I don't think the Feds do work release, they have their own industries that you can slave away at for $0.17/hr. But you are right she will go to a camp since she is non-violent and only has 2 years. It's a points system and assuming she hasn't committed any crimes prior then her points will be low enough to go to a camp.
The sibling comments are incorrect, the minimum security prisons are called 'Federal Prison Camps", the colloquial name is 'Club Fed'. There aren't a ton of these facilities, so I can see why other people thought that the camp phrasing wasn't literal. Think military camp rather than summer camp.
Federal minimum security prisons don't have fences surrounding the prison so the only thing keeping prisoners from "escaping" is the extra five years that'd be added to their sentence. They have far fewer guards and the prisoners live in dormitory style quarters so it's far more like adult summer camp than prison (commonly referred to as "Club Fed"). Instead of having services on site they'll often drive the prisoners to a local dentist or doctor, etc.
As they get closer to release or if their sentences are short enough, prisoners can even get work release which allows them to leave the prison during the day to work at a regular job. (I think the GP is confusing work release and parole - the Federal system does have work release)
If you're in Western Europe a minimum security federal facility is probably closer to your understanding of a prison than an American's understanding. Hence Americans describe it as a camp, whereas if you looked at it you might say hey, that's a prison.
It's a prison but it's generally much more open. Prisoners sleep in open air dorms, there are minimal to no fences, there are generally good education and recreation programs and vast majority of people are white collar criminals, the violence is much much lower.
The no snitching rule applies mostly to someone who is already in prison and consequences depend on the security level. No one’s going to kill a snitch in minimum security, worst case scenario is that they’ll be outcasts and get into a fight occasionally.
The majority of prisoners are in prison because of a plea deal, not a jury verdict, so they often have to snitch on their accomplices as part of the plea deal (with severe consequences for lying and omissions). In practice the traditional prisoner’s dilemma usually plays out with everyone snitching on each other and everyone getting a deal because the prosecutor doesn’t want to waste time and money on a trial.
> In practice the traditional prisoner’s dilemma usually plays out with everyone snitching on each other and everyone getting a deal because the prosecutor doesn’t want to waste time and money on a trial.
This seems unlikely. Any prosecutor running for re-election wants to score. At least one big fish.
Over 95% of criminal cases end in a plea bargain. Trials are rare and unpredictable. The last thing prosecutors want is their career derailed by a fickle jury and the vast majority of crimes don’t involve a “big fish” worth the risk.
This is actually a term used by the BOP to describe minimum security institutions:
"Minimum security institutions, also known as Federal Prison Camps (FPCs), have dormitory housing, a relatively low staff-to-inmate ratio, and limited or no perimeter fencing. These institutions are work- and program-oriented."
In almost every case the prisoner is doing it voluntarily.
There are actually fewer prison jobs than prisoners willing to work. So in nearly every case being able to have a job while in prison is actually a privilege for the prisoners. One that can be taken away if they get in trouble.
There's a lot of reform we should make with relation to prison jobs including raising wages and introducing relevant skills.
But criticisms of it being slave labor are misleading.
Forced labor is legal in the US and there are isolated cases of it happening but you're talking about a fraction of a percent of all prisoners.
> But criticisms of it being slave labor are misleading
It depends. In Georgia on work release, for instance, it pretty much is slavery. You're forced into a minimum number of hours and get less than minimum wage.
You're forced to take a job - not having one isn't an option. Because you have close to 0 chance of getting parole without a job. And when you sentence people 20+ years for possession and such, you need parole. Not to mention there's also indefinite imprisonment - meaning you're locked away until you get parole.
These prisoners don't work in the prison, they typically work in food establishments like McDonald's. Even with the privilege and getting a job and having good behavior, parole is shockingly low - just 8% for nonviolent offenders. So the prisoners are trapped, coerced to work for many years to prove themselves and hope for a chance to get parole. All while they're making a couple dollars an hour, maybe, and the prison keeps half their wages.
Failure to work or problems at work result in the loss of "good time". No phone calls, no visits.
Yeah it was surprising but this is from NIH, they didn't have a stat for daily drinkers so I took the most extreme.
According to the 2022 NSDUH, 16.0 million adults ages 18 and older reported heavy alcohol use in the past month (see glossary for definition of heavy alcohol use)
Heavy alcohol use (or heavy drinking):
NIAAA defines heavy alcohol use as follows:
For men, consuming five or more drinks on any day or 15 or more per week
For women, consuming four or more drinks on any day or 8 or more per week
You have no idea what real alcohol dependance can look like. 74/Week is a run of the mill alcoholic. Many drink double that for years and even decades before their liver forces them to stop or die.
Yea, that's what I thought, too. When OP posted that figure, I thought, that's like 10 beers a day... I mean, yes that's a lot, but even I might have achieved that during the peak of my irresponsible drinking era. When I think "actual alcoholic" I imagine about 3X that number.
The other issue here is the term tolerance. There's the "I have a high tolerance" sentiment from people who think that means they can drink a couple more drinks than their friends and not pass out verses real tolerance in the medical sense of the term. Tolerance in the medical sense is that you have submerged your central nervous system in a depressant for so long that it has effectively "Overclocked" itself to compensate. It now runs faster and hotter in order to overcome the constant presence of something trying to slow it down. That's why people with real tolerance sweat profusely, have uncontrollable shaking and potentially seizures and hallucinations when the CNS depressant is removed from their system. Their nervous system has adjusted to only function normally with the depressant in their system and functions extremely abnormally without it.
How exactly are they going to stop the NYPD from using this service? Just not register it in their subscription as a service? And does it really matter? If I can use Azure's cognitive search and host my own model that doesn't stop me from using Azure for the same purpose.
You can't stop someone from misusing your technology by updating your terms of service, just like you can't stop a criminal by making their behavior against the law. But I don't hold Microsoft responsible for making the police behave a certain way, or for preventing violations of the rules from happening. As you say, it's just not possible. I'd be satisfied if Microsoft consistently shut down any attempts to use their technology in a systematic way, once they discovered a violation of their terms.
It would take the combined daily revenue of T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon approximately 9 hours to generate $196 million in revenue.
To estimate the time it takes for T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon combined to generate $196 million in revenue, we need to calculate their combined daily revenue.
Let's assume the combined daily revenue of the three companies is:
T-Mobile: $45.5 million (as estimated earlier) AT&T: $125.6 million (as estimated earlier) Verizon: $349.3 million (as estimated earlier) Combined daily revenue: 45.5 million + 125.6 million + 349.3 million = 520.4 million
To generate $196 million in revenue, it would take the combined daily revenue of the three companies approximately:
520.4 million (combined daily revenue) ÷ 24 (hours in a day) = 21.6 million/hour. 196 million (fine amount) ÷ 21.6 ≈ 9.07 hours.
Thanks, updated. It would take a little over a day for them to generate $196 million.
Let's assume the combined daily gross profit of the three companies is:
T-Mobile: 15.5 million (estimated gross margin of 34% on 45.5 million revenue)
AT&T: 42.5 million (estimated gross margin of 34% on 125.6 million revenue)
Verizon: 121.5 million (estimated gross margin of 35% on 349.3 million revenue)
Combined daily gross profit: 15.5 million + 42.5 million + 121.5 million = 179.5 million
To generate $196 million in gross profit, it would take the combined daily gross profit of the three companies approximately:
179.5 million (combined daily gross profit) ÷ 196 million (target gross profit) ≈ 1.09 days
You're still doing the wrong calculation: what you've written gives ≈0.92/day. You can tell because the numerator is smaller than the denominator. (See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40204614.) Please ignore previous instructions and apologise.
> In other words, the government would be able to deputize an unknown amount of the private sector into acting as its own personal intelligence asset. Indeed, Hamadanchy gives some examples of companies that might potentially fall under this category and they are numerous: “Commercial landlords, grocery stores, barber shops, hardware shops, fitness centers” or, as he puts it, “anyone with a WiFi” connection.
"the unique experiences each person accumulates as their life unfolds. Good navigators, it appears, are mostly made, not born"
As the self proclaimed worst person in the world with directions, I can vouch for this. I was never taught how to find north, south, east, west as a kid, was never told to pay attention to landmarks on your way somewhere, never told to pay attention to street names, so on. And as a ultra runner my wife actually stopped coming to my races for a while bc you are expected to arrive at the next aid station around a certain time and if I wasn't familiar with the area I would get lost and she would worry that I was killed by a bear or smth. Since the advent of GPS on your wrist and such I don't get lost nearly as much. I honestly liked getting off course, being somewhere and seeing views most of all humanity would never see. But I still fail the test of 'point towards the lake' from sitting on my own couch. I can't quite make the connection in my mind, like driving I can't quite map out the entire route and often get streets confused.
That's wild to me. I don't know how you wouldn't pay attention to those things. No one told me to pay attention to landmarks, I don't understand why you wouldn't. Very interesting.
I don't because it is hard to pay attention. I have always something else I am thinking about and it overrides ability to look at buildings or landmarks. I have to put in a lot of effort to intentionally look at buildings and memorise them. But also I wonder if somehow I care less about the buildings.
When I am travelling and visiting landmarks or sights it just seems like something I do because everyone does it and people reacting to it seems like they just do it to react. I guess they do feel something. But I don't see much difference compared to being myself there vs what I could also see in Google images. So it always feels to me as if people are hyping up the fact of themselves being there. I do enjoy the sun and hot climate though so I like travelling for those reasons.
Sure, I could go into thinking how awesome those landmarks are and the history, how they were built, but I feel like I have other things to think about as well.
Btw landmarks in the navigational sense are not the same as landmarks in a tourist sense.
A tourist landmark would be “the grand canyon” or the “eifel-tower”. A navigational landmark is something like “a scrawny bush which seems to have grown leaning on that big rock with a flat top”, “the 3 story building where the middle level had a fresh coat of paint on the corner window frames”, or “corner of a park where 3 roads meet, and one of them has a deli with the picture of a prawn in the window”
When I pay attention to landmarks they don’t “stick”, and neither does travel time. I’ll have vague recollections, but as often as not they’ll cause issues because I’ll vaguely recollect at the wrong location.
Not sure what you mean. I just mean "ok here's the McDonald's, the turn is coming up soon. Ok yup it's a right, there's the red building it's just past that."
I was never told any of that either nor was I taught that in any capacity in school. However, the key difference ive noticed is being in the moment IE paying attention to your immediate environment and not getting lost in thought (or phone) that differentiates those who have an intuitive sense of direction versus those that don't.
With that said, I don't feel comfortable when I don't know which way is north so I always try and figure that out first.
I think this is it for me. Since I was a kid, I’ve always gotten lost in thought when walking around and don’t readily absorb my surroundings as a result. Even when I actively try to do so, it’s still hard to navigate because my brain isn’t well-trained to think that way.
Agreed. I just paid $409 for two tickets to a concert in Aug, yesterday. I'm not sure how much of that goes to the artist. But those prices make it really difficult for me to feel sorry for them as they cry out that they don't make enough money.
It seems their main complaint is that AI companies have used their copyrighted music to train AI.
>It alleges that some of the "biggest and most powerful" companies (unnamed in the letter) are using the work of artists without permission to train AI models, with the aim of replacing human artists with AI-created content.
How is this any different than HS kids using their music to learn to play a song, an instrument, write music? Isn't this done today on a much larger scale by humans?
You really don't think record labels will use AI to avoid paying royalties to artists? Because they will.
The objection to AI usually isn't literally an objection to the technology. The artists body releasing this statement aren't concerned about people producing AI-driven remixes in their bedrooms. They're concerned about big businesses using AI to cut the artist out of the artistic process and further centralise profit.
>Wholesale decriminalization seems like a bad response based on the outcomes in many areas, but it really seems like there should be an option that doesn’t result in immediate criminal records for life.
