kawakiole

We don't ever definitely know anything. That's why science and bayesian reasoning in general is so useful to begin with ;)

We can be more or less confident about how stuff works though. For instance, thermodynamics is something we are very confident of having gotten right, because there are plenty of ways to test if doesn't work, and those test fail all the time (so far, at least!).

So this article basically says: would it be easier to explain what we see if there were other dimensions? and the answer is it wouldn't, because we'd have to assume that things that we are very confident about (thermodynamics) are not correct, while simultaneously not providing any way to gain confidence in this new hypothesis (that there are new dimensions with different thermodynamic laws).

This might change some day: before spectrography was a thing, all the theories about star composition were non-falsiable either!!

Anything is possible, but how would you falsify that hypothesis?

I work in the LHC. I can confirm dev-ops, the very many kinds of engineers, people writing analytic software, storage systems and a long long etc. do NOT get referenced in physics publications.

Only physicists (but then there are hundreds of them)

> then it's telling for the attorney to argue for the former, since it indirectly implies that their client will likely be found culpable

I think this is a very, very dangerous way of reasoning. It is the duty of your attorney to try to provide you with all the legal protections you are entitled to, regardless of whether you are guilty or not. That's why those protections were put in place to begin with.

> Furthermore, if the defendant is found guilty there is a likelihood that their punishment will not be appropriate for their current age

People (at least on civil law countries) are judged using the state of affairs of when the crime was committed, not when the case is heard. There are very many reasons for this: it might have been legal back then and not now, it's the defendant's fault to not have been put on trial when still a minor, etc.

> It's a fun problem to reason about mathematically, but it's totally irrelevant to the case in my opinion.

I absolutely understand your feeling. However technicalities are not less important in law as they are in computer code. If we had a way to establish fairly, without bias whether someone is "adult enough" other than with this arbitrary 18.00 limit we would have used it. But we don't, and even you say "a couple of days are not going to have a considerable impact" but then only apply that one way (towards a harsher sentencing) but the other (maybe she is still not an adult?)

It need not be moralising at all. In many countries for pretty much every "life changing" contract such as marriage, buying a house, changing the will, etc. there's a cool down period that tries to prevent being rushed to do such things.

Also here in (some cantons of) Switzerland, during the month of notice you have to give to get married, the names of the couple is published so that people can protest the marriage if they know it's not a legal one, which is for sure something some people can find odious but it's not done for moralising but for practical purposes.

> giving random people the chance to control a huge megaphone makes you LESS equal, not more

People can choose what to hear. It's not random, It's the complete opposite of random.

Usually they don't need to count. In general working hours are stipulated in the contract, so if they find someone in the office outside the hours they have stipulated in the contract the managers better have a good explanation.... Then, if they consider the evidence is enough there's an official investigation where they can search for emails/phone call logs/documents that attest that the employees were working or asked to work outside of "working hours" and a trial takes place. In my current workplace there are no such strict rules, but if management finds someone working noticeably more than 40h a week they'll want to know why that person needs more time than the rest to do his job. I guess that's as weird for non Europeans as working >40h a week is for them.

>> Black people don't commit more murders because they're black

>That's a hypothesis. You're free to go about proving or evidencing your position.

Here in Switzerland black Swiss do not commit more murders than other "races". Surely you won't argue the alpine winds changed their genome with respect to black Americans now would you?

>Spain lacks a cultural framework that would make the population want market based reforms

I'm no expert on Spanish matters, but didn't they elect their current government, which advocated market based reforms, right in the middle of the crisis??

This is completely a non-issue.

CERN can be visited by anyone for free, and you can take as many pictures as you want. During long shutdowns you can even visit underground facilities. Plans for every building are publicly available at maps.cern.ch, and there's practically no private information here other than worker's personal data. Google for a couple minutes for .cern.ch websites and see for yourself.

Source: I work at CERN

How on earth is the cost of a legal appeal not directly related to jail?

The treaty says nothing about default, and say absolutely nothing about the possibility of expulsion if a member goes over the deficit limit (or under any other circumstance by that matter), which by the way already happened to many countries including France without any major consequence.

Next time, you might want to actually read the treaty before commenting on it.