Search Ideas

If the legislature approves, doesn’t that mean the force is not arbitrary? Since whatever they decide goes through an objective approval process.

You actually want people who don’t care. You need neutrality.

I’ve asked Gemini to explain it:

1. Auto-Closure (Insertion State)

When the user inputs an opening delimiter, the system immediately injects the corresponding closing delimiter and places the caret (cursor) between them.

Input: (

Buffer State: (|)

Logic: insert(opening_char) + insert(closing_char) + move_caret(-1)

2. Type-Through (Escape State)

If the caret is positioned immediately before a closing delimiter that was autopaired, and the user types that specific closing delimiter, the system suppresses the character insertion and instead advances the caret.

Context: [text|]

Input: ]

Buffer State: [text]| (Not [text]])

Logic: if (next_char == input_char) { move_caret(+1); prevent_default(); }

3. Atomic Deletion (Regression State)

If the caret is between an empty pair of delimiters, a backspace event deletes both the opening and closing characters simultaneously, returning the buffer to the pre-insertion state.

Context: (|)

Input: Backspace

Buffer State: |

Logic: if (prev_char == open && next_char == close) { delete_range(caret-1, caret+1); }

4. Selection Wrapping (Transformation State)

If a text range is selected (highlighted) and an opening delimiter is typed, the system wraps the selection rather than replacing it.

Context: |selected_text|

Input: [[

Buffer State: [[selected_text]]

Logic: surround_selection(input_pair)

5. Markdown-Specific Heuristics

Obsidian applies context-aware logic for Markdown syntax (e.g., * or _). It often checks word boundaries to determine if the user intends to bold/italicize or use a bullet point.

Context (Start of line): | + * + Space -> Bullet list (autopair disabled/consumed by formatting).

Context (Middle of line): word | + * -> word *|* (autopair enabled for italics).

As of c08f508, the footer automatically hides and shows based on scrolling behavior.

Try it out and let me know if this doesn’t help.

mustn’t

Maybe this is the non-native speaker in me, but do you mean ‘can’t’? I thought ‘mustn’t’ means ‘may not’: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/must_not

[Jury duty is] part of your contract with the country.

Source

… if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.

By that ‘logic’, we never could have abolished slavery. What a stupid argument.

The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory.

Not necessarily. It might just mean that courts suck at persuading people to be jurors.

Who would subject themselves to that [gruesome] experience [of being a juror] voluntarily? The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory. And if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.

Source

Why does John Doe deserve your best effort? He’s a random stranger to you. Why should you care what happens to him? What has he done to deserve your effort and consideration?

This sounds like sacrifice/altruism.

I think [the inner workings of the justice system are] goddamned impressive. And humbling. And when I get a summons to serve? I go. Because both “the People of the State” and that “John Doe” deserve my best effort. I would expect it if I was ever on the wrong side of that -vs- and I would hope that you would too.

Source

If jury participation were voluntary, “it would just be the same batch of NCIS fans deciding every case.” (Source)

People are ordered to appear for jury duty simply because, if it were a toothless request instead, hardly anyone would show up.

Source

But then some people might not be able to afford a jury trial.

[I]f you’re on trial, you can force the state to use a jury to decide the facts of the case.

So it’s a trade off - if you have the right to a jury trial, so also do you have the obligation to serve on a jury for a person who has chosen a jury trial.

Otherwise, you get what’s called a “free rider problem”, people who refuse to serve on juries still insisting on a jury trial if they’re on trial.

Source

You want people who don’t care. You need neutrality.

You want people who don’t care. You need neutrality.

Force means you get a bunch of people on a jury who don’t want to be there. This either introduces friction because they will drag their feet, or they will just vote for whatever outcome will get them out of there the fastest, which isn’t necessarily justice. For example (emphasis added):

[A] guy said to use the opportunity to fight back against laws you don't agree with. I thought about doing that even though we were asked if we could put personal feelings aside and enforce the law and I didn't want to be the one to say I couldn't so I stayed quiet. Then I thought, “What if I'm the only juror who thinks the law is unjust”? “Do I really want to drag this out just to fight the system”? I decided to make my decision based solely on whatever would get this over with the quickest. In this particular case a guy was charged with crimes that I don't think should be crimes anyway. Since I know the majority of people in my community feel the opposite, I chose to keep my opinion to myself for fear of ridicule of people knowing my feelings.

Force means you get a bunch of people on a jury who don’t want to be there. This introduces friction because they will drag their feet.

“The random selection helps keep all citizens equal.” (Source)

“If we make it a profession, we'll still have elites judging commoners and commoners unable to get justice.” (Source)

“If we only take volunteers, we'll be perpetually lacking jurors or we'll have jurors that don't represent the general populace.” (Source)

We need jury duty because without it, “we can't guarantee the accused their right to trial by a jury of their peers if we don't have peers available to serve on juries.”

I have an … unconscious preference for removing rough/uneven parts of my nails as soon as possible …

This preference is not unconscious. You are aware of it, otherwise you could not have written about it. Maybe you meant to say that you sometimes enact this preference automatically/uncritically/mindlessly? (I think those three words basically all have the same meaning.)

Nice, thanks.

Thinking about it some more, I wonder if honesty is more fundamental than some of the other virtues. As I’ve written elsewhere, honesty includes the refusal to ignore certain criticisms. That’s a prerequisite of rationality. Whereas justice, for example, seems downstream of rationality.