I worked for a manufacturing firm years ago and a director once told me 30 was the magic number. Order 30 units and the error rate will scale from there if for example you get 3 in 30 broken you'll have about 10% broken no matter how many you order.
I'm happy to extend, star and raise an issue with a description. This is an alpha spec to get comments like this one.
It's not really for llms so much as its for understanding distributed systems. For example auto updating dependencies in service now so down stream alerts aren't fired for upstream events (today you have to config that manually) I just have to write the tooling
Absolutely, I agree.
The presumption is innocent until proven guilty and the problem with sex crimes is even the accusation can completely destroy someones life regardless even if they are later found to have been innocent.
In reality it is no different from ANY other crime in that there needs to be evidence that a crime has actually been committed.
Self incrimination is not the same as a false accusation.
Imagine if the person raped committed a different crime, unrelated to the rape, for which there was evidence of that on their phone.
In order to report the rape, they have to self incriminate themself for that crime as well? In this scenario any drug user, prostitute or other criminal has no protection from the law against being raped.
You also have an obligation to help the police solve the crime you reported by providing all and any relevant information.
The issue is that people don't always know what information is relevant / they think stuff is too minor to mention.
You wouldn't go to a doctors appointment and then say my body is private you cant examine me and expect them to go off just the info you provide. If the doctor asks to stick his finger up your rear to check your prostate you don't say er no thanks that's too private. You assume he has a good medical reason that he wants to do that and you let him confirm that you are healthy.
"If the doctor asks to stick his finger up your rear to check your prostate you don't say er no thanks that's too private"
If you don't want your doctor to stick his finger up your butt, then that's exactly what you do. They don't have a right to finger your prostate, even though it might be beneficial to you.
And like the doctor that cannot diagnose you with appropriate information, the police can't prosecute the accused without potentially backing or detracting details.
Isn't that the same though as if you have ill gotten funds / drugs, I steal them from you but you cant report that.
I've still committed a crime against you but you cant report it due to the fact you committed a crime in the first place.
Kinda hard to feel sorry for a criminal being unable to report a crime.....
You don’t feel sympathy for sex workers, who in many places are unable to report being assaulted?
Your example is having something you stole stolen from you. That’s not the same as doing something illegal, and having a completely different crime done to you. “I was jaywalking, and someone robbed me when i arrived on the other side of the street”. I can’t report it because I would have to explain why I was in the middle of the street without having walked past the shops on that side.
I know discussions here are often America-centric, but note that this depends on jurisdiction. E.g. in Sweden, the one selling sex is not a criminal, the one buying is.
I can’t make sense of your line of reasoning on this comment thread.
I thought we were discussing why society would want to incentivize (or at least not disincentive) reporting a crime, even if the reporter is themselves a criminal. The idea is to eliminate at least one act of criminality instead of none.
You’re argument seems to be: people who commit crimes shouldn’t expect protection under the law from other crimes. And when it was pointed out that not all crimes are equal, your reply is “but I don’t consider some of those things as crimes.”
When the grandparent said "Kinda hard to feel sorry for a criminal being unable to report a crime....."
The parent answered "You don’t feel sympathy for sex workers, who in many places are unable to report being assaulted?" -- as if that category was what the grantparent meant by "criminals".
It was obvious to me that this was not what the grandparent meant, and I chimed in to say that one can still find it "hard to feel sorry for a criminal being unable to report a crime" while still feeling sorry for a prostitute that can't report a rape.
It's easy to speak of "criminals" casually without including (into your concept of them) large categories of people that the law might still consider "criminals" (eg. prostitute, a teen that did some weed, a guy who hacked into a website for fun, somebody who gasp pirated some music, etc.).
That's orthogonal to what protection criminals should get or not. I can support the rights of a criminal (to a fair trial etc) without feeling sorry for them. I don't find feeling "sorry" necessary to support people's rights.
>You’re argument seems to be: people who commit crimes shouldn’t expect protection under the law from other crimes.
No, my comment meant to convey (a) that the grandparent's point that "Kinda hard to feel sorry for a criminal being unable to report a crime" is not some bizarre cruel statement, and it doesn't necessarily have to do with some special cases of legally considered "criminals" that are more like victims themselves like a prostitute.
What I didn't like was the uncharitable interpretation of the grandparent's comment.
Not trying to be uncharitable. I’m just stunned by the seeming hard-line black-and-white worldview in the parent post. I’m confused by the idea that the word “criminals” doesn’t include large categories of people who do things that are against the law. That is the _definition_ of criminal, is it not?
Official definitions (like etymologies) are not really relevant to actual language (though they are relevant to court).
It's the typical intended use / understanding of a term (as used casually), which can even change between contexts even when used by the same person, that matters.
> In Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland), prostitution itself (the exchange of sexual services for money) is legal,[2] but a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning or managing a brothel, pimping and pandering, are crimes. In Northern Ireland, which previously had similar laws, paying for sex became illegal from 1 June 2015.[3] Laws are not always strictly enforced, and there are reports of police forces turning a blind eye to brothels.[4] Many brothels in cities such as Manchester, London and Cardiff operate under the name "massage parlours".
A lot of stuff around prostitution that should be legal isn't.
But that won't happen. If you have evidence on your phone of a crime you committed you're not going to give the phone to the police to look at. Therefor we end up with no crimes solved instead of one. Ontop of that, because everyone knows that a criminal can no longer report a rape, there's a carte blanche to rape anyone who falls into that category without consequence.
I'm not sure how this criticism is supposed to be valid. If someone robs a heroin dealer of their product, and the heroin dealer calls the police and honestly explains their situation then of course the police are going to arrest and charge both the third and the dealer - regardless of the fact that the latter was a victim of theft.
Yeah, it does mean crime becomes carte blanche to do against criminals of a certain caliber. But that's the consequence of deciding to live one's life outside the law.
If the crimes discussed on the phone are trivia in relation to rape (e.g. shop lifting, drug use) I highly doubt the police would bother prosecuting those crimes. How many minors who were raped while.drunk got charged with consu ing alcohol underage? I don't know of any, and the outrage over doing so would be immense.
>Ontop of that, because everyone knows that a criminal can no longer report a rape, there's a carte blanche to rape anyone who falls into that category without consequence.
Could this serve as an incentive for less crime?
Frivolity aside, "raping criminals" doesn't seem a very viable endeavor. They are, you know, criminals to begin with, and they, or their criminal friends, can perhaps do your head in...
(Plus, blackmailing a criminal with evidence of their crime, sometimes for sex too, has happened since time immemorial - even between corrupt policemen and criminals-, it's not something uniquely enabled by mobile phones).
> Could this serve as an incentive for less crime?
Was this sarcasm, or are you actually suggesting that criminals should fear extrajudicial "justice" of having crimes committed against them and being unable to report them?
Neither, it's a fact of life: criminals do fear extrajudicial "justice" of having crimes committed against them and being unable to report them (and have it happen to them frequently, as I say on the second paragraph above).
