Posts

Panopticon AKA Giammi's Shortform 2020-05-06T07:30:28.039Z · score: 1 (1 votes)

Comments

Comment by giammi-t on Zibbaldone With It All · 2020-10-10T18:07:52.668Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Zettelkästen (slip-box) and Zibaldone (commonplace book) serve two different purposes. That’s why they have a different structure. One is a web, the other a notebook. Can you link things in a notebook structure? Yes, but it’s much easier to use a web structure.

Also, while using an AI as a personal memory assistant may be useful, I guess, looking at past innovations, that it could damage learning process.

As to the narrative, the more you link to a node the more it’s pivotal. Usually it’s the center of a major theme. That’s a simple way to see paths.

Personally, I use both for the aforementioned reasons. Also, I have to say that the Zettelkästen has given me higher returns than the Zibaldone for research.

Comment by giammi-t on What are your greatest one-shot life improvements? · 2020-05-17T18:06:59.348Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Digitally

Comment by giammi-t on What are your greatest one-shot life improvements? · 2020-05-16T17:49:37.323Z · score: 1 (5 votes) · LW · GW

The Zettelkasten has resolved my problem, i.e. searching for a place where to keep and retrieve easily all the stuff I collect to study

Comment by giammi-t on Panopticon AKA Giammi's Shortform · 2020-05-10T09:35:50.285Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I want to write a review or see a review by others about these two books by Lessig.

Comment by giammi-t on Open & Welcome Thread—May 2020 · 2020-05-09T13:57:11.992Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Upvoted because I agree. That’s what I was saying, they have to point to valid reasons.

Comment by giammi-t on Open & Welcome Thread—May 2020 · 2020-05-09T11:14:54.513Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Hmm not really, let’s disambiguate. Here I am talking mainly about civil issues. There are ex officio lawyers appointed by the court and freelance lawyers. Do freelance lawyers have the deontological duty to defend people? Yes Do freelance lawyers have the right to choose their cases? Again, yes. How do you balance this? Lawyers have to point to valid reasons why they deny to defend. So, both ways are legit: if someone comes to you, you can defend him or not. In this sense there is a margin to maximize profit.

Comment by giammi-t on Panopticon AKA Giammi's Shortform · 2020-05-09T10:18:45.409Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Review of Lawrence Lessig’s “Code v.2” and “Remix“

Comment by giammi-t on Panopticon AKA Giammi's Shortform · 2020-05-06T07:30:28.649Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

An interesting discussion here on Twitter about simplification and transparency of laws.

Robin Hanson reminded me of Leibniz who wanted to design a legal system made up only by a few basic principles taken from ancient roman law.

Comment by giammi-t on Open & Welcome Thread—May 2020 · 2020-05-06T07:05:44.923Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

There's an interesting discussion here on Twitter about simplification and transparency of laws.

Robin Hanson reminded me of Leibniz who wanted to design a legal system made up only by a few basic principles taken from ancient roman law.

Comment by giammi-t on Open & Welcome Thread—May 2020 · 2020-05-03T12:42:40.473Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Ok, thank you for your answers. I was searching for a new angle from which looking at my area of interest, but I've probably asked the wrong question.

Comment by giammi-t on Open & Welcome Thread—May 2020 · 2020-05-02T21:23:06.784Z · score: 2 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I know well what is the ethos of lawyers. My point was another. Lawyers can accept or decline cases, their decision depends on two factors: defending someone because it's right and being paid. I was trying to understand what would be a rational take on this matter, knowing that both ways are legit, to maximize profit and to choose only safe cases.

Comment by giammi-t on Open & Welcome Thread—May 2020 · 2020-05-02T15:53:26.494Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I have a doubt on Rationalization, dunno if someone can use it for a post.


Imagine you're a lawyer and someone comes to you saying he/she needs to be defended.

You don't know whether he/she is guilty or not. You can obviously "guessing" using all data you can gather.

Your duty as a lawyer, if you accept the case, is to defend them no matter what. In fact, everyone deserves a due process.

Here's my dilemma: take A Rational Argument and the other posts from "Against Rationalization". It is said that to present a rational argument, you have to gather up the more evidence you can and then choose the best candidate.

So there are a few paths involving laws and evidence:

A) Both law and evidence on your side

B) Law on your side

C) Evidence on your side

D) Neither law or evidence

What should you do if you have only law on your side? Would you accept the case knowing that there's a high degree of probability that your client is guilty?

Comment by giammi-t on [deleted post] 2020-03-27T16:55:43.475Z

Ok, so let's say that it was only pr, and no actual help, then still it could be inside a bigger foreign policy plan, in this case looking better in front of Italian people.

Comment by giammi-t on [deleted post] 2020-03-27T16:05:11.008Z

I didn't mention US help because it came from a private charity, while my focus is on countries direct actions. I don't know if you can dismiss Russian help as PR, Berlusconi has not been in charge for 10 years. Also can you link the source for Germany's aid?

Comment by giammi-t on Rationality & Criminal Law: Some Questions · 2020-03-24T15:52:56.682Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I'm a newbie so I will probably do some errors, please tell me.

I want to make a few points, because I am studying law and I think there are some misconceptions about moral luck and trial.

The Knox Case is a bad example of trial by jury, because Italy, a Civil Law country, uses an inquisitorial system, which is a system where there's not a jury like in Common Law countries.

You could say that the Knox Case was judged by a Court of Assize where there is a collegium of 8 judges, 2 with a legal background and 6 from the ordinary people, but it's nonetheless different from a trial by jury because the two experts have more influence on the other 6 than being separate from them.

Also, I can say a few things about moral luck from Italian legal doctrine point of view, I don't know if it is similar to US penal doctrine. To say that someone is guilty, you have to go through 4 steps.

First, the crime must be a human action. Second, this action must be against the legal system. Third, the crime must be personally ascribed to the author. Fourth, you have to ponder the external conditions that may or may not found the punishment of the author.

So, to answer your question why we are not punishing the morally lucky people, I can say two things. First, the judicial system cannot punish everyone. Last, deterrence has to be balanced with proportionality, re-education and human rights. Yelena has killed someone, Alice has not.

Comment by giammi-t on Open & Welcome Thread - March 2020 · 2020-03-24T15:06:52.569Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Hi everyone, I'm from Italy. I've discovered this site searching for zettelkasten guides, but I've got curious and started reading sequences when I saw it was mentioned by Anders Sandberg.

I'm studying law, but I am also fond of philosophy and literature.