- 0 Posts
- 7 Comments
Zozano@aussie.zoneto Showerthoughts@lemmy.world•Lemmy is a tech literate echo chamberEnglish18·5 days agoFor the past month I’ve been developing a NixOS platform for local businesses.
I keep overestimating how much people know. It’s infuriating trying to wrap my mind around the fact that I don’t need to explain why it’s amazing, just that it is, and it works. I feel like I’m Mugatu talking to Zoolander at times.
Even if I could perfectly analogise what a declarative operating system is, it wouldn’t matter to a client because they don’t understand how a non NixOS machine works.
Though, the worst part is trying to explain to someone, who is “happy with Windows” why they should not be.
How the fuck do people in 2025 not fucking loathe Windows? There’s fucking ads in the start menu. There’s like 4 different places to change settings. The systems bloat and slow to a crawl as the OS ages.
It’s fucked.
Zozano@aussie.zoneto Showerthoughts@lemmy.world•We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.English234·10 days agoAccusing me of misogyny because I pointed out a basic legal fact is a cheap dodge. You’re not arguing in good faith, you’re hiding behind identity politics to avoid admitting you’re wrong.
My point was clear: not all sworn testimony is admissible by default. That’s a factual statement about how evidence works in court. It’s completely independent of gender.
Saying “I’m talking about real cases” doesn’t change anything. Of course some testimony gets admitted. That’s not the issue. The issue is that being sworn in doesn’t bypass evidentiary rules. Judges evaluate relevance, hearsay, and competence. Period.
If you want to talk law, then talk law. If you want to talk ideology, then you’re changing the subject.
Zozano@aussie.zoneto Showerthoughts@lemmy.world•We wouldn’t need the Epstein files to prove DJT’s guilt if society just trusted women in the first place.English254·10 days agoNot true.
Not all witness testimony under oath is admissible.
Just because someone is under oath doesn’t mean their testimony is automatically allowed in court. There are rules of evidence (like hearsay, relevance, competence, etc.) that still apply.
Testimony under oath can be evidence, but it’s not automatically admissible. Courts have strict filters for what testimony gets presented to a jury. Being under oath isn’t a magic pass.
Zozano@aussie.zoneto World News@lemmy.world•Ozzy Osbourne, Black Sabbath frontman and icon of British heavy metal, dies aged 76English1·12 days agoThe bat?
I also watched the video in question. Pretty entertaining. CONEY is delightfully sarcastic.