If money were no object, I would build a reusable-glass network and force Walmart, Target, Kohl's, etc. to start a global glass shipping program to take customer-returned glass products (like after you use up all the vinegar, mayonnaise, etc. in your glass jars, etc.) and get them back into the production factories for reuse. All containers would follow standardized sizes (several dozen classifications) to make reuse easy.
Yes, I've met a bunch of interesting people through board games, and one of them is one of my closest friends now! Facebook and Meetup are the top ways to connect, though I try to also promote the lowly, nonprofit GameNight.host whenever I can.
Anyway, Hard to Get is another, solid cooperative discussion game: it's like Codenames, except everyone is on the same team that's trying to pare the grid down to just the 1 assassin word; the clue giver gives highly restricted, awkward/irrelevant clues about it versus all the rest.
I began offering weekly board game gatherings and dinners for the public, and, aside from the rocky start (no one at the first 2 events), every gathering has always gotten a minimum of 3-8 people here in West Allis, WI!
I'm pretty sure @booly@sh.itjust.works was meaning the exact opposite, that it's more about educating perpetrators than taking vengeance or merely dishing out old-fashioned justice on them.
Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state:
Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it.No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions.
It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted.
From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.
Perhaps; it seemed like they knew the decedent well enough to know that he would appreciate this, from everything that the article says. With that said, I also won't be surprised if templates for wills or living trusts add a no-duplication statement by default over the coming years.
Thanks for sharing; I thought this was a fascinating read, especially since it ended on a positive note and not pure condemnation. It seems totally Black Mirror-esque, but I do wonder how many of the commentators here attacking it didn't read the article. The family obviously didn't make this decision lightly, given how much work it took to create it, and even the judge appreciated the novel approach. This is probably one of the best-case use scenarios relative to the abyss of unstoppable horror that awaits us.
Use Qalculate!, the only calculator app everyone needs.