And with it not working out their other videos have gained a ton of views. Their channel was good actually, comparable to the some of the best known vloggers, very decent drone footage and editing, and they seemed like nice and fairly articulate people. They could have grown a decent channel for themselves.

YEP

The difference is that before Youtube, Facebook, etc., you couldn’t monetize moronic stunts so readily. People can now get rich from this crap.

They might have even made “Outrageous Acts of Science”

I mean it couldn’t have been that hard to fake it, right?

this. all of this.

Yeah, that was my first thought too. How messed up is it that people are willing to put themselves at such risk to become viral sensations? It seems to be a double-whammy lottery and fame effect. It’s that chance of getting rich quick and easy and that chance of being famous. I don’t know how we stop it either. …

Had this worked is some pretty wild speculation considering the factors going on. It’s not a shock that teenaged parents don’t understand probabilities much less physics.

>but there’re tons of people like them, who do shit that while not as lethal, is equally stupid and dangerous, on Facebook and Twitter, for likes and views. And the worst part, IT WORKS!

Exactly. She doesn’t seem to understand what made Wonder Woman a phenomenon, other than it had a girl as a lead. She also went off on some tangent about not wanting her kids to see it (which I can understand), but really that isn’t even what was driving its success, so I don’t know why she felt she had to include that…

A solicitor (in Britain) is a lawyer who deals with wills and simpler legal matters. An advocate, also known as a barrister, pleads cases in higher courts - ie. a murder trial. Often a client will approach a solicitor, who will find the right advocate for the client. Hopefully some of our British friends can enlighten…

Heh. As if they read.

Bang on.

Ironic given how much they all now suddenly support Russian collusion.

I can’t speak for every state, as they all have their own judicial procedure (as well as a Federal one). My state allows for the defense to decide in any criminal proceding - including capital crimes like murder. In most instances, it is trial by jury. Bench trials are more typically utilized for very technical cases,…

Not in America. At the Federal level judges are appointed for life and it damn near impossible to remove them but for outright criminal acts. In local state-level political jurisdictions that elect judges (such as mine) the percentage of the voting public that actually knows anything about the judges that they elect…

Juries aren’t common here (Australia). Of about 10% of criminal matters that are dealt with on indictment, only about 25% of those are heard before a jury. While there is some argument that it contributes to transparency and public confidence in the judicial system, I’m not convinced it’s a necessary aspect of the…

I think a jury trial is pretty effective when they pick the right jurors. I certainly don’t think it’s bad to have a people from different walks of life, different backgrounds, different ideology, etc.......

I think a better solution might be to change how jury verdicts work. (I don’t know the law really well, so this could be a terrible idea. I’ll float it anyway.) For example, I think the unanimous verdict thing is sometimes a big problem. While I’m not saying we should switch to majority vote wins (I wouldn’t want…

Well, I don’t know how much I agree with that, but I can say that trial by jury and trial by judge both have major problems. Both jurors and judges bring their ingrained biases into the courtroom. As for jurors, unfortunately, a trial by your peers doesn’t mean you’ll get smart, reasonable peers (which can be to the…