#examples of proscribe

[infoanalysishub]

Proscribe Definition, Meaning, Synonyms, Usage, Examples & More

Learn everything about the word “proscribe” including its pronunciation, definitions, synonyms, antonyms, etymology, grammar rules, usage in sentences, real-world examples, medical and kids’ definitions, rhyming words, and more. Proscribe Pronunciation pro·scribe/ˈproʊˌskraɪb/IPA: /prəʊˈskraɪb/ Definition of “Proscribe” Verb (transitive) To forbid or prohibit by law or authoritative…

[lafcadiosadventures]

if you are in a country where democracy isn’t currently being vulnerated consider yourself very lucky and stay alert bc the global tendency is very anti democratic

[rottingmalice]

genuinely the only art advice you should ever follow unconditionally is to never follow any piece of art advice unconditionally tbh

[vaspider]

In defense of retellings & reimaginings

I'm not going to respond to the post that sparked this, because honestly, I don't really feel like getting in an argument, and because it's only vaguely even about the particular story that the other post discussed. The post in question objected to retellings of the Rape of Persephone which changed important elements of the story -- specifically, Persephone's level of agency, whether she was kidnapped, whether she ate seeds out of hunger, and so on. It is permissible, according to this thesis, to 'fill in empty spaces,' but not to change story elements, because 'those were important to the original tellers.' (These are acknowledged paraphrases, and I will launch you into the sun if you nitpick this paragraph.)

I understand why to the person writing that, that perspective is important, and why they -- especially as a self-described devotee of Persephone -- feel like they should proscribe boundaries around the myth. It's a perfectly valid perspective to use when sorting -- for example -- which things you choose to read. If you choose not to read anything which changes the elements which you feel are important, I applaud you.

However, the idea that one should only 'color in missing pieces,' especially when dealing with stories as old, multi-sourced, and fractional as ancient myths, and doing so with the argument that you shouldn't change things because those base elements were important to the people who originally crafted the stories, misses -- in my opinion -- the fundamental reason we tell stories and create myths in the first place.

Forgive me as I get super fucking nerdy about this. I've spent the last several years of my life wrestling with the concept of myths as storytelling devices, universality of myths, and why myths are even important at all as part of writing on something like a dozen books (a bunch of which aren't out yet) for a game centered around mythology. A lot of the stuff I've written has had to wrestle with exactly this concept -- that there is a Sacred Canon which cannot be disrupted, and that any disregard of [specific story elements] is an inexcusable betrayal.

Myths are stories we tell ourselves to understand who we are and what's important to us as individuals, as social groups, and as a society. The elements we utilize or change, those things we choose to include and exclude when telling and retelling a story, tell us what's important to us.

I could sit down and argue over the specific details which change over the -- at minimum -- 1700 years where Persephone/Kore/Proserpina was actively worshiped in Greek and Roman mystery cults, but I actually don't think those variations in specific are very important. What I think is important, however, is both the duration of her cults -- at minimum from 1500 BCE to 200CE -- and the concept that myths are stories we tell ourselves to understand who we are and what's important to us.

The idea that there was one, or even a small handful, of things that were most important to even a large swath of the people who 'originally' told the store of the Rape of Persephone or any other 'foundational' myth of what is broadly considered 'Western Culture,' when those myths were told and retold in active cultic worship for 1700 years... that seems kind of absurd to me on its face. Do we have the same broad cultural values as the original tellers of Beowulf, which is only (heh) between 1k-1.3k years old? How different are our marital traditions, our family traditions, and even our language? We can, at best, make broad statements, and of inclusive necessity, those statements must be broad enough as to lose incredible amounts of specificity. In order to make definitive, specific statements, we must leave out large swaths of the people to whom this story, or any like it, was important.

To move away from the specific story brought up by the poster whose words spun this off, because it really isn't about that story in particular, let's use The Matter of Britain/Arthuriana as our framing for the rest of this discussion. If you ask a random nerd on Tumblr, they'd probably cite a handful of story elements as essential -- though of course which ones they find most essential undoubtedly vary from nerd to nerd -- from the concept that Camelot Always Falls to Gawain and the Green Knight, Percival and the grail, Lancelot and Guinevere...

... but Lancelot/Guinevere and Percival are from Chrétien de Troyes in the 12th century, some ~500 years after Taliesin's first verses. Lancelot doesn't appear as a main character at all before de Troyes, and we can only potentially link him to characters from an 11th century story (Culhwch and Olwen) for which we don't have any extant manuscripts before the 15th century. Gawain's various roles in his numerous appearances are... conflicting characterizations at best.

The point here is not just that 'the things you think are essential parts of the story are not necessarily original,' or that 'there are a lot of different versions of this story over the centuries,' but also 'what you think of as essential is going to come back to that first thesis statement above.' What you find important about The Matter of Britain, and which story elements you think can be altered, filed off or filled in, will depend on what that story needs to tell you about yourself and what's important to you.

Does creating a new incarnation of Arthur in which she is a diasporic lesbian in outer space ruin a story originally about Welsh national identity and chivalric love? Does that disrespect the original stories? How about if Arthur is a 13th century Italian Jew? Does it disrespect the original stories if the author draws deliberate parallels between the seduction of Igerne and the story of David and Bathsheba?

Well. That depends on what's important to you.

Insisting that the core elements of a myth -- whichever elements you believe those to be -- must remain static essentially means 'I want this myth to stagnate and die.' Maybe it's because I am Jewish, and we constantly re-evaluate every word in Torah, over and over again, every single year, or maybe it's because I spend way, way too much time thinking about what's valuable in stories specifically because I write words about these concepts for money, but I don't find these arguments compelling at all, especially not when it comes to core, 'mainstream' mythologies. These are tools in the common toolbox, and everybody has access to them.

More important to me than the idea that these core elements of any given story must remain constant is, to paraphrase Dolly Parton, that a story knows what it is and does it on purpose. Should authors present retellings or reimaginings of the Rape of Persephone or The Matter of Britain which significantly alter historically-known story elements as 'uncovered' myths or present them as 'the real and original' story? Absolutely not. If someone handed me a book in which the new Grail was a limited edition Macklemore Taco Bell Baja Blast cup and told me this comes directly from recently-discovered 6th century writings of Taliesin, I would bonk them on the head with my hardcover The Once & Future King. Of course that's not the case, right?

But the concept of canon, historically, in these foundational myths has not been anything like our concept of canon today. Canon should function like a properly-fitted corset, in that it should support, not constrict, the breath in the story's lungs. If it does otherwise, authors should feel free to discard it in part or in whole.

Concepts of familial duty and the obligation of marriage don't necessarily resonate with modern audiences the way that the concept of self-determination, subversion of unreasonable and unjustified authority, and consent do. That is not what we, as a general society, value now. If the latter values are the values important to the author -- the story that the author needs to tell in order to express who they are individually and culturally and what values are important to them* -- then of course they should retell the story with those changed values. That is the point of myths, and always has been.

Common threads remain -- many of us move away from family support regardless of the consent involved in our relationships, and life can be terrifying when you're suddenly out of the immediate reach and support of your family -- because no matter how different some values are, essential human elements remain in every story. It's scary to be away from your mother for the first time. It's scary to live with someone new, in a new place. It's intimidating to find out that other people think you have a Purpose in life that you need to fulfill. It's hard to negotiate between the needs of your birth family and your chosen family.

None of this, to be clear, is to say that any particular person should feel that they need to read, enjoy, or appreciate any particular retelling, or that it's cool, hip and groovy to misrepresent your reworking of a myth as a 'new secret truth which has always been there.' If you're reworking a myth, be truthful about it, and if somebody told you 'hey did you know that it really -- ' and you ran with that and find out later you were wrong, well, correct the record. It's okay to not want to read or to not enjoy a retelling in which Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere negotiate a triad and live happily ever after; it's not really okay to say 'you can't do that because you changed a story element which I feel is non-negotiable.' It's okay to say 'I don't think this works because -- ' because part of writing a story is that people are going to have opinions on it. It's kind of weird to say 'you're only allowed to color inside these lines.'

That's not true, and it never has been. Greek myths are not from a closed culture. Roman myths are not sacrosanct. There are plenty of stories which outsiders should leave the hell alone, but Greek and Roman myths are simply not on that list. There is just no world in which you can make an argument that the stories of the Greek and Roman Empires are somehow not open season to the entire English-speaking world. They are the public-est of domain.

You don't have to like what people do with it, but that doesn't make people wrong for writing it, and they certainly don't have to color within the lines you or anyone else draws. Critique how they tell the story, but they haven't committed some sort of cultural treachery by telling the stories which are important to them rather than the stories important to someone 2500 years dead.

****

*These are not the only reasons to tell a story and I am not in any way saying that an author is only permitted to retell a story to express their own values. There are as many reasons to tell a story as there are stories, and I don't really think any reason to create fiction is more or less valid than any other. I am discussing, specifically, the concept of myths as conveyors of essential cultural truths.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Against transparency

I'm on a 20+ city book tour for my new novel PICKS AND SHOVELS. Catch me at NEW ZEALAND'S UNITY BOOKS in AUCKLAND on May 2, and in WELLINGTON on May 3. More tour dates (Pittsburgh, PDX, London, Manchester) here.

Walk down any street in California for more than a couple minutes and you will come upon a sign warning you that a product or just an area "contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer."

These warnings are posted to comply with Prop 65, a 1986 law that requires firms to notify you if they're exposing you to cancer risk. The hope was that a legal requirement to warn people about potential carcinogens would lead to a reduction in the use of carcinogens in commonly used products. But the joke's on us: since nearly everything has chemicals that trigger Prop 65 warnings, the warnings become a kind of background hiss. I've lived in California five times now, and I've never once seen a shred of evidence that a Prop 65 warning deters anyone from buying, consuming, using, or approaching anything. I mean, Disneyland is plastered in these warnings.

The idea behind Prop 65 was to "inform consumers" so they could "vote with their wallets." But "is this carcinogenic?" isn't a simple question. Many chemicals are carcinogenic if they come into contact with bare skin, or mucus membranes, but not if they are – for example – underfoot, in contact with the soles of your shoes. Other chemicals are dangerous when they're fresh and offgassing, but become safe once all the volatiles and aromatics have boiled off of them.

Prop 65 is often presented as a story of overregulation, but I think it's a matter of underregulation. Rather than simply telling you that there's a potential carcinogen nearby and leaving you to figure out whether you've exceeded your risk threshold, a useful regulatory framework would require firms to use their products in ways that minimize cancer risk. For example, if a product ships with a chemical that is potentially carcinogenic for a couple weeks after it is manufactured, then the law could require the manufacturer to air out the product for 14 days before shipping it to the wholesaler.

"Caveat emptor" has its place – say, at a yard-sale, or when buying lemonade from a kid raising money for a school trip – but routine shopping shouldn't be a life-or-death matter than you can only survive if you are willing and able to review extensive, peer-reviewed, paywalled toxicology literature. When a product poses a serious threat to our health, it should either be prohibited, or have its use proscribed, so that a reasonable, prudent person doing normal things doesn't have to worry that they've missed a potentially lethal gotcha.

In other words, transparency is nice, but it's not enough.

Think of the "privacy policies" you're asked to click through a thousand times a day. No one reads these. No one has ever read these. For the first six months that Twitter was in business, its privacy policy was full of mentions to Flickr, because that's where they ganked the policy from, and they missed a bunch of search/replace operations. That's funny – but far funnier is that no one at Twitter read the privacy policy, because if they had, they would have noticed this.

You know what would be better than a privacy policy? A privacy law. The last time Congress passed a consumer privacy law was in 1988, when they banned video store clerks from disclosing which VHS cassettes you took home. The fact is that virtually any privacy violation, no matter how ghastly or harmful to you, is legal, provided that you are "notified" through a privacy policy.

Which is why privacy policies are actually privacy invasion policies. No one reads these things because we all know we disagree with every word in them, including "and" and "the." They all boil down to, "By being stupid enough to use this service, you agree that I'm allowed to come to your house, punch your grandmother, wear your underwear, make long distance calls, and eat all the food in your fridge."

And like Prop 65 warnings, these privacy policies are everywhere, and – like Prop 65 warnings – they have proven useless. Companies don't craft better privacy policies because so long as everyone has a terrible bullshit privacy policy, there's no reason to.

My blog, pluralistic.net has two privacy policies. One sits across the top of every page:

Privacy policy: we don't collect or retain any data at all ever period.

The other one appears in the sidebar:

By reading this website, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

The second one is a joke, obviously (it sits above a sidebar element that proclaims "Optimized for Netscape Navigator."). But what's most funny is that when I used to run it at the bottom of all my emails, I totally freaked out a bunch of reps from Big Tech companies on a standards committee that was trying to standardizes abusive, controlling browser technology and cram it down two billion peoples' throats. These guys kvetched endlessly that it was unfair for me to simply declare that they'd agreed that they would do a bunch of stuff for me on behalf of their bosses.

My first response was, of course, "Lighten up, Francis." But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that these guys actually believed that showering someone in endless volleys of fine print actually created legal contracts and consent, and that I might someday sue their employers because I had cleverly released myself from their BOGUS AGREEMENTS.

Of course, that would be very stupid. I can't just wave a piece of paper in your face, shout "YOU AGREED" and steal your bike. But substitute "bike" for "private data" and that's exactly the system we have with privacy policies. Rather than providing notice of odious and unconscionable behavior and hoping that "market forces" sort it out, we should just update privacy law so that doing certain things with your private data is illegal, without your ongoing, continuous, revocable consent.

Obviously, this would come as a severe shock to the tech economy, which is totally structured around commercial surveillance. But the fact that an extremely harmful practice is also extremely widespread is not a reason to keep on doing it – it's a reason to stop. There was a time when we let companies sell radium suppositories, and then, one day, we just banned companies from telling you to put nuclear waste up your asshole:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/19/just-stop-putting-that-up-your-ass/#harm-reduction

We didn't fall back on the "freedom to contract" or "bodily autonomy." Sure, what you do with your body is your own business, but that doesn't imply that quacks should have free rein to trick you into using their murderous products.

And just as there are legitimate, therapeutic uses of radioisotopes (I'm having a PT scan on Monday!), there are legitimate reasons to share your private data. We don't need to resort to outright bans – we can just regulate things. For example, in 2022 Stanford Law's Mark Lemley proposed an absolutely ingenious answer to abusive Terms of Service:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/10/be-reasonable/#i-would-prefer-not-to

Lemley proposes constructing a set of "default rules" for routine agreements, made up of the "explicit and implicit" rules of contracts, including common law, the Uniform Commercial Code, and the Restatement of Contracts. Any time you're presented with a license agreement, you can turn it down in favor of the "default rules" that everyone knows and understands. Anyone who accepts a EULA instead must truly be consenting to a special set of rules. If you want your EULA to get chosen over the default rules, you need to make it short, clear and reasonable.

If we're gonna replace "caveat emptor" with rules that let you go about your business without reading 10,000,000 words of bullshit legalese every time you leave your house (or pick up your phone), we need smart policymakers to create those rules.

Since 2010, America has had an agency that was charged with creating and policing those rules, so you could do normal stuff without worrying that you were accidentally signing your life away. That agency is called the the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, and though it did good work for its first decade of existence, it wasn't until the Biden era, when Rohit Chopra took over the agency, that it came into its own.

Under Chopra, the CFPB became a powerhouse, going after one scam after another, racking up a series of impressive wins:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/10/getting-things-done/#deliverism

The CFPB didn't just react, either. They staffed up with smart technologists and created innovative, smart, effective initiatives to keep you from getting ripped off:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/01/bankshot/#personal-financial-data-rights

Under Chopra, the CFPB was in the news all the time, as they scored victory after victory. These days, the CFPB is in the news again, but for much uglier reasons. For billionaire scammers like Elon Musk, CFPB is the most hated of all the federal agencies. Musk's Doge has been trying to "delete the CFPB" since they arrived on the scene, but their hatred has made them so frenzied that they keep screwing up and losing in court. They just lost again:

https://prospect.org/justice/2025-04-18-federal-judge-halts-cfpb-purge-again/

Trumpland is full of the people on the other side of those EULAs, the people who think that if they can trick you out of your money, "that makes me smart":

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/04/its-not-a-lie/#its-a-premature-truth

If Musk can trick you into buying a Tesla after lying about full self driving, that doesn't make him a scammer, "that makes him smart." If Trump can stiff his contractors, that doesn't make him a crook, "that makes him smart."

It's not a coincidence that these guys went after the CFPB. It's no mystery why they've gone after every watchdog that keeps you from getting scammed, poisoned or maimed, from the FDA to the EPA to the NLRB. They are the kind of people who say, "So long as it was in the fine print, and so long I could foist that fine-print on you, that's a fair deal." For them, caveat emptor is a Latin phrase that means, "Surprise, you're dead."

It's bad enough when companies do this to us, be they Big Tech, health insurers or airlines. But when the government takes these grifters' side over yours – when grifters take over the government – hold onto your wallets:

https://www.citationneeded.news/trump-crypto-empire/

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/19/gotcha/#known-to-the-state-of-california-to-cause-cancer

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[transmutationisms]

@annevbonny yeah so first of all there's the overt framing issue that this whole idea rests on the premise that eliminating fatness is both possible and good, as though like. fat people haven't existed prior to the ~industrial revolution~ lol

more granularly this theory relies on misinterpreting the causes for the link between poverty and fatness (which is real---they are correlated) so that fatness can be configured as a failure of eating choices and urban design, meaning ofc that the 'solution' to this problem is more socially hygienic, monitored, controlled communities where everybody has been properly educated into the proper affective enjoyment of spinach and bike riding, and no one is fat anymore and the labour force lives for longer and generates more value for employers

in truth one of the biggest mediating factors in the poverty-body weight link is food insecurity, because intermittent access to food tends to result in periods of under-nourishment followed by periods of compensatory eating with corresponding weight regain/overshoot (this is typical of weight trajectories in anyone refeeding after a period of starvation or under-eating, for any reason). so this is all to say that the suggestion that fatness is caused by access to 'unhealthy foods' is not only off base but extremely harmful; food insecurity is rampant globally. what people need is consistent access to food, and more of it!

and [loud obvious disclaimer voice] although i absolutely agree that food justice means access to a variety of foods with a variety of nutrient profiles, access to any calories at all is always better than access to none or too few. which is to say, there aren't 'healthy' or 'unhealthy' foods in isolation (all foods can belong in a varied, sufficient diet) and this is a billion times more true when we are talking about people struggling to consume enough calories in the first place.

relatedly, proponents of the 'obesogenic environment' theory often invoke the idea of 'hyperpalatable foods' or 'food addiction'---different ways of saying that people 'overeat' 'junk food' because it's too tasty (often with the bonus techno-conspiricism of "they engineer it that way"). again it's this idea that the problem is people eating the 'wrong' foods, now because the foods themselves are exerting some inexorable chemical pull over them.

this is inane for multiple reasons including the failure to deal with access issues and the fact that people who routinely, reliably eat enough in non-restrictive patterns (between food insecurity and encouragement to deliberately diet/restrict, this is very few people) don't even tend to 'overeat' energy-dense demonised foods in the first place. ie, there is no need to proscribe or limit 'junk food' or 'fast food' or 'empty calories' or whatever nonsense euphemism; again the solution to nutritionally unbalanced diets is to guarantee everyone access to sufficient food and a variety of different foods (and to stop encouraging the sorts of moralising food taboos that make certain foods 'out of bounds' and therefore more likely to provoke a subjective sense of loss of control in the first place lol)

but tbc, when i say "the solution to nutritionally unbalanced diets"---because these certainly can and do exist, particularly (again) amongst people subjected to food insecurity---i am NOT saying "the solution to fatness" because fatness is not something that will ever be eliminated from the human population. and here again we circle back to one of the fundamental fears that animates the 'obesogenic environment' myth, which is that fatness is a medical threat to the race/nation/national future. which is of course blatant biopolitics and is relying on massive assumptions about the health status of fat and thin people that are simply not borne out in the data, and that misinterpret the relationship between fatness and illness (for example, the extent to which weight stigma prevents fat people from receiving medical care, or the role of 'metabolic syndrome' in causing weight gain, rather than the other way around).

people are fat for many reasons, including "their bodies just look like that"; fatness is neither a disease in itself nor inherently indicative of ill health, nor is it eradicable anyway (and fundamentally, while all people should have access to health-protective social and economic conditions, health is not something that people 'owe' to anyone else anyway)

the 'obesogenic environment' is a liberal technocratic fantasy---a world in which fatness is a problem of individual consumption and social engineering, and is to be eliminated by clever policy and personal responsibility. it assumes your health is 1) directly caused and indicated by your weight, 2) something you owe to the capitalist state as part of the bargain that is 'citizenship', and 3) something you can learn to control if only you are properly educated by the medical authorities on the rules of nutrition (and secondarily exercise) science. it's a factual misinterpretation of everything we know about weight, health, diet, and wealth, and it fundamentally serves as a defense of the existing economic order: the problem isn't that capitalism structurally does not provide sufficient access to resources for any but the capitalist class---no, we just need a nicer and more functional capitalism where labourers have a greengrocer in the neighbourhood, because this is a discourse incapable of grappling with the material realities of food production and consumption, and instead reliant on configuring them in terms of affectivity ('food addiction') or knowledge (the idea that food-insecure people need to be more educated about nutrition)

there are some additional aspects here obviously like the idea that exercising more would make people thin (similar issues to the food arguments, physical activity can be great but the reasons people do or don't do it are actually complex and related to things like work schedules and exercise doesn't guarantee thinness in the first place) or fearmongering about 'endocrine disruptors' (real, but are extremely ill-defined as a category and are often just a way to appeal to ideas of 'naturalness' and the vague yet pressing harms of 'chemicals', and which are also not shown to single-handedly 'cause' fatness, a normal state of existence for the human body) but this is most often an argument about food ime.

[owlrageousjones]

So an author in Australia recently got arrested over her book. If you're on booktok, you've probably heard about Tori Woods and her book, 'Daddy's Little Toy'.

It's... well, it's definitely not for everyone (definitely not for me). It's marketed as 'dark romance' with the MMC claiming he's been lusting after the FMC since she was three. Themes of grooming and such, but no actual sexual activity occurs until she's eighteen apparently. The author brands it DDLG style stuff, but others... disagree.

(I haven't read it, and I don't think I can even if I wanted to because it's been pulled from Amazon)

And so people reported her, and she got arrested because Australian Law is pretty fucking strict about 'CSAM' and what counts. It is, basically, illegal to portray or describe any kind of sexual activity involving someone under the age of 18 - exceptions are proscribed for things like 'artistic merit' but honestly, that's fucking stupid and shit, because it's very easy to argue where the line on 'merit' is.

The state of our laws on the matter are a joke and I do not trust the people who are meant to arbitrate them.

And I think the best and greatest counter example of how stupid our laws are isn't some classic literary story or anything, it's a little thing that happened about a decade ago.

A Tasmanian councilman got his laptop stolen - police retrieved it, searched it. Dunno exactly why they were searching, but they found the man's stash of porn still on it, which included the old Victorian-era magazine The Pearl (not to be confused with the Steinbeck novella). It was basically a collection of short, pornographic stories and one of which involved a twelve year old girl (which was considered of legal, consenting age at the time).

He got arrested, charged, convicted... and then it was overturned a few days later because - guess what! - you can still buy The Pearl in a book store! Harper Collins republished it in like 2008!

I'm not saying Daddy's Little Toy is the next Lolita, but I hope the charges get quashed and maybe we have an actual conversation about how stupid our censorship laws are.

But frankly... I'm doubtful anyone will be willing to have a sensible discourse on it.

[citygirlyuno305]

Why Mikoto would be found guilty irl and how the law/laypeople on juries justify imprisoning a host for the crime of an alter (as a lawyer) (cliffsnotes version bc I could go on for a long time about any of the prisoners)

Before I start, please dont take what I say as me agreeing with certain things or expressing a personal view on the crime itself. I’m strictly talking about how his case would be objectively viewed under the law, and i’m only doing it because I see everyone else’s opinions and i find the contrast interesting.

TW because I talk about murder (obviously) and bring in some examples to highlight principles with other crimes that might be offputting- im not accusing him of those or comparing the actual offenses, Im just highlighting different things with them. (robbery, felony murder, sex crime)

The basics/general applicable law

All crimes require 1) actus reus (physical criminal act) and 2) mens rea (guilty mind). One must commit the actual act proscribed by law, and must do so with the requisite intent, for them to be found guilty of an offense. Murder is broadly defined as the intentional killing of another.

Actus reus is pretty simple. Intentionally killing someone else. Intent to do the act that winds up killing someone else or intent to cause great bodily harm is sufficient. “I only meant to beat him up, not kill him” — the intent to beat him up is enough for murder.

The mens rea usually makes all the difference in charging and conviction. Thats why you could see someone who totally murdered someone else actually get manslaughter because you couldn’t prove willfulness or purposeful action, only recklessness or negligence, etc.

Defenses tend to target the mens rea. Self defense is acting under the reasonable belief youre in danger of death or GBI. imperfect self defense is when that belief is unreasonable (and will still get you with a manslaughter charge because its an incomplete defense).

Insanity is another technical defense but it is unimaginably difficult to succeed on it. Theres four tests for legal insanity under US law:

1- M’Naughten test- a defendant is deemed to be legally insane if he or she was unaware of what he or she was doing when the offense was committed or, even if the defendant knew what he or she was doing, that defendant was incapable of understanding that what they were doing was wrong. It also tends to require a sincerely held belief or delusion that the conduct was morally justified.

2- “Irresistible impulse” test- allows for a defendant to be found not guilty by reason of insanity if his or her mental illness meant that, although recognizing the wrongness of the offense, he or she was compelled to commit the offense anyway. The focus is on volition.

3- Durham rule (Only used in NH)- juries follow the diagnoses made by trained professionals in determining whether the accused is guilty. This test fell out of favor because it diminishes the jury’s role as finder of fact and places decision making in the hands of psychologists, who may- and often do- disagree among each other about the diagnoses at issue.

4- Model Penal Code (MPC) test- A little broader than M’Naughten. Psychiatrist diagnoses mental illness; The defendant must prove they lacked the substantial capacity to (1) understand the criminality of the conduct or (2) conform their conduct to the law. This test prohibits psychopaths and sociopaths from using the insanity defense.

The most commonly used tests are M’Naughten and MPC.

Mikoto satisfies actus reus for murder

When someone with DID commits a crime, it is their corporal form that commits that crime, ergo, under the law, that corporal form committed the actus reus, regardless of who was fronting at the time. While unfortunate, the offending alter is an inextricable part of that person’s physical and mental state of being, and as a matter of public policy, the law treats them as one as it relates to physical conduct.

Mikoto cannot satisfy the standard of self defense

To act in legal self defense, the defendant must actually and reasonably believe in the need to defend against an imminent threat of death or GBI. If the belief subjectively exists but is objectively unreasonable, there is “imperfect self-defense,” i.e., “the defendant is deemed to have acted without malice and cannot be convicted of murder,” but can be convicted of manslaughter. Self-defense “is limited to the use of such force as is reasonable under the circumstances.” Only force that is necessary to repel an attack may be used in self-defense, and force exceeding that necessity is not justified.

So view that as 1) reasonable belief 2) of imminent danger and GBI and 3) use of no greater force than reasonably necessary to defend against it.

Theres 0 evidence of it, but let’s assume the guy he smacked with the bat in MeMe hit Mikoto first. In that scene the victim appears entirely unarmed and has no gun, he’s flat on the ground, he’s not moving towards Mikoto. Mikoto walking towards him and beating him down with a bat is not self defense at that point even if he hit him first. It actually wouldnt be self defense even if the guy had a gun in his pocket and Mikoto knew that, because if the gun isnt out and in the dude’s hand, theres not IMMINENT threat under the law.

He fails on self defense.

Mikoto would not succeed on the insanity defense

Take the two most common tests for insanity, M’Naughten and MPC.

Mikoto fails M’Naughten because he did not act under a delusion. The alter is not itself a delusion. And absent any evidence to the contrary, Mikoto and John both appeared aware that the conduct was morally and legally wrong.

Mikoto fails the MPC because, again, it seems both he and John would know the criminality of murder and failed to conform their conduct to the law for a reason other than a delusion or lack of understanding.

I’ll add that in 100% of cases i’ve seen a successful lodging of the insanity defense, the defendant suffered a disorder that caused delusions and hallucinations. It’s still not even a guarantee but schizophrenia or hallucinatory disorders- most commonly where the defendant demonstrates violent hyperreligiosity outside of judeochristian norms- make it much easier to argue that you truly acted under a moral belief that you were behaving properly. For instance, a paranoid schizophrenic man who suffers delusions of demons surrounding his mother and hallucinates that she, too, is a demon, sent to kill him and everyone else, who he then kills because he believed he was saving the world, assuming he gets that diagnosis and has experts testify as to his mental state, is fairly likely to lodge a successful insanity defense… maybe.

DID doesnt fit the typical mold of disorders encompassed by the insanity defense because unless some other illness is present, both the alter and the host know that the conduct is criminal, they arent acting under a delusion, and they arent under a sincere belief that murder is moral and just. Mikoto would not be found legally insane.

Mikoto would be found to have the requisite Mens Rea because as a matter of public policy, the alter is treated as one with the host

Having negated any defenses, Mikoto is likely to be found guilty of murder as he would have the actus reus and mens rea necessary for a conviction. An inextricable part of the host did in fact intend to kill someone, or intended to commit the act that killed someone, or intended to cause great bodily harm, so theres someone here who undeniably satisfies the legal elements for murder, hiding within someone who had no clue.

The law views a guilty alter as a guilty host. The alter is inseparable from the host, they would not exist without the host, and they would not be punished without simultaneously punishing the host. And because John is guilty, Mikoto is guilty under the law. This means Mikoto must be punished as well. Even the rehabilitative approach to punishment for crimes, which I’d say is most defendant-friendly, would require the full and complete “removal” of the offending alter, which means punishing the host to some degree.

And the evaluation of it is ultimately left up to the jury, and I dont think there’d be a jury that acquits him. Mind you, juries inherently doubt both the victim and the defendant when they provide testimony if there’s no corroboration. Be it by physical evidence or an expert witness. With DID, it would be expert witness testimony that kind of makes or breaks it. Right now, viewing what we have as the evidence, we only have Mikoto’s words as evidence of his DID. Without an expert, there’s virtually 0 chance that the jury would accept it as true. And because of Mikoto’s shock, I don’t believe he’s diagnosed, so there’s no expert possibility there either (usually they do bring the diagnosing physician along with several others appointed by the court and both parties).

And juries have the power to simply ignore a defendant’s mental illness in most cases when coming to a decision, if that mental illness did not CAUSE the crime, but only contributed or maybe explains a mental state. but thats a complicated topic with a lot of moving parts. When it comes to most any evidence or testimony, a jury can disregard whatever they believe is incredible, insubstantial, unconvincing. They can rule out a defendant’s (or victim’s) entire testimony as untruthful, they’re allowed to ignore literally any experts that testify if they find them incredible, they’re allowed to cherrypick parts of someone’s testimony to believe or not. They actually have an insane amount of power, so because DID isnt insanity under the law, if even one expert says “No, he doesnt have DID,” they can ignore 2, 3, 4 other experts saying “This guy has DID for real” and conclude that he’s lying. There’s nuances here and there but this will generally hold true. When it’s not the insanity defense or some other way of establishing an element of a defense, mental illness or trauma only holds weight as a mitigating factor in sentencing. And even then, it’s only if you can still somehow try to connect it to the offense. But this is paradoxical, because there has to be a balance between using evidence of mental illness as mitigation and not offputting a jury, as bad as that sounds.

More than anything in some cases, jurors are driven by their sympathy for the parties. And here, a jury is unlikely to be sympathetic to Mikoto, and much more likely to sympathize with the victims’ grieving families. Usually, DID or any other mental illness only garners juror sympathy insofar as they feel bad for the trauma that gave rise to it. It’s like “i hate what you did but i also hate what happened to you that made you this way.” It wont get someone off, but it’ll likely lower their sentence. Perhaps dramatically if the original trauma is particularly gruesome. Juries are unpredictable, but one constant seems to be mercy in the face of objectively undeserved hardship. If what we have now is our entire wealth of evidence, there is a sincere lack of sympathetic material for the jury to draw from wrt why Mikoto fractured in the first place, and for that reason, it’s honestly a very likely scenario that they simply don’t believe he has it at all.

And I don’t want to start any arguments so please dont take this as me putting my opinion out, but there is a common belief among the public, which does not evade the potential jury pool, that people fake all sorts of mental illnesses to avoid accountability. So absent an expert to corroborate the existence of a mental illness and how it impacted your conduct, that belief also likely leaks in.

Again, I’m not presenting opinion, just trying to tell you all everything from where I’m standing to give you the whole picture. All of my colleagues and opposing counsel have discussed the relationship between “identity politics” and increased use of labels to describe oneself off the bat, and juror sympathy, because convincing a jury is almost like a game. You can have all the evidence you need to make an irrefutable case, but how its presented to the jury ultimately makes a significant difference in the outcome. From what I’m told, overreliance on a mental disorder that does not fall within the umbrella of insanity when testifying to describe your offense makes a jury less sympathetic and less likely to believe you. And oddly it seems that keeping self-description of the hardships caused by your mental illness to a minimum has the inverse effect of increasing credibility with the jury, likely because they see it as trying to accept some form of accountability.

I’ll give a few examples. My boss has had a case where a defendant brought up an entirely different mental disorder, not DID. I won’t give out what disorder it was, but it was one my boss described as becoming somewhat “trendy” in the earlier 2000s. No experts testified on the defendant’s behalf, but both the prosecutor and defense attorney did believe the defendant truly suffered from it. The jury did not, in part because it was “trendy” and also because there was no evidence other than the defendant’s word. Given his crime, they believed there was reason to lie about having it, and there was nothing for them to find mitigating because nothing other than his word suggested the mental illness exacerbated the crime. It wasnt even a disorder that wouldve gotten him off on an insanity defense, it was just one for mitigation of sentence, and it was completely rejected- he got something in the realm of 20 years. He succeeded on an appeal for reconsideration of it, and brought in a few experts, but the prosecution also brought in an expert, and the new jury believed the prosecution’s one expert more- who still said the defendant had this disorder, but just that it didn’t contribute to or negate from the commission of the offense. This was an aggravated rape case.

Another example, there was a defendant who kept her description of his mental illnesses extremely short, it had to be coaxed out during testimony. Honestly, he had a pretty shitty go of it from the sound of his childhood and testimony. In a surprise move after originally agreeing to the mental illnesses angle of defense, when he testified, he himself went against his own experts and said his mental illnesses did not make him do what he did, and defended himself in a different way. So his testimony on his mental illnesses mirrored the prosecution’s expert witnesses’ views, but he just tried to justify it another way. Why, I don’t know. But he acted ashamed of what happened to him and what he suffered from mentally and was very clearly uncomfortable discussing it at all. The jury ended up finding that the mental illnesses in fact did mitigate his offense. He had committed multiple murder.

I’m not saying its right or wrong, but juries have little sympathy for mental illnesses that hold no weight in the crime you committed. And if im honest, juries do not want to be there. They have jobs and families and lives, and i wouldnt be surprised if some animus comes in when a defendant puts up evidence of a mental illness or gives long testimony about it when the mental illness did not functionally contribute to the offense/has only a tenuous connection, because it just means the jury has to be there longer. I dont know for sure, but ive seen them get irritated over the prosecution putting up more evidence than they need to, even though thats kind of the whole point- guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and all the evidence eliminates any doubt. So in the same way, introducing repetitive testimony about a mental illness that doesn’t negate any element of the crime could also be seen as a waste of time to them because it doesnt actually modify the verdict itself.

So the odds are stacked against Mikoto under US law at least. Based on what we have, his DID does not negate mens rea.

I’d like to briefly just discuss the public policy goal behind this, as courts have viewed it and explained. There are five main goals of criminal law- retribution (ensuring consequences are dealt), deterrence (discouraging defendant and other similarly situated people from committing this offense), incapacitation (keeping the defendant away from the public and ensuring they cannot hurt anyone further), rehabilitation (reforming the defendant for safe reentry into society), and restoration (providing the victim or their family with restitution for the specific offense committed, attempting to remedy their harm). Sentences are catered to meet these goals as they relate to different offenses. Taken together, the biggest theme is to give justice to the specific victim, and make sure it doesnt happen to anyone else.

You cant force an alter to front or control their decision to front, so there’s no way to truly tell if that alter will front and do it again if the same stressors causing the front arise, even if you put the host in therapy. Because its not like a bit of therapy will make the DID go poof, I’m gone now, it’s a long and intense process that takes years because you have to target that incredible amount of trauma that comes with the formation of the alter in the first place. There’s concerns on the other end about how therapy to cure or get rid of DID is harmful to the host or simply impossible, and if that’s so, then clearly putting the host in therapy will do nothing to protect the public or bring justice to the victims.

Ultimately, the law prioritizes the rights of the victim and the potential for recidivism. Although it was an alter and not the host, the alter cant be punished without also punishing the host. So being left with the option of letting the host walk free with no relief to the victim because the murdering alter is also free, or imprisoning the host for the sake of imprisoning the alter, which is the proper choice? There is no “fair” option. But where there is no guarantee that this will not happen again, it is in the interest of avoiding recidivism and preserving public safety to isolate and imprison the host so the alter can be addressed.

There’s no direct example, but its kind of like if you took conjoined twins, and one commits a murder while the other had no control over the body parts used to murder that person, didn’t want to, and didn’t plan it or conspire to do it. There’s one conscious being that committed a murder, and imprisoning them means we must imprison the other conscious being of the same body who had no part in it or control over it. Is it more justiciable to let them go, knowing that the other twin may offend again and that the innocent twin cannot control the body enough to stop it? Or do we imprison them both, knowing one of them is innocent?

Likewise, how do we ensure deterrence, justice, rehabilitation, restoration, or incapacitation in the case of an alter committing murder?

The short answer is we really can’t without simultaneously imprisoning the host.

So under the law, he satisfies the actus reus, and he satisfies the mens rea. I’d think there’d be some mitigation because he seemed to genuinely not know, but you never know with a jury (which is why I think it’s wise to submit the factfinding for factors in aggravation/mitigation to the judge instead of a jury but that would be waiving your right to a jury trial on those matters). For these reasons, he’d be imprisoned notwithstanding whether an alter committed the offense.

[sag-dab-sar]

Me: *has a migraine* , *takes medications*, *makes sure I'm not too hungry (its a trigger)*, *gets an ice pack*, *finds very quite ASMR to drown out other noise*Okay good got that done quickly thankfully *puts on my prescription medical migraine treatment device*

IOS Nerivio App: Well before you turn the device on you have to sign in

Me: *tries to find password while experiencing 9 pain migraine* ... *logs in*

iOS Nerivio App: Please read our terms of service

Me: you are a mother fucking medical device I was proscribed shut up and start the treatment.... *scrolls through and clicks accept*

iOS Nerivio App: Okay we have to connect the device

Me: ITS ALREADY C O N N E C T E D

iOS Nerivio App: Mmm not sure about that give me a few minutes

Me: *tries not to cry because that will make the migraine worse*

Conclusion: Requiring iOS or Android apps (or any other) for medical devices is discrimination. Period. All devices can have a button or small remote thing, I don't care if it cost a little extra for the company my health is not a commodity. A optional app that can do a lot more than the basics would be fine— nerivio app offers migraine tracking as example—but should not at all be required.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Do you happen to know how often it occurred for wives of arrested deputies to share the same fate of their husbands, so either imprisoned, or condemned to death ? Do you have some examples? I'm referring to the years between 92-95. Moreover if it's not too much to ask for, could you also point out the signature of the CSP members who signed such warrants?

That’s a very interesting question, especially since no official studies seem to have been made on the subject. What I’ve found so far (and it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s way more) is:

Félicité Brissot — after the news of her husband’s arrest, Félicité, who had lived in Saint-Cloud with her three children since April 1793, traveled to Chartres. There (on an unspecified date?) she and her youngest son Anacharsis (born 1791) were arrested by the Revolutionary Committee of Saint-Cloud (the two older children had been taken in by other people) which sent her to Paris. Once arrived in the capital, Felicité was placed under surveillance in the Necker hotel, rue de Richelieu, in accordance with an order from the Committee of General Security dated August 9 1793 (she could not be placed under house arrest in her own apartment, since seals had already been placed on it). On August 11 she underwent an interrogation, and on October 13, she was sent from her house arrest (where she had still enjoyed a relative liberty) to the La Force prison. Félicité and her son were set free on February 4 1794, after six months spent under arrest. The order for her release was it too issued by the Committee of General Security, and signed by Lacoste, Vadier, Dubarran, Guffroy, Amar, Louis (du Bas-Rhin), and Voulland. Source: J.-P. Brissot mémoires (1754-1793); [suivi de] correspondance et papiers (1912) by Claude Perroud)

Suzanne Pétion — In a letter to the Convention dated July 26 1793, Carrier reports that ”Péthion's [sic] wife, their son and the wife of another fugitive, were arrested in Homfleurs, we are going to take them to Paris.” On August 9, we find a CGS decree ordering Suzanne and her ten year old son, for the moment under house arrest, to be taken to the Sainte-Pélagie prison. Ten days after that, August 19, the CGS orders the furniture in Suzanne’s apartment to be brought over to her.  A year later, August 13 1794, we find a letter from Suzanne to the Committee of Public Safety pleading for the release of her and her son, imprisoned only for sharing the name of a proscribed deputy. But this would appear to have lead nowhere, and the two were instead transported from the Sainte-Pélagie prison to the Maison Desnos. Finally, on December 9 1794, after one year, four months and thirteen days imprisoned, a CGS decree with the signatures of Mathieu, Reverchon, Bourdon, Montmayou, Barras and Comorel on it ordered Suzanne and her son released and their seals lifted immediately.

Louise-Catherine-Àngélique Ricard, widow Lefebvre (Suzanne Pétion’s mother) — According to Histoire du tribunal révolutionnaire de Paris: avec le journal de ses actes (1880) by Henri Wallon, Louise was called before the parisian Revolutionary Tribunal on September 24 1793, accused “of having applauded the escape of Minister Lebrun by saying: “So much the better, we must not desire blood,” of having declared that the Brissolins and the Girondins were good republicans (��Yes,” her interlocutor replied, “once the national ax has fallen on the corpses of all of them”), for having said, when someone came to tell her that the condemned Tonduti had shouted “Long live the king” while going to execution; that everyone would have to share this feeling, and that for the public good there would have to be a king whom the “Convention and its paraphernalia ate more than the old regime”. She denied this when asked about Tonduti, limiting herself to having said: “Ah! the unfortunate.” Asked why she had made this exclamation she responded: ”through a sentiment of humanity.” She was condemned and executed the very same day.

Marie Anne Victoire Buzot — It would appear she was put under house arrest, but was able to escape from there. According to Provincial Patriot of the French Revolution: François Buzot, 1760–1794 (2015) by Bette W. Oliver, ”[Marie] had remained in Paris after her husband fled on June 2 [1793], but she was watched by a guard who had been sent to the Hôtel de Bouillon. Soon thereafter, Madame Buzot and her ”domestics” disappeared, along with all of the personal effects in the apartment. […] Madame Buzot would join her husband in Caen, but not until July 10; and no evidence remains regarding her whereabouts between the time that she left Paris in June and her arrival in Caen. At a later date, however, she wrote that she had fled, not because she feared death, but because she could not face the ”ferocious vengeance of our persecutors” who ignored the law and refused ”to listen to our justification.” I’ve unfortunately not been able to access the source used to back this though…

Marie Françoise Hébert — arrested on March 14 1794, presumably on the orders of the Committee of General Security since I can’t find any decree regarding the affair in Recueil des actes du Comité de salut public. Imprisoned in the Conciergerie until her execution on April 13 1794, so 30 days in total. See this post.

Marie Françoise Joséphine Momoro — imprisoned in the Prison de Port-libre from March 14 to May 27 1794 (2 months and 13 days), as seen through Jean-Baptiste Laboureau’s diary, cited in Mémoires sur les prisons… (1823) page 68, 72, 109.

Lucile Desmoulins — arrested on April 4 1794 according to a joint order with the signatures of Du Barran (who had also drafted it) and Voulland from the CGS and Billaud-Varennes, C-A Prieur, Carnot, Couthon, Barère and Robespierre from the CPS on it. Imprisoned in the Sainte-Pélagie prison up until April 9, when she was transferred to the Conciergerie in time for her trial to begin. Executed on April 13 1794, after nine days spent in prison. See this post.

Théresa Cabarrus — ordered arrested and put in isolation on May 22 1794, though a CPS warrant drafted by Robespierre and signed by him, Billaud-Varennes, Barère and Collot d’Herbois. Set free on July 30 (according to Madame Tallien : notre Dame de Thermidor from the last days of the French Revolution until her death as Princess de Chimay in 1835 (1913)), after two months and eight days imprisoned.

Thérèse Bouquey (Guadet’s sister-in-law) — arrested on June 17 1794 once it was revealed she and her husband for the past months had been hiding the proscribed girondins Pétion, Buzot, Barbaroux, Guadet and Salles. She, alongside her husband and father and Guadet’s father and aunt, were condemned to death and executed in Bordeaux on July 20 1794. Source: Paris révolutionnaire: Vieilles maisons, vieux papiers (1906), volume 3, chapter 15.

Marie Guadet (Guadet’s paternal aunt) — Condemned to death and executed in Bordeaux on July 20 1794, alongside her brother and his son, the Bouqueys and Xavier Dupeyrat. Source: Charlotte Corday et les Girondins: pièces classées et annotées (1872) by Charles Vatel.

Charlotte Robespierre — Arrested and interrogated on July 31 1794 (see this post). According to the article Charlotte Robespierre et ses amis (1961), no decree ordering her release appears to exist. In her memoirs (1834), Charlotte claims she was set free after a fortnight, and while the account she gives over her arrest as a whole should probably be doubted, it seems strange she would lie to make the imprisonment shorter than it really was. We know for a fact she had been set free by November 18 1794, when we find this letter from her to her uncle.

Françoise Magdeleine Fleuriet-Lescot — put under house arrest on July 28 1794, the same day as her husband’s execution. Interrogated on July 31. By August 7 1794 she had been transferred to the Carmes prison, where she the same day wrote a letter to the president of the Convention (who she asked to in turn give it to Panis) begging for her freedom. On September 5 the letter was sent to the Committee of General Security. I have been unable to discover when she was set free. Source: Papiers inédits trouvés chez Robespierre, Saint-Just, Payan, etc. supprimés ou omis par Courtois. précédés du Rapport de ce député à la Convention Nationale, volume 3, page 295-300.

Françoise Duplay — a CGS decree dated July 27 1794 orders the arrest of her, her husband and their son, and for all three to be put in isolation. The order was carried out one day later, July 28 1794, when all three were brought to the Pélagie prison. On July 29, Françoise was found hanged in her cell. See this post.

Élisabeth Le Bas Duplay — imprisoned with her infant son from July 31 to December 8 1794, 4 months and 7 days. The orders for her arrest and release were both issued by the CGS. See this post.

Sophie Auzat Duplay — She and her husband Antoine were arrested in Bruxelles on August 1 1794. By October 30 the two had been transferred to Paris, as we on that date find a letter from Sophie written from the Conciergerie prison. She was set free by a CPS decree (that I can’t find in Recueil des actes du Comité de salut public…) on November 19 1794, after 3 months and 18 days of imprisonment. When her husband got liberated is unclear. See this post.

Victoire Duplay — Arrested in Péronne by representative on mission Florent Guiot (he reveals this in a letter to the CPS dated August 4 1794). When she got set free is unknown. See this post.

Éléonore Duplay — Her arrest warrant, ordering her to be put in the Pélagie prison, was drafted by the CGS on August 6 1794. Somewhere after this date she was moved to the Port-Libré prison, and on April 21 1795, from there to the Plessis prison. She was transfered back to the Pélagie prison on May 16 1795. Finally, on July 19 1795, after as much as 11 months and 13 days in prison, Éléonore was liberated through a decree from the CGS. See this post.

Élisabeth Le Bon — arrested in Saint-Pol on August 25 1794, ”suspected of acts of oppression” and sent to Arras together with her one year old daughter Pauline. The two were locked up in ”the house of the former Providence.” On October 26, Élisabeth gave birth to her second child, Émile, while in prison. She was released from prison on October 14 1795, four days after the execution of her husband. By then, she had been imprisoned for 1 year, 1 month and 19 days. Source: Paris révolutionnaire: Vieilles maisons, vieux papiers (1906), volume 3, chapter 1.

[atreyucannamos]

XI: Carnelian

5016u FIVE DAYS AGO

LEAF: Rawan, I need to ask a favor.

SAXIFRAGE: why hello lord cannamos

SAXIFRAGE: ask and perhaps ye shall receive

LEAF: I need paint in Ungrateful colors; enough to repaint Assembler.

SAXIFRAGE: for the cadenze

LEAF: Yes.

SAXIFRAGE: done

SAXIFRAGE: itll be delivered within the hour

LEAF: Wait, what? It was that easy?

LEAF: Did you just have it lying around?

SAXIFRAGE: ill be answering no further questions at this time

5016u TWELVE HOURS AGO MORNING OF THE CADENZE DE L' PAVILLOS

The guantlet had been thrown down.

When Dean-Commander Hebriyah saw Assembler, she looked like her teeth might shatter from the sheer force of the grinding. The Archchancellor had tightened her lips and heaved an exasperated sigh. Stablemaster Imani had read the room in the blink of an eye, and invented a sudden excuse to leave it. Lord Castor-Eyros was desperately trying to stifle his laughter. Underbaron Iphiannassa had fixed Atreyu with a stare that could cut through a bulkhead, and then raised a single eyebrow.

The Dean-Commander, the Archchancellor and the Underbaron went over every inch of it with a fine-tooth comb. Every petal of every flower in every wreath was examined for blight. The paintjob was checked and double-checked - had it been properly waxed? Was there inconsistency in the linework? Were there scratches? Every single element of the heraldry on the tabard, banners and streamers was scrutinized extensively, checked against a list of proscribed symbols.

Eventually, after three full hours, the Dean-Commaner was forced to admit - through gritted teeth, her eye twitching violently - that everything was in order. Atreyu had "somehow" managed to conform to every single regulation in the book; though their livery was certainly "unconventional, audacious... some might even say controversial," it violated no statute the College currently had on the books.

"Perhaps we shall draft a new one, and name it after you," the Underbaron had said, with a tone dryer than the Blanca Desert.

They all turned to Lord Castor-Eyros, who had spent the time grading papers. He looked up, eyes innocent, as if he had no idea what he'd been asked.

"Well, it's clearly a striking artistic statement that had senior members of the faculty examining its intricacies and implications for hours. Excellent juxtaposition of symbology; the use of yellow carnations around your house's canton-sigil was particularly provocative. Don't think I missed the gemstones in the broach, either; carnelian and fire agate - how daring! I agree with my erstwhile colleague the Underbaron - we should put this one in the books, as a prime example of how a Kavalier speaks without words. Good work, Lord Cannamos! Top marks. You've clearly been paying attention."

"It's an insult, is what it is," growled the Dean, finally losing her compsure. "An intentional provocation! Disrespecting the spirit of this institution's statutes by malicious compliance with their letter!"

"My dear Doleros," Castor drawled, returning to his grading, "I already said I loved it. You don't need to keep recommending it to me."

Atreyu was certain: whatever problems this might cause down the line, it was all worth it, purely for the noise that the Dean made in response.

5016u NOW NIGHT OF THE CADENZE DE L' PAVILLOS

Soundtrack: One Hour of Waltzes

The Reis twins were entertained - finally.

Everyone made the same assumption about the Primors Valentine and Vivian: social butterflies from the House of Glass, in their element at the center of a crowd - of course they'd love banquets and balls! Wrong. Dead wrong. Banquets and balls were so rote! Proceedural! As Valentine - or perhaps Vivian - said, "once you see two fashion victims stumble about to drab music, you've seen them all."

What they loved was drama! Intrigue! Passions rising, egos clashing, schemes colliding, sparks flying, rapiers drawn, fireworks and fallout! Banquets and balls were only as good as the drama they could produce. The Matriculation Ball had been soul-crushing until the latecomers had blundred in and injected some life into the proceedings. The storied veteran trying and failing to take responsibility on her shoulders? Delicious. Two animal-themed full-body augments upstaging one another? Sumptuous. The scion of House Delamar feuding with the scion of House Frostfounder over the fate of an ignoble? Delectable. And last but by no means least, the least favourite child of House Cannamos getting into a spat with their cousin? Ambrosial.

The Candenze de l' Pavillos had threatened to be another unstirred pot. It was all interminable speeches, droning music and gaudy, blundering oafs - with the preening lackwits that piloted them. Once again, however, the latecomers - or the Lunar Falcons, as they called themselves now - had saved the evening.

Atreyu, clearly flush with confidence after their recent triumphs, had turned every head in the College with their positively scandalous livery.

"Why, look," Valentine - or perhaps Vivian - remarked, gently tapping their twin's shoulder and pointing towards the young Cannamos' kuirass. "Yellow carnations around the canton-sigil!"

"Shocking," Vivian - or perhaps Valentine - exclaimed, feigning outrage. "And do you see? Three black stripes over burgundy! My, my, but our Lord Cannamos isn't so much sending a message as screaming it from the rooftops!"

Lady Persephone Helsing has arrived next, purposefully placing her brand new Viceroy right next to Argo-Laurent's Atlas.

"They say size isn't everything, dear sibling," one of the twins quipped, tilting their head, "but I have to say, neither is it nothing."

"It's true," replied the other, "it does produce a certain effect."

"Casts a certain aspersion," suggested the first.

"Shade in the desert," ventured the second.

"Shade on the desert," dared the former.

"A dark cloud," mused the latter.

"A pall of smoke," their companion murmured.

"Quite the impression," concluded Valentine, or perhaps it was Vivian.

"Quite the impression," conceded Vivian, though it might've been Valentine.

Tuera, they realised, had been there all along - they had not noticed her arrive.

"Unlike us, to miss such a thing." The sibling placed a finger and thumb to their chin, as if chasing a thought.

"Quite unlike us." The other sibling mirrored the motion with the opposite hand, though perhaps they entertained a different thought - or none at all.

"Though she does rather sneak up on you, that one."

"Can't figure her out. And I do consider myself quite good at that."

"Figuring people out?"

"Among other things."

"Do you perhaps suppose she has us figured out?"

"Do I perhaps? Why, what's there to figure out?"

The addressed sibling smirked. "What, indeed."

Praya's looming colossus arrived next, staking its claim in a space that was markedly removed from Count Argo's. She leapt down from her cockpit, glaring about at the assembled dancers. Though a considerable amount of makeup hid it, the twins' sharp eyes could make out the telltale signs of a black eye.

The one standing nearer sucked in a sharp breath through their teeth. "So, she took the erstwhile El-Ahrairah's advice, then."

From their vantage slightly further away, the other tilted their head. "Oh yes! She attempted to apologise to Ms. Azar."

"Attempted carries implications, dear sibling."

"It most certainly does, sibling mine."

"Are we then to conclude Lady Ironhand's ego got in the way?"

"Were I a rake for gambling, I should never bet against our erstwhile Lord Praya's ego providing impediment."

"Alas the day."

"Alas the day," repeated the other twin, taking a sip of their drink - or perhaps it was their sibling's. "But it was good of her to try."

"It was proper, given the circumstances."

"Credit to her, though, she took the blow without retort, walked away with her head held high, and didn't snitch."

Their sibling hissed. "Hate a snitch."

"Despise a snitch," growled the other.

Praya shot both of them a glare, as if she knew precisely what they were talking about. Both of them hurriedly averted their eyes.

"Perhaps we'd best light upon a different topic," the first whispered.

The second nodded curtly. "Perhaps we'd best."

Delamar and Caelan arrived just afterwards, mechs arm in arm.

One of the twins glanced up and whistled. "Chemistry between those two, do you think, V?"

"Chemistry most certainly, V." The one who'd been addressed lifted a glass - even chances it was the one that belonged to them - and took a swig. "But what manner of chemistry?"

"I've had it on good authority they've shared a room."

Their companion touched a hand to their breastbone, eyes wide. "Never."

"Shared a bed."

Their companion gasped, hand flying to their mouth. "Shocking!" They paused for a moment. "Which one was on top?"

"Tragically, my sources fail us on this matter," their mirror image replied, shrugging and simply taking the glass from their twin's hand.

"Well that's no fun," pouted the robbed twin, who simply picked up the other glass. "My money's on the wolf."

"Oh? I would've said the Sandman. The wolf is compensating far too much. And over far too many things."

"The Sandman chose as his manservant a tireless machine in the image of a gorgeous man twice his size with three times his muscle mass. Please, dear sibling, face the facts."

"You do make a compelling point," conceded the other.

The Lunar Falcons convened briefly, exchanging a few words, before spreading out through the grounds and to various conversation partners.

"Ah, do you see? Caelan is attempting to impress the most esteemed Marquess Fontague. What shall we call this?"

"Wolf, drinking Shrimp Cocktail. Now, what do you make of Delamar's wooing of the rich and beautiful Lady Carlotta?"

The reply came with a sly grin. "Two nobles of Sand danced together. Three hundred dead, sixteen hundred injured."

Rawan had already met up with Kay by the time Atreyu arrived, and so they had the unenviable task of impressing two people at once. To their credit, they seemed to strike upon some subject that enthused Kay, and the striking appearance of their mech seemed to earn Rawan's approval as well.

As one sibling took a drink, the other gestured to the trio. "Our beloved underdog doesn't do anything by half measures, do they?"

Finishing their drink and setting the glass down, their companion glanced over. "Something to prove?"

"Oh yes," their twin replied, setting their own empty glass down. "Our Prince must actually conquer those Thousand Kingdoms, no? Else how do they silence their detractors?"

"Is that what it translates to? I had always thought it meant Prince With A Thousand-"

The thought was interrupted as Tuera and Persephone wandered over. The twins, to their credit, refocused their attention almost immediately, giving no outward indication that the pair had caught them by surprise.

"Why, Ladies Tuera and Persephone, welcome," said one, whom Persephone thought might be Valentine.

"Welcome, Ladies Ashama and Helsing," said the other, whom Tuera was pretty sure was Valentine.

"Hey," Tuera grunted, narrowing her eyes.

Persephone waved, several of her tails twitching excitedly. "Hello! I hope you're having a good evening!"

The one Tuera suspected wasn't Vivian smiled. "Oh, now that you've arrived, most certainly."

"You and your companions have quite failed to be boring," elaborated the twin Persephone knew not to be Vivivan.

"Glad we could be... entertaining, then," Tuera growled, plucking a glass from a masked servant's tray and taking a sip. "I take it you've been keeping an eye on the crowd, then?"

"Oh yes," exclaimed one of the twins, who Persephone felt sure had switched with their sibling when she wasn't looking. "You mustn't let this sort of crowd go unobserved. The things you'd miss. The intrigue. The gossip. The drama."

"The daggers hidden behind smiles," their equal and opposite added, with a disconcerting leer. "The aside glances. The false airs. The scheming."

Tuera folded her arms. "Well you're clearly just dying to tell us. Don't keep it all for yourselves. Share with the class."

The twins turned to one another in perfect unison.

"Are we so very obvious?"

"Oh, she's read us like a book."

"Very well. Firstly, if you incline your head towards our erstwhile Praya..."

The conversation proceeded in this same manner for a while, with the twins relaying all that they'd observed: Praya's ill-fated apology to Rawan, Argo's estrangement from his fiancé, Caelan's daring play for Fontague's respect, Delamar's eye-catching dance with his fellow Housewoman.

As conversation turned to the subject of Atreyu, however, the four students happened to turn to look at them - and found that they had begun dancing with Rawan, and that at the exact moment they'd looked over, Rawan had dipped Atreyu low and was kissing them fiercely.

"O-oh my," mumbled Persephone.

"Well I'll be damned," whispered Tuera.

Both twins turned to one another.

"Oh. Finally."

"Talk about striking while the iron is cold, dusty and put away."

"But at least she struck, Valentine."

"That she did, Vivian."

[txttletale]

what do you think of "extremism". i see it used often in the context of like, horseshoe theory, the "extreme" right is like the "extreme" left, or at least the two sides of the same coin, and i do have to wonder if that's not obscuring what's actually happening to profit a "both sides" narrative.

like for example, i think that right-wingers becoming "extreme" is simply a natural conclusion of their ideology. tbc i don't think that becoming, like, a fascist isn't "extreme", but whenever i see the word "extremism" used in this context the implication is "passed the tolerable threshold for bigotry" even tho i think that any kind of sustained bigotry was just going to turn into that anyways.

meanwhile for the left, i can actually sort of see an argument for that being the case, but most cases of "extremism" there usually seem to be fundamental misunderstandings in the ideology they're pushing for which leads to blind dogmatism rather than actual social-political analysis and activism, if that makes sense. i don't know if that counts as "taking it too far", which extremism would imply.

what do you think?

'extremism', much like 'totalitarianism', is an obfuscatory tactic to delegitimize radical positions by posting a false equivalency to fascism, racism, &c.

furthermore, because what makes a position 'extreme' or 'not extreme' is of course profoundly contingent on the status quo, the broad and nebulous concept is similarly used as a repressive cudgel against all dissent and the existence of marginalized communities. for example, prevent (the uk's "counter-extremism" program) is basically just a vector for state-sponsored islamophobic harrassment. in fact, the uk government has recently unveiled plans to use broad and far-reaching charges of 'extremism' against any group or ideology that 'undermines the uk's institutions and values' (!)

so, yeah. i don't think that the concept of 'extremism' has any value outside of that paradigm of proscribing acceptable relations to the status quo & power and tarring socialist, anti-imperialist, and social justice causes with the brush of some unspecified equivalency to fascism and hate groups. silly concept for unserious people

[morlock-holmes]

In one of those things that makes you feel like reality is slipping away, Neil Gorsuch, in his majority opinion, essentially paraphrases that famous Anatole French quote,

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

Here's Gorsuch (Page 3 of the decision):

Grants Pass’s public-camping ordinances do not criminalize status. The public-camping laws prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status. It makes no difference whether the charged defendant is currently a person experiencing homelessness, a backpacker on vacation, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest on the lawn of a municipal building.

The man isn't an idiot. His argument is that, in the precedent cited, the Supreme Court ruled that one cannot criminalize a status. Specifically, it cannot criminalize the status of being an addict.

(c) Plaintiffs insist the Court should extend Robinson to prohibit the enforcement of laws that proscribe certain acts that are in some sense “involuntary,” because some homeless individuals cannot help but do what the law forbids. See Brief for Respondents 24–25, 29, 32. The Ninth Circuit pursued this line of thinking below and in Martin, but this Court already rejected it in Powell v. Texas, 392 U. S. 514. In Powell, the Court confronted a defendant who had been convicted under a Texas statute making it a crime to “ ‘get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in any public place.’ ” Id., at 517 (plurality opinion). Like the plaintiffs here, Powell argued that his drunkenness was an “‘involuntary’” byproduct of his status as an alcoholic. Id., at 533. The Court did not agree that Texas’s law effectively criminalized Powell’s status as an alcoholic. Writing for a plurality, Justice Marshall observed that Robinson’s “very small” intrusion “into the substantive criminal law” prevents States only from enforcing laws that criminalize “a mere status.” Id., at 532–533. It does nothing to curtail a State’s authority to secure a conviction when “the accused has committed some act . . . society has an interest in preventing.” Id., at 533. That remains true, Justice Marshall continued, even if the defendant’s conduct might, “in some sense” be described as “ ‘involuntary’ or ‘occasioned by’” a particular status. Ibid.

My counterargument would be that not all alcoholics drink, and they certainly do not all get drunk in a public place.

All homeless people must sleep.

My big picture question is that, if you have a status that essentially requires certain behavior, what, in practice, is the distinction between criminalizing the status and criminalizing the behavior?

Suppose I do not have private property on which I am allowed to sleep; how might I avoid getting arrested for violating this ordinance?

The answer is that I literally cannot. By definition.

The court, I suspect, would argue back that essentially "Not having private property on which to sleep" is itself not a status, but a behavior, and the state may have a justified reason to criminalize the behavior of not acquiring private property on which to sleep.

I hope I don't need to explain why I find that barbaric (And frankly, stupid as well).

PS - The conflation between behavior that is occasioned by a status and behavior that is involuntary in Powell seems like a moral mistake by the court. An Alcoholic may get drunk in his house, rather than in public; therefore, even though public drunkenness is clearly occasioned by his status as an addict, it is not involuntary.

For example, imagine a state law which makes it illegal to check your blood sugar. Does this not essentially criminalize the status of being Diabetic? If the state objected that it had not criminalized being a diabetic, because all citizens were forbidden from checking their blood sugar, I hope we'd be able to dismiss that as the absurdity that it is.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Prem Thakker at Zeteo News:

The State Department is directing university officers to report international students and scholars for participating in certain campus protests, “proscribed antisemitic actions,” “terrorist activity,” or “endorsing or espousing terrorism,” according to emails seen by Zeteo. The new policies will impact the J-Visa program, which includes people participating in academic or work-related exchange programs in the US. There had already been an array of things that university officers were directed to report, including fraud and incidents of abuse or those involving child protective services. But the State Department is adding three new reportable incidents that direct schools to determine what qualifies as antisemitic or terrorist “endorsing” behavior that merits reporting. One university officer told Zeteo they think the government is “nudging school officials to be the ‘bad guys’ and give more reasons/excuses to terminate student visa records.” They added that these requirements may give the government “another excuse to take away a school's ability to sponsor visas.” In the emails seen by Zeteo, the State Department includes several examples of the three new reportable incidents (directly quoted):

[Proscribed Antisemitic Actions (e.g., physical actions directed towards Jewish individuals and/or their property, community institutions or religious facilities that violates the law or university rules) Serious Violations of University Conduct Rules (e.g., participation in a building occupation, participation in an unauthorized encampment, disrupting classes, intimidation, harassment, assault) Terrorist Activity, Endorsing or Espousing Terrorism: (e.g., engaging in terrorist activity; membership in a terrorist organization; endorsing or espousing terrorist activity)]

The government tells officers they must report such incidents within one business day. The State Department and the Office of Private Sector Exchange Program Administration’s Academic and Government section – where this directive came from – did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Per the State Department’s “incident reporting rubric,” the examples given are not meant to be exhaustive. The department notes that there could be other situations that could risk its or the exchange program’s reputation. The disclaimer is notable given how the US has justified its arrest and efforts to deport people, including Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, Rümeysa Öztürk, and Badar Khan Suri, on the idea that they are threatening US foreign policy. The administration has apparently relied on universities in the past to justify visa revocations and detainings. The State Department justified detaining Mahdawi, a Palestinian Columbia student, by arguing he threatened the “Middle East peace process” due to his "threatening rhetoric and intimidation."

[...]

“Political and Security Theater”

For years there has been a reporting rubric that universities were directed to follow, but one senior higher education professional told Zeteo that it has largely been seen by administrators and the government as a way to work together to get ahead of any incidents that may shed a negative light on exchange programs. But, the professional found the inclusion of the new factors alarming, especially given the atmosphere schools now find themselves in – like the Department of Homeland Security demanding “detailed records” on student visa holders. They said that the pre-existing rubric could already address conduct mentioned in the three categories, and the inclusion of the new factors seems part of “political and security theater.” Concerning the requirement to report antisemitic incidents, the professional said, “It’s likely that any violent physical action against any other students or any campus facilities of any kind would already warrant an institutional response,” and reporting to the State Department. “Mentioning Jewish individuals specifically seems to continue a political narrative about this.” “Our community may be concerned that DOS [Department of State] could use these new items to penalize sponsors or schools, especially if DOS and the school differ on whether certain conduct or speech meet the new descriptions,” they continued. “This new rubric may cause some to worry that they are now expected to investigate the personal lives of exchange visitors.”

They concluded that the exchange visitor program has long been among the nation’s most effective tools of diplomacy and even “soft power” – with many alumni going on to leadership roles in their home governments and remaining “friends and promoters of the US.” They said that they're not aware of one “terrorist” in the over two decades they’ve spent following the program and even serving as an overseeing officer, “so this new rubric seems like politics, security theater, and another attempt to instill fear in exchange visitors and international students and their host institutions.” The Trump administration had previously revoked thousands of visa statuses for students across the country, without their knowledge, on the grounds of everything from minor traffic violations to even being victims of sexual abuse. After massive backlash and continually losing in court, the administration reversed some of those terminations – but pledged a new operation to review and terminate the records of international students. ICE subsequently moved to actually expand its ability to revoke visa statuses. The developments also follow the Trump administration’s continual losses in court on high-profile cases: Mahdawi, Öztürk, and Dr. Khan Suri have all been released from ICE detention in recent weeks.

The Trump Regime’s war on pro-Palestinian freedom of speech at work here, as the State Department is directing university officers to report international students and scholars for protest activity and/or “antisemitic actions” or “terrorist activity.”

[digitaldetoxworld]

C++ Programming Language – A Detailed Overview

 C++ is a effective, high-overall performance programming language advanced as an extension of the C language. Created via Bjarne Stroustrup at Bell Labs in the early Eighties, C++ delivered object-orientated features to the procedural shape of C, making it appropriate for large-scale software program development. Over the years, it has emerge as a extensively used language for machine/software program improvement, game programming, embedded systems, real-time simulations, and extra.

C ++ Online Compliers 

C++ combines the efficiency and manage of C with functions like classes, items, inheritance, and polymorphism, permitting builders to construct complex, scalable programs.

2. Key Features of C++

Object-Oriented: C++ supports object-orientated programming (OOP), which include encapsulation, inheritance, and polymorphism.

Compiled Language: Programs are compiled to machine code for overall performance and portability.

Platform Independent (with Compiler Support): Though not inherently platform-unbiased, C++ programs can run on a couple of structures when compiled therefore.

Low-Level Manipulation: Like C, C++ permits direct reminiscence get right of entry to thru suggestions.

Standard Template Library (STL): C++ consists of powerful libraries for facts systems and algorithms.

Rich Functionality: Supports functions like feature overloading, operator overloading, templates, and exception dealing with.

3. Structure of a C++ Program

Here’s a primary C++ program:

cpp

Copy

Edit

#encompass <iostream>

the use of namespace std;

int important() 

    cout << "Hello, World!" << endl;

    return zero;

Explanation:

#encompass <iostream> consists of the enter/output stream library.

Using namespace std; allows using standard capabilities like cout without prefixing std::.

Foremost() is the access point of every C++ program.

Cout prints textual content to the console.

Four. Data Types and Variables

C++ has both primitive and user-defined statistics types. Examples:

cpp

Copy

Edit

int a = 10;

glide b = 3.14;

char c = 'A';

bool isReady = true;

Modifiers like short, lengthy, signed, and unsigned extend the information sorts’ range.

5. Operators

C++ supports, !

Assignment Operators: =, +=, -=, and many others.

Increment/Decrement: ++, --

Bitwise Operators: &, 

    cout << "a is greater";

 else 

    cout << "b is extra";

Switch Case:

cpp

Copy

Edit

transfer (desire) 

    case 1: cout << "One"; ruin;

    case 2: cout << "Two"; smash;

    default: cout << "Other";

Loops:

For Loop:

cpp

Copy

Edit

for (int i = zero; i < five; i++) 

    cout << i << " ";

While Loop:

cpp

Copy

Edit

int i = 0;

at the same time as (i < five) 

    cout << i << " ";

    i++;

Do-While Loop:

cpp

Copy

Edit

int i = zero;

do 

 cout << i << " ";

    i++;

 whilst (i < 5);

7. Functions

Functions in C++ growth modularity and reusability.

Cpp

Copy

Edit

int upload(int a, int b) 

    go back a + b;

int major() 

    cout << upload(three, 4);

    return 0;

Functions may be overloaded via defining multiple variations with special parameters.

Eight. Object-Oriented Programming (OOP)

OOP is a chief energy of C++. It makes use of instructions and objects to represent real-international entities.

Class and Object Example:

cpp

Copy

Edit

magnificence Car 

public:

    string logo;

    int pace;

void display() 

        cout << brand << " velocity: " << pace << " km/h" << endl;

    int main() 

    Car myCar;

    myCar.Emblem = "Toyota";

    myCar.Pace = 120;

    myCar.Show();

    go back zero;

9. OOP Principles

1. Encapsulation:

Binding facts and features into a unmarried unit (elegance) and proscribing get admission to the usage of private, public, or blanketed.

2. Inheritance:

Allows one magnificence to inherit properties from another.

Cpp

Copy

Edit

elegance Animal 

public:

    void talk()  cout << "Animal sound" << endl; 

;

class Dog : public Animal 

public:

    void bark()  cout << "Dog barks" << endl; 

; three. Polymorphism:

Same characteristic behaves in a different way primarily based at the item or input.

Function Overloading: Same feature name, special parameters.

Function Overriding: Redefining base magnificence method in derived magnificence.

Four. Abstraction:

Hiding complicated information and showing handiest vital capabilities the usage of training and interfaces (abstract training).

10. Constructors and Destructors

Constructor: Special approach known as while an item is created.

Destructor: Called whilst an item is destroyed.

Cpp

Copy

Edit

magnificence Demo 

public:

    Demo() 

        cout << "Constructor calledn";

    ~Demo() 

        cout << "Destructor calledn";

    ;

11. Pointers and Dynamic Memory

C++ supports tips like C, and dynamic memory with new and delete.

Cpp

Copy

Edit

int* ptr = new int;   // allocate reminiscence

*ptr = 5;

delete ptr;           // deallocate memory

12. Arrays and Strings

cpp

Copy

Edit

int nums[5] = 1, 2, three, 4, 5;

cout << nums[2];  // prints 3

string name = "Alice";

cout << call.Period();

C++ also supports STL boxes like vector, map, set, and many others.

Thirteen. Standard Template Library (STL)

STL offers established training and features:

cpp

Copy

Edit

#consist of <vector>

#consist of <iostream>

using namespace std;

int important() 

    vector<int> v = 1, 2, 3;

    v.Push_back(four);

    for (int i : v)

        cout << i << " ";

STL includes:

Containers: vector, list, set, map

Algorithms: sort, discover, rely

Iterators: for traversing containers

14. Exception Handling

cpp

Copy

Edit

attempt 

    int a = 10, b = 0;

    if (b == zero) throw "Division by means of 0!";

    cout << a / b;

 seize (const char* msg) 

    cout << "Error: " << msg;

Use attempt, capture, and throw for managing runtime errors.

15. File Handling

cpp

Copy

Edit

#consist of <fstream>

ofstream out("information.Txt");

out << "Hello File";

out.Near();

ifstream in("records.Txt");

string line;

getline(in, line);

cout << line;

in.Near();

File I/O is achieved the usage of ifstream, ofstream, and fstream.

16. Applications of C++

Game Development: Unreal Engine is primarily based on C++.

System Software: Operating systems, compilers.

GUI Applications: Desktop software (e.G., Adobe merchandise).

Embedded Systems: Hardware-level applications.

Banking and Finance Software: High-speed buying and selling systems.

Real-Time Systems: Simulations, robotics, and so on.

17. Advantages of C++

Fast and efficient

Wide range of libraries

Suitable for each high-level and low-level programming

Strong item-orientated aid

Multi-paradigm: procedural + object-oriented

18. Limitations of C++

Manual reminiscence management can lead to mistakes

Lacks contemporary protection functions (in contrast to Java or Python)

Steeper studying curve for beginners

No built-in rubbish series

19. Modern C++ (C++11/14/17/20/23)

Modern C++ variations introduced capabilities like:

Smart recommendations (shared_ptr, unique_ptr)

Lambda expressions

Range-based totally for loops

car kind deduction

Multithreading support

Example:

cpp

Copy

Edit

vector<int> v = 1, 2, three;

for (auto x : v) 

    cout << x << " ";

 C++ is a effective, high-overall performance programming language advanced as an extension of the C language. Created via Bjarne Stroustrup at Bell Labs in the early Eighties, C++ delivered object-orientated features to the procedural shape of C, making it appropriate for large-scale software program development. Over the years, it has emerge as a extensively used language for machine/software program improvement, game programming, embedded systems, real-time simulations, and extra.

C ++ Online Compliers 

C++ combines the efficiency and manage of C with functions like classes, items, inheritance, and polymorphism, permitting builders to construct complex, scalable programs.

2. Key Features of C++

Object-Oriented: C++ supports object-orientated programming (OOP), which include encapsulation, inheritance, and polymorphism.

Compiled Language: Programs are compiled to machine code for overall performance and portability.

Platform Independent (with Compiler Support): Though not inherently platform-unbiased, C++ programs can run on a couple of structures when compiled therefore.

Low-Level Manipulation: Like C, C++ permits direct reminiscence get right of entry to thru suggestions.

Standard Template Library (STL): C++ consists of powerful libraries for facts systems and algorithms.

Rich Functionality: Supports functions like feature overloading, operator overloading, templates, and exception dealing with.

3. Structure of a C++ Program

Here’s a primary C++ program:

cpp

Copy

Edit

#encompass <iostream>

the use of namespace std;

int important() 

    cout << "Hello, World!" << endl;

    return zero;

Explanation:

#encompass <iostream> consists of the enter/output stream library.

Using namespace std; allows using standard capabilities like cout without prefixing std::.

Foremost() is the access point of every C++ program.

Cout prints textual content to the console.

Four. Data Types and Variables

C++ has both primitive and user-defined statistics types. Examples:

cpp

Copy

Edit

int a = 10;

glide b = 3.14;

char c = 'A';

bool isReady = true;

Modifiers like short, lengthy, signed, and unsigned extend the information sorts’ range.

5. Operators

C++ supports, !

Assignment Operators: =, +=, -=, and many others.

Increment/Decrement: ++, --

Bitwise Operators: &, 

    cout << "a is greater";

 else 

    cout << "b is extra";

Switch Case:

cpp

Copy

Edit

transfer (desire) 

    case 1: cout << "One"; ruin;

    case 2: cout << "Two"; smash;

    default: cout << "Other";

Loops:

For Loop:

cpp

Copy

Edit

for (int i = zero; i < five; i++) 

    cout << i << " ";

While Loop:

cpp

Copy

Edit

int i = 0;

at the same time as (i < five) 

    cout << i << " ";

    i++;

Do-While Loop:

cpp

Copy

Edit

int i = zero;

do 

 cout << i << " ";

    i++;

 whilst (i < 5);

7. Functions

Functions in C++ growth modularity and reusability.

Cpp

Copy

Edit

int upload(int a, int b) 

    go back a + b;

int major() 

    cout << upload(three, 4);

    return 0;

Functions may be overloaded via defining multiple variations with special parameters.

Eight. Object-Oriented Programming (OOP)

OOP is a chief energy of C++. It makes use of instructions and objects to represent real-international entities.

Class and Object Example:

cpp

Copy

Edit

magnificence Car 

public:

    string logo;

    int pace;

void display() 

        cout << brand << " velocity: " << pace << " km/h" << endl;

    int main() 

    Car myCar;

    myCar.Emblem = "Toyota";

    myCar.Pace = 120;

    myCar.Show();

    go back zero;

9. OOP Principles

1. Encapsulation:

Binding facts and features into a unmarried unit (elegance) and proscribing get admission to the usage of private, public, or blanketed.

2. Inheritance:

Allows one magnificence to inherit properties from another.

Cpp

Copy

Edit

elegance Animal 

public:

    void talk()  cout << "Animal sound" << endl; 

;

class Dog : public Animal 

public:

    void bark()  cout << "Dog barks" << endl; 

; three. Polymorphism:

Same characteristic behaves in a different way primarily based at the item or input.

Function Overloading: Same feature name, special parameters.

Function Overriding: Redefining base magnificence method in derived magnificence.

Four. Abstraction:

Hiding complicated information and showing handiest vital capabilities the usage of training and interfaces (abstract training).

10. Constructors and Destructors

Constructor: Special approach known as while an item is created.

Destructor: Called whilst an item is destroyed.

Cpp

Copy

Edit

magnificence Demo 

public:

    Demo() 

        cout << "Constructor calledn";

    ~Demo() 

        cout << "Destructor calledn";

    ;

11. Pointers and Dynamic Memory

C++ supports tips like C, and dynamic memory with new and delete.

Cpp

Copy

Edit

int* ptr = new int;   // allocate reminiscence

*ptr = 5;

delete ptr;           // deallocate memory

12. Arrays and Strings

cpp

Copy

Edit

int nums[5] = 1, 2, three, 4, 5;

cout << nums[2];  // prints 3

string name = "Alice";

cout << call.Period();

C++ also supports STL boxes like vector, map, set, and many others.

Thirteen. Standard Template Library (STL)

STL offers established training and features:

cpp

Copy

Edit

#consist of <vector>

#consist of <iostream>

using namespace std;

int important() 

    vector<int> v = 1, 2, 3;

    v.Push_back(four);

    for (int i : v)

        cout << i << " ";

STL includes:

Containers: vector, list, set, map

Algorithms: sort, discover, rely

Iterators: for traversing containers

14. Exception Handling

cpp

Copy

Edit

attempt 

    int a = 10, b = 0;

    if (b == zero) throw "Division by means of 0!";

    cout << a / b;

 seize (const char* msg) 

    cout << "Error: " << msg;

Use attempt, capture, and throw for managing runtime errors.

15. File Handling

cpp

Copy

Edit

#consist of <fstream>

ofstream out("information.Txt");

out << "Hello File";

out.Near();

ifstream in("records.Txt");

string line;

getline(in, line);

cout << line;

in.Near();

File I/O is achieved the usage of ifstream, ofstream, and fstream.

16. Applications of C++

Game Development: Unreal Engine is primarily based on C++.

System Software: Operating systems, compilers.

GUI Applications: Desktop software (e.G., Adobe merchandise).

Embedded Systems: Hardware-level applications.

Banking and Finance Software: High-speed buying and selling systems.

Real-Time Systems: Simulations, robotics, and so on.

17. Advantages of C++

Fast and efficient

Wide range of libraries

Suitable for each high-level and low-level programming

Strong item-orientated aid

Multi-paradigm: procedural + object-oriented

18. Limitations of C++

Manual reminiscence management can lead to mistakes

Lacks contemporary protection functions (in contrast to Java or Python)

Steeper studying curve for beginners

No built-in rubbish series

19. Modern C++ (C++11/14/17/20/23)

Modern C++ variations introduced capabilities like:

Smart recommendations (shared_ptr, unique_ptr)

Lambda expressions

Range-based totally for loops

car kind deduction

Multithreading support

Example:

cpp

Copy

Edit

vector<int> v = 1, 2, three;

for (auto x : v) 

    cout << x << " ";

C Lanugage Compliers 

[une-sanz-pluis]

The Prince himself had, at the very least, allowed his own name to head the request for measures against Lollardy in 1406; yet a hostile or uneasy observer might find circumstantial reasons for wondering if his commitment to orthodoxy was unshakeably total. It was to the English Border counties, which the Prince had until recently been actively engaged in defending against the Welsh rebels, that the leading religious dissenters had fled in the wake of Archbishop Courtenay's assault on their beliefs; and it was there, in regions far from archiepiscopal surveillance, that they had continued to spread their message. Several of the Border gentry, of whom Sir John Oldcastle was the best-known example, appear to have been at least discreetly sympathetic towards the proscribed opinions, and it was to such subordinates that the Prince had entrusted the defence of the West and the restoration of English dominance in the Principality. There was no hint that his trust in these men was diminished by their unorthodox inclinations, and some suggestion that these did not debar them from becoming his personal friends. In any case, even if it is accepted that the Prince was totally orthodox, it was possible that he might take advantage of Arundel's difficulties at Oxford to serve his own ends.

Peter McNiven, Heresy and Politics in the Reign of Henry IV: The Burning of John Badby (The Boydell Press 1987)