xcjs

Not the person you're debating (and I'm on your side here), but what's up with all the revisionist history going on lately?

"This thing you're arguing for was never the intent."

Then what was the intent you dimwit?

And they never have an answer aside from acting like it was some grave oversight that was only recently caught as a mistake.

That is exactly a function of a jury.

"What you say disagrees with my world view, so I'm just going to pretend you're crazy and your words don't make sense."

I've had this exact tactic used against me - it's very transparent when used and weakens your position.

I get what you're saying, and yet it exists and a term exists for it.

I know there's no "nullification" verdict and the binary guilty/not guilty are the only recognized options, but nullification is used to describe the not guilty verdict despite any charges and evidence in a trial, which I'm sure you understand.

I don't think her decision to take the deal took into account whether jury nullification exists or not. The way you explained it sounds like retrocausality, though I don't know if that's the way you meant it.

Jury nullification isn't about fair outcomes, I should clarify, but about whether the law itself is lawful, representative of the people, or applied lawfully. Maybe that fits into the definition of fair I had in mind, but I was thinking on it more objectively, not subjectively.

There are proponents and opponents within the United States, true, but if a legal system does not permit punishment of jurors, then jury nullification is a logical byproduct of the system. And an important one I would argue. It fits into why trials by jury are important in a democratic legal system - the people have the final say, whether they realize it or not.

Whether a jury feels a charge is fair is the whole reason trial by a jury of peers exists.

It's a feature of the system, not a bug.

It'll probably be there, but at least it can be disabled in the settings now. It won't go away on its own.

This was when I stopped using it for a while. I sent multiple feedback messages as it really irritated me.

That I agree with. Microsoft drafted the recommendation to use it for local networks, and Apple ignored it or co-opted it for mDNS.

Macs aren't the only thing that use mDNS, either. I have a host monitoring solution that I wrote that uses it.

Yeah, that's why I started using .lan.

I was using .local, but it ran into too many conflicts with an mDNS service I host and vice versa. I switched to .lan, but I'm certainly not going to switch to .internal unless another conflict surfaces.

I've also developed a host-monitoring solution that uses mDNS, so I'm not about to break my own software. 😅