpose in our society.
> But I also fully understand the point of prison is /punishment/... Prison is not supposed to be pleasant and comfortable...
I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which you present your view, and also see it's validity-- that one purpose of prison is for the government to take a measured and limited 'revenge' for the victims of harm. Where the alternative is blood feuds.
Thus prison should not be comfortable, for those rightfully convicted of crimes involving harm TO OTHERS.
But by this same line, that the government's actions should be measured and limited. Prison should not be cruel, nor should the punishments be unusual.
> But by this same line, that the government's actions should be measured and limited. Prison should not be cruel, nor should the punishments be unusual.
Fully agreed, which is why I make the point that air conditioning isn't a question, of course a prison in Texas should have air conditioning. The 8th Amendment makes this pretty clear, that cruel and unusual punishments are disallowed, as they should be. The punishment is and should be the prison sentence itself.
Chained filter and map don't necessarily iterate multiple times. They certainly can but depending on how things are built they very often run as a single loop with the operations chained.
I’ll never understand this mentality. The Houthis commit human rights violations. We’re here talking about the Houthis.
We’re not talking about Israel’s war crimes, or America’s war crimes, or Japan’s war crimes, or China’s war crimes, or Cambodia’s war crimes, or Germany’s war crimes, or Britain’s, or Armenia’s, or North Korea’s, South Korea’s, Italy’s, or actually any other country’s.
So why do you think we shouldn’t condemn the Houthis?
I have read but not verified that washing with water is about as effective as with soap at removing bacteria from hands. Having soap on your hands forces you to get all the soap off, which requires touching more skin surface.
I also remember reading this - that unless there is oil and grease which requires soap to remove, then water alone is effective. At the time it seemed to me it was somewhere fairly reputable. From memory, the idea was that soap reduced the friction, and actually might lessen the effectiveness. I think it wasn't comparing best-practice handwashing with and without soap, but focused instead on the kind of handwashing that people actually do.
Hard to find anything on it now, and I understand soap was particularly effective against SARS-CoV-2 compared to water alone (can I just call it the COVID-19 virus?) so it looks like the idea is mostly gone now.
This is exactly how our letters came about - 'A' originally was written sideways and represented an ox head, but now everybody just knows it as a letter.
Did I have an unfair advantage compared to the guys who were trying to get by using Notepad and the commandline?
reply