Highlights an edge case of informed consent (medical consent).
Basically, it's impossible to "internally give" consent when done under any sort of threat.
In other words, she may "express" consent, but not "internally give consent."
What does that mean? Probably, she'll get strongly supervised treatment and nothing untoward happens. But then what happens if she suffers a serious side effect of the treatment?
The government used to do everything it could to make executioners anonymous, so that friends/family of the aggrieved had no clear target for vengeance (whether civil or extrajudicial); and so society at large couldn’t recognize the executioner as “dishonourable” for being willing to perform such an act.
This edge-case could be pretty easily worked around by providing the same level of anonymity to doctors involved in state-ordered medical treatment. Can’t sue without a defendant!
I think you are misinterpreting the parent comment. The issue is not legal protection for doctors that administer state mandated treatments. She had the option in this case to self-isolate.
The issue is ethical, is it possible for a patient to give consent if it's given under threat (of incarceration or otherwise). I think medical consent as a concept has been weakened in the west this past decade, the first obvious example is Covid with people having to get vaccinated to have access to certain services and to keep their employment in some cases, the second example that struck me at the time are opt-out systems for organ donations.
No consent is needed if a noncompliant patient poses great harm to others.
The least harm to all is to force their treatment without their informed consent.
It's either that or keep paying for their total isolation until they die. Not treating a treatable fatal illness would be malpractice. If they wanted to kill themselves by some other means later, then that's a mental healthcare matter later.
To clarify... nope. In your instance the man gets your expression of consent, but very much does not have your internal consent.
I edited my post to clarify a bit more that informed consent is a specific term in medical ethics, and probably doesn't mean what you think it means. Thanks!
This looks incredible and magical to me. How do you learn to create things like this as a mostly web programmer? Vectorization, etc I had no idea could integrate with gpt etc but honestly it looks kind of obvious/effortless to the author.
Or a use after free bug from an unlucky player. With millions (billions?) of account-hours over the honeypot period surely at least a few bans are outrageous coincidences
I imagine they'd probably agree with that assessment; they didn't say they were 100% positive that every single ban was deserved, just that this gave them a very high degree of confidence. I think this method is probably more accurate than most other anti cheat methods for online games out there, and it definitely is less invasive than most of the ones I've heard of. I have trouble thinking that this is a worse way of doing things than not addressing cheating at all or relying on much more invasive methods.
Almost certainly by satellite. To wit, every iPhone 14 now has an emergency text feature that works via satellite-- you could potentially just use one of those and send everything base64 encoded.
Reminder that the capital of Idaho, Boise, is (apochraphally) named for the trees (les bois) that surround the Boise river. French made it quite a ways west, and definitely made it as far as Idaho.
The story goes Owyhee County is named after Hawaii. It's a county southwest of the Boise Area and home to the most beautiful wilderness I have ever seen. There is nothing like hiking mile after mile out there under the hot summer sun never seeing another living soul... But I digress. The story goes some Hawaiian goat herders entered the area to try their luck and were never to be seen again and hence the name. Owyhee = Hawaii
How true it is I do it know but it's what I've always been told.
Bogus. You’re assuming they invested all their dollars at the year 0 (peak) price an and sold everything at the 20 year trough. Of course that’s impossible, they invested over their entire careers which included intervals of much lower prices. So much should be obvious by just looking at the sp500 graph of performance over time. There’s no period where dollar cost averaging over twenty years gave a result like you’re saying.
Basically, it's impossible to "internally give" consent when done under any sort of threat.
In other words, she may "express" consent, but not "internally give consent."
What does that mean? Probably, she'll get strongly supervised treatment and nothing untoward happens. But then what happens if she suffers a serious side effect of the treatment?