I mean some states have odd year elections for local issues, etc. After the precious election, they should do their diligence to find anyone who should no longer be registered, like people who they believe have died, or shouldn’t have been eligible to register. Anyone purged should get a courtesy notice via email or mail just in case.
Recounts happen sometimes, etc, so anytime between mid November and early January seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I think who you mean by tech community here is important too. CEOs? Their pay depends in part on them not listening.
Enthusiasts? Engineers? People who use technology more than incidentally? Left-leaning tech circles? Some have heard him, the idea of enshittification has spread well.
Sometimes ideas don’t spread very much until they do in a big way. This feels to me like one where that point exists, and people will take notice when it’s hit.
Encouraging assassinations of the current elected president and VP should really earn him the chance to see the inside of a jail cell. Even for a few days while they question him. I think that would be good for everyone involved.
Even the most skilled money saver in the world, when their income is barely above their necessary life expenses, will fail to save much. Savings is a luxury only the rich can afford much of.
But you’re right, putting money into the hands of people living paycheck to paycheck, or barely able to save is great for the economy as well as those people personally. Even if they save 10% and spend 90%, it’s tremendously more beneficial than that money going to a wealthy multimillionaire who won’t even notice saving it. For everyone except the multimillionaire, who really isn’t negatively impacted.
That’s true, bigots will always offer a road deeper into their beliefs, and you can’t stop them. But I think here the road out is a bit more visible than usual. It feels like a seed of doubt could be planted in some heads, which is something.
All because the school was afraid of some trans girl, who statistically speaking, probably wasn’t even one of their best players. The school’s transphobia did presumably hurt the trans student they targeted, but I’m guessing they hurt a lot more cis female athletes, on their own team especially. I hope any of those students who may have been transphobic see how it hurt them more than the trans student, and it gets them thinking…
Trump bucks are so 2023, they should start accepting Trump Steaks futures contracts and other derivatives
American here: their goal is clearly factual reporting, and I don’t see too often where they’ve missed the mark. Nobody’s free of bias, but they’re pretty good at balancing theirs out.
Yeah Marbury v Madison found that congress can decide which cases SCOTUS reviews directly, vs where the authority of lower courts starts. But it’s not in conflict with the other principle from Marbury v Madison, that SCOTUS has the power to review whether laws are constitutional or not. If I understand correctly, at least.
Before Trump, the worst issue the growing authority of the court caused was a shift from Congress making major policy changes, to SCOTUS. Congress changing that could be a change for the better in the long run.
IANAL, but to my understanding, SCOTUS is defined by the constitution and given certain powers and protections, to interpret the constitution, mediate disputes between the political branches, and certain duties given to its chief Justice. Congress is given broad powers to set the laws, which includes details of how branches are run, like creating departments in the Executive, and setting the number of Justices on SCOTUS.
If I understand Jurisdiction Stripping correctly, it’s not preventing SCOTUS from eventually reviewing the case, but a law that says they don’t get the first review of legal challenges. It could slow the process, at the very least.
I still don’t understand the logic of this. Tens of millions of dollars a year is a lot of money, but so is the profits from running three casinos.
Wouldn’t running the casinos well be more profitable in the long term? And generally more sensible unless the goal is specifically to hurt the banks?
I get what you’re saying, it’s certainly a hard situation, and a rare one, but I think “truly nothing we can do” is an exceptionally rare situation.
But why is that person acting the way they are? People do things for reasons, even if they aren’t good ones. Maybe the only way they can safely interact with people is via video chat, and respecting the humanity of the others around them means that’s all they get. There are ways for them to get access to food, water, shelter, sunlight, even socialization, without physical access to others, and access to somebody to talk to who might be able to help them, even if the DSM doesn’t have a specific diagnosis that describes them.
I think any system that deals with people who have done what society has labelled crime should seek to minimize harm, and maximize opportunities to grow for those who wish to take them. I don’t think your “textbook” case for the death penalty achieves either of these aims.
I don’t disagree with your main point, the carceral system is itself fundamentally broken, and fixing one thing won’t suddenly make the system humane. The goal of a criminal justice system should be to reduce recidivism, to empower people through education to leave ready to have a more constructive and fulfilling life than when they arrived. We should respect the humanity of inmates, overturn wrongful convictions, eviscerate minimum sentencing guidelines, abolish stupid crimes that don’t even represent a threat to society like prostitution, and apply state and federal minimum wages to inmates, among so many other changes.
There’s so much inhumanity in the system, to your point. We can and should revisit convictions, and try to make amends if we got it wrong. And it should really never look anything like putting people in a cage for life.
But that’s kind of my point, the only humane method is not to kill people. Asking “but how do we do it” is like asking how to square a circle; there may be a couple of interesting things to learn along the way, but you won’t find any satisfying answers to the question.
Despite him having been the star of a different 2000s reality show, Trump truly is The Biggest Loser.
I say the death penalty is itself inhumane, focusing on the technical problem misses the point. Killing people you have a high degree of confidence committed murder means on a long enough time span, you’re virtually guaranteed to kill innocents. The process required to minimize these false positive killings makes the death penalty more expensive than life in prison, on average. As far as I can tell, there’s no upside to the death penalty, unless you’re firmly convinced that the criminal justice system needs to focus on retribution.
The only humane option I see is to let them live out their lives in a context where they won’t reoffend.
I’ve learned a number of tools I’d never used before, and refreshed my skills from when I used to be a sysadmin back in college. I can also do things other people don’t loudly recommend, but fit my style (Proxmox + Puppet for VMs), which is nice. If you have the right skills, it’s arbitrarily flexible.
What electricity costs in my area. $0.32/KWh at the wrong time of day. Pricier hardware could have saved me money in the long run. Bigger drives could also mean fewer, and thus less power consumption.
Google, selfhosting communities like this one, and tutorial-oriented YouTubers like NetworkChuck. Get ideas from people, learn enough to make it happen, then tweak it so you understand it. Repeat, and you’ll eventually know a lot.
I doubt it’s a moral line. Seems like a pragmatic stance that standing behind him isn’t worth the bad PR they’d get for doing it. It’s certainly something, at least.
I think the justification is that people will be more honest/rational when betting their own money.
It’s probably less irrational than stock markets, since there’s a very clear time horizon people are betting on, and data like polls can be pretty good. But since they’re looking at essentially the same data as pundits, it’s unsurprising they tend to do about as well.
I’ve been thinking about this for a minute, and I think a good standard here is making a list of (relatively) non-overlapping causes of death that have claimed over a billion human lives.
Infectious disease is almost certainly at least one entry on this list, primarily secular war as well, starvation/famine probably a few times over, cancer and heart disease are probably distinct entries, and death attempting to grow/hunt food. I suspect deaths by religion could be on that list as well, but it’s the entry I’m least confident in.
In every sense of the word, this is a bad list to be on, but I don’t think religion is near the biggest culprit on the list, even if you do a lot of special pleading, and group all deaths by religious cause together, but split each disease, war, etc up for some reason.