This post deals exclusively with the notion that there is not one single reasonable doubt that Brendan committed the actual crime of murder, and is not intended to refute the idea he might have been involved in the murder but was definitely at least involved in the aftermath (the "he's at least guilty of something" theory).

First of all, the major piece of evidence is his alleged confession. However, everyone on the sub should be aware that false confessions do occur. Brendan's age, his documented learning disability, and the manner in which he was treated all played a role. Some might say paid experts are just hired guns who say anything, but it's not rational to read an article by a neutral third party such as this and still say there is no reasonable doubt at all about the validity of the information. And it's not like that's just two people's unpopular opinion, is it?

Add in Brendan's inability to describe details of the crime known only to the police or originate any leads that were later verified, and the answer is clear: Brendan's confession alone cannot provide the basis of a beyond reasonable doubt conclusion, without arbitrarily declaring a ton of expert knowledge to be flatly wrong. That cannot be said to be a rational approach.

What about the alleged confession to his mom? Even if you ignore all the problems with that, he only confesses to "some of it" being true. There is nothing at all that indicates he committed murder as opposed to accessory after the fact.

The same with the alleged confession to his cousin. Again, even ignoring all the problems I don't recall there being anything in any of that which specified the actual murder as opposed to the cleanup.

Additionally, all the weight of the evidence has Brendan at home playing video games until evening. Between the statements of Fabian and Earl, statements of Dassey family members, phone calls with Jodi, and the call with Brendan's brother's boss, everything points to Brendan being with Avery around a loose estimate 7 to 9 window.

Now remember during this window Brendan allegedly scrubs a pool of blood not once, not twice, but three times over. And they had to drive over the yard not just to get all the rubbish Avery admitted to collecting, but tires too. They also had to get the fire going

I am 30F, in a relationship with a 29M. We started out as friends and eventually started dating close to 2 years now. We are both responsible, emotionally very connected and really respect each other.

But our sex life is non-existent. I have tried to initiate it multiple times. But it seems he is simply not interested. I have pointed this issue out a multiple times. At first he said, he’s not comfortable getting intimate knowing that there’s someone else in the next room (my flatmate). Which was a legit reason.

And now he has moved into his own place. Again the same thing has happened. When asked he said that his work has been too hectic lately and he can’t focus on anything else. I think of these things as excuses to actually avoid talking about the real problem.

• I have asked him if he’s even attracted to me physically, and he says yes.
• I have asked him he’s not interested in sex/ intimacy in general. But he says he is

He has asked him for some time to sort his work life so that he can focus on us. I want to believe him, but I have my doubts. This is making me an irritable person. And that’s not how I used to be.

I do not wish to go into any form of legal commitment/ marriage without knowing this aspect. But he says that the next guy I date, could be really good in bed, but not a nice person. He says that sex is not a priority in a relationship. While I do agree to that somewhat, I don’t think a total absence of it would be ideal for me either.

In my culture, once a girl is 30. She is pretty much treated like “milk can which is close to its expiration date”. So I’m kinda scared that there won’t be anyone else for me. All of this, plus the fact that I’m Overweight have added to my body image issues.

Does anyone have any advice for me? Thank you for letting me rant.

So, I am fairly sure this concept exists, but can't for the love of all find the name for it, and any references. And it goes like this:

Say we have rational numbers. The defining thing is ratio - each is a ratio of naturals, and, it follows, ratio of every two of them is also a rational number.

Imagine you take the set of all rational numbers, and multiply it by e. Now they are all irrational obviously, but in a sense, "amongst themselves" they're kinda rational, as every ratio between them is still rational.

We can imagine other such multiplications, say to square roots, cube roots, pi, ... and for every other kind of irrational number - let's call them rational-like.

It seems intuitive, that if you have "enough" of those, their unification would get you real numbers.

And you could describe this collection of sets by taking only one number from each of ratinal-like sets of numbers: The point being that this "sample" would "capture all irrationality" in real numbers, so that to get all real numbers, you just have to multiply this sample by ratinal numbers.

How is this "sample" thing called, or maybe how is called something closely related to start my search? I heard about this in some kind of lesson/lecture long ago, and pretty sure its a thing.

P.s. topology, cuz the set theory is as abstract to me as topology)

>Would each of us not rather have felt so much pity for the coming generation as to prefer to spare it the burden of existence, or at least not wish to take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood? For the world is hell, and men (humanity) are on the one hand the tormented souls and on the other the devils in it.

Human exceptionalism is the idea that humans, compared to all other species, are special and more deserving than other animals of moral, philosophical, and legal consideration. But what I'm interested in more specifically is the idea that humans have a monopoly on logic/reason/whatever other goalpost cognitive feat.

Disclaimer: I'm not really an animal rights person. I've written a tiny bit on the subject of lab animal regulations, but I've never called for an end to it or anything. I eat meat, don't go out of my way (as I probably should) to find out where my meat and animal products come from, etc. I am a comparative psychologist, and in response to a shift in attitude in my area, I now feel the burden is on others to prove that the human brain is actually special in comparison to other species.

The null hypothesis in science is typically that there are no differences between groups. Human exceptionalism violates that by setting humans apart from non-humans. That's not how the burden of proof is supposed to work. It's a really old logical error that we keep repeating.

I get that there are some things that humans clearly do better than other animals. We made it to the moon and had an industrial revolution and all that. But at the same time some humans were doing all this, other humans with the exact same brain were chilling in huts and making the same simple tools they had for tens of thousands of years, because why not?

Anybody who follows even pop-science levels of animal cognition literature are probably aware that for every cognitive feat humans once claimed as uniquely human, there are now several known challenges from the animal kingdom that show otherwise. It's to the point that it seems silly that we ever thought that one brain would be fundamentally different than any other brains. Brains do what brains do. Brains learn and reason and plan and think.

The difference here is in degree. I know of no emergent property of a larger brain that makes humans somehow special. But hey, if you have reason to think otherwise, I'm all ears.

EDIT: Since it keeps coming up in the comments, language as communication is an ability, but many animals have this ability. Languages, as humans use them, are a technology, like the internet or stone tools. That's not really what we're talking about as far as the human brain being somehow fundamentally different than an animal brain.

1. The ethic of reciprocity can be positive ("do unto other as you have them do unto you") or negative ("don't do unto others that you don't want done to you"). The positive is nice but the negative is the bare minimum.
2. I know this sub isn't an ethics subreddit per se, but the question of "by what basis outside of religion do you think doing X is wrong?" comes up enough that I thought this might be worth discussing here. Often, the non-religionist will say "morality is subjective", but i think we can at least have a clear system
3. This maxim does show up in many religions but it need not be divinely sourced to be a good rule. It can stand alone. Also, it first shows up in Ancient Egypt around 1850 so unless you worship the goddess Ma'at, you can't claim it solely for your religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Ancient_Egypt
4. There are edge cases where it might not always work like "What if a man loans his neighbor some weapons and then comes back and he is not in his right mind and wants to do terrible things? Should the neighbor give back the weapons?" We can discuss such edge cases but I think a few extra principles can be employed to help.
   1. Do no harm. This is pretty big and could actually do a lot of ethical lifting on its own but there might be cases where harm is necessary, like to protect an innocent.
   2. Utilitarianism. This can be abused but in the long run, can help guide us to a good solution to some quandaries.
5. Why should we abide by this ethic? If I am stronger, can't I take what I want? You could, but people will seek revenge. They might even band together in a social contract and then do the same to you, or worse. Reciprocity helps us live together in a functioning society.
6. This isn't meant to be a full ethical treatise and it might not directly answer why we shouldn't secretly put people's brains in other people's bodies or whatever, but I think its universal and intuitive enough

It was both shocking and illuminating that immediately after the defense's latest filing, a number of people came here to opine that the defense was definitely lying about receiving the small report and not the large one. Why?

On one side of the ledger we have the defense filing two sworn affadavits as well as showing a quote from an older court filing before the controversy began saying they received the smaller report. Additionally, this was an issue the defense was unlikely to lose on regardless, making it unlikely they'd commit a conspiracy to defraud the court for little gain. On the other side of the ledger, we have only the unsworn word of the same people who illegally destroyed the evidence and lied about it. Just looking at the evidence on either side, it's impossible to say this is a slam dunk for the state. But that's somehow the conclusion people reached. Again, I ask why?

This conclusion is even harder to understand in the broader context of the case, where the state has consistently used deception dating back to the very beginning.

• When the case was first moved to a different jurisdiction due to an apparent conflict of interest, the head of the new jurisdiction gave the public misleading statements regarding the prior jurisdiction's role in the case.

• The head of an independent government agency was blocked from the crime scene and threatened with illegal arrest despite a statutory duty to attend the crime scene.

• Prior to the case the prosecutor gave a press conference filled with graphic details of a rape and murder, despite the state being unable to produce any evidence of these details at trial.

• The state withheld an expert report on a potential suspect's hard drive, preferring to hand over only raw data unreadable by a layman and a police officer's summary of the report. Furthermore, the prosecutor misidentified the report to the defense and told them it had little value, when in fact it could have been the crucial missing piece to their defense.

• Then of course there's the bones, originally labeled as human, argued as not human at trial, then declared human again to destroy them, then declared not human again to avoid consequences for breaking the law for destroying them.

• The state then proceeded a number of times over several years to assure the defense the evidence they destroyed was available for testing.

There are many numerous smaller examples of deceit; too many to count. However, I wanted to stick with the major

UPDATE:

Boeing expects to sign up a brand-new operator of the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter

https://www.janes.com/article/95961/boeing-expects-to-sign-new-pacific-customer-for-apache-helo

-----------------

People are talking about how the, and notice the quotes "Airline" industry is failing and that it may take awhile for the "airline" industry to come back to grips. Some say many companies like American airlines are flat or dying, and betting on the "airline" industry, including Boeing, is likely a poor decision. Also something about a guy named Buffet, a guy who most of his early dealings were/would be illegal now, along with insider trading, sold his stocks so we should follow him on Boeing because it's part of the "airline" industry.

Selling Boeing, I hate to say it, is possibly the stupidest bet you could possibly make and you may be better off, assuming that you actually sold or put in "long-term" puts, deleting and resigning your brokerage account.

NEWSFLASH: Boeing is not an "airline" company, it has planes and participates in that market but it itself is not an "airline" industry company.

Boeing is a DEFENCE CONTRACTOR. It's in the Arms/Military/Defence Vehicle sector, it's not Jetblue, stop thinking that Boeing is some random company that flies some people on plane to disneyworld and that's it.

Boeing makes military equipment, weapon ships, fighter jets, helicopters, missiles, vehicle gun attachments for cars and other motors, material for military aircraft, subs, and tanks, shot containers to hold bullets etc. etc.

Something like Trump (awhile ago) having planes and aircraft carriers along with marine and navy ships, hanging around the korean waters to intimidate North Korea (but not attack) brought in bank to Boeing and other contractors.

NOW? We are in a situation where multiple countries are buying up weapons and material. Some are scared about the future, some are in bad economic and weekended military state due to the economic consequences of the shutdown, and some just want to beef up their wares. Even the US is currently bumping up National guard equipment and preparing in case of a proxy, or direct skirmish with multiple countries, now including the Chinese.

If your rationale for abandoning or betting against Boeing is because the "airlines" are in trouble and people "aren't flying pl

I would argue that the notion of a 'first cause' from ontological arguments is not logically sound, but I can understand the reasoning in spite of disagreeing. However, I cannot see any reasoning whatsoever for the conclusion that this 'first cause' is an omnipotent, everlasting god-figure, let alone any specific god-figure from any particular religion.

I can understand if someone makes that conclusion based upon faith, but then they wouldn't be making a logical claim and a rational basis is not relevant. Anyone who attempts to assert this as an objective truth should be able to provide this reasoning concisely.

I recently had a conversation with someone who claimed that the 'first cause' being a "necessary, eternal, omnipotent creator of the universe that otherwise shares all properties of the Christian God" was an objective truth, but for the life of me I, haven't been able to pry from him any reasoning for that conclusion. I can't say that I was all that surprised, but I am very curious to know how folks get there even if I might not agree with the reasoning. In any case, I would be happy to hear anyone out who is willing to stand by such an assertion publicly.

Talking about White & Cases’s vacation scheme applications in specific. Do they mean that recruit on a first-come first served basis? Or that they review applications during the application window, but make the recruitment decisions after the deadline?