Jury nullification has never existed as a right in any common law system. It is merely a descriptive term that lawyers use to describe a situation where a jury decides to ignore the law. Lawyers cannot instruct juries on its existence because, in the law, it doesn't exist. It only ever happens because juries cannot be punished for deciding contrary to what the law says; their right to their own reasoning is sacrosanct.

It describes a situation where the jury ignores the law, and lawyers can never instruct juries to ignore the law, in any circumstance. Lawyers can never say "I know the law says X but if you ignore that, we can't punish you hint hint."

It is a term that describes a crinkle in the law. It does not exist as a right, and juries are NOT entitled to do it, but at the same time, they cannot be punished for doing so.

People who whine about jury nullification are one step below 'sovereign citizen' types in terms of driving me nuts with their willful misunderstanding of the law.

Wouldn't surprise me. We had a vendor whose product we had used at relatively reasonable rates for multiple years suddenly have a pricing model change. It would have seen our cost go from $10k/yr to $100k/yr. As a small nonprofit we tried to engage them in any sort of negotiation but the response was essentially a curt "too bad." Luckily a different vendor with a similar product was more than happy to take our $10k.

Personally I'm always more interested in the conspiracy behind the conspiracy. It is undeniably more likely that the Pentagon has, for some reason, started quietly pushing out things in this vein than it is that actual aliens are flying around. I'm very curious as to what their motivation might be.

There's a lot of evidence, for instance, that during the heyday of Area 51 they knew they had to get out in front of civilian sightings of odd aircraft, and that project bluebook was essentially them just cross referencing sightings with classified test flights. So I'm curious about what they might be trying to get ahead of here.

I'm ADHD-neurodivergent so I get the point here, but think of this phenomenon as verbal handshaking. The point isn't the subject matter of the conversation, it's everything else about the exchange. You could almost get the same effect just from spouting word salad at each other, the content doesn't matter. It's how people feel out others whom they don't know very well, with a lot of observation gathering going on. There's a social dance you typically need to go through before someone else will feel comfortable engaging you on a more personal level.

I worked as a lawyer for six years; there are extremely strict ethical and legal restrictions around sharing privileged information.

In most engineering professions, it's the engineer's responsibility to ensure appropriate levels of safety, not the CAD software used to build the blueprints. But every situation doesn't have the same level of safety required; backyard sheds don't have the same needs as skyscrapers.

In my worldview/self-understanding, having solid boundaries is a core requirement of living joyfully. You have to love yourself in order to live joyfully, and having & enforcing clear boundaries is a requirement of loving yourself (where love is used as an active verb). Allowing someone else -- a company or a person -- to violate your boundaries is not compatible with actualized self love.

The main goal is peaceful contentment regardless of what the world does. Pursuing happiness as in euphoria is a fool's errand. Euphoric feelings are not something we can ever generate on demand. Instead, the goal is to control what you can, which is only ever your response to the world.

There's a sense in which this feels selfish -- which it is, but that's okay. I would say one thing companies certainly do is try to make people feel guilty for prioritizing their own mental health and wellness. Don't let them do that. Having boundaries at work is not something to be guilty about. For instance, I do not work more than 40 hours in a week without abnormal extenuating circumstances. I've made that extremely clear to management. I've certainly had a supervisor or two try to push the envelope, but I just make sure to not let the envelope get pushed. That doesn't mean I'm not living joyfully or with empathy. I can enforce my boundary without getting defensive, guilty, angry, or any other negative feeling. In fact, I've found that me pushing back goes much more smoothly when I do so calmly and without anger or defensiveness.

By the way, no one's saying this is easy. What happens when a family member dies suddenly? No one in existence can prevent themselves from having an uncontrolled negative emotional reaction to tragedy. That's okay. Perfection is not the goal, just continual improvement.

I'm a musician & amateur home producer, and this extreme approach of yours is exactly what I recommend to people (and what I do myself) to overcome the feeling of "I can't get started because what I start on sounds bad and I have an overwhelming fear of making something that sounds bad." Turning it on its head by purposefully trying to make the cliched, trite, and generally whack song I can, can be immensely freeing.

I haven't seen any reduction in demand for devs in my region, but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't coming.

But plastic entering the environment is forever there. The very concept of single-use plastics is anathema to the environmental movement. I think any article that encourages their usage is suspect. For instance, this is exactly the sort of piece I could see being pushed by Keurig PR.

> benefits could be lost if their convenience encourages two cups instead of one

Who is only drinking a single cup of coffee? When we stay at my parents' house, what would have been a single pot of coffee becomes six or more single use plastic cups going into the trash.

Beyond that, it also forces me to think structurally from the start. But I tend to be working on rather complex applications, I almost certainly wouldn't use a static lang for data processing or similar tasks.

> It feels a lot like the people who used to try to convince everyone functional programming was the only way to go and object-oriented programming was for dinosaurs.

What do you mean "used to"?? Haha