TeeMassive

Not by definition but by the nature of the incentives.

They face a lot less monetary risks and people are harder to fire. Not to mention the additional bureaucracy and administrative weight due to the additional laws and regulations that apply to public services and how being a part of the state means facing more administrators and bureaucrats.

You know the collusion is bad when a government enterprise can be two times cheaper.

The argument can be more easily made that AI is transformative compared to copying the content of eBooks.

> Linting the entire existing code base would effectively destroy "git blame" as a useful tool.

Put a '.git-blame-ignore-revs' file at the root of your project with commit hashes (and # comments). GitHub and other popular git tools will consider it.

This is why I love Conventional Comments: https://conventionalcomments.org/

Nitpicks are explicitly declared as such and since everyone participating the PR know that they aren't meant to be blocking at all and are encouraged to ignore them if they take too much time than they are worth.

Bitbucket(for those of us who are stuck with Atlassian) finally has this feature now.

> Was he trying to stick it to the man, or find a way to enrich himself

Why not both?

The primary factor of people not starting families is the disappearance of blue collar working class jobs.

I found myself using Phind a whole lot more than Google or Stack Overflow. I find what I'm looking for very easily. I don't have to ask the same question in 10 different manners to look what I'm looking for, it does that for me. I don't have to deal with the community and snobbish power tripping moderators. I get the direct sources the answer is based on. It looks up the documentation for me.

This is a real usage of AI that is there to stay IMO.

And not equally distributed across the world.

Nordic countries like Russia, Canada and Scandinavian countries will benefit a lot from a warmer climate while equatorial countries will suffer the most.

I was very careful not to mention any political party or affiliation. A jury wouldn't trust a dishonest cop who was fired for corrupt behavior, no matter how or who he was corrupt against.

That doesn't mean the article is wrong or he the arrests he made in the early 2000s were not justified, just that it should not be regarded as a reliable source. This would be true for anyone, regardless of "sides".

"Compromised is primarily a memoir of former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok"

Given how this ex-agent has disgraced himself by his conduct and during his Congress testimony, I wouldn't trust anything he says.

Wasn't this previously attributed to lifestyle differences in another study?

And? She's not really seen as a the smartest justice out there, to put it gently.

Influencers are not official agents of Trump as a President... You're making a non-sequiture

> read that it's absolute immunity in core function, which seems pretty damn broad to me

It's limited in scope, and still subject to impeachment, which immunity comes from because otherwise going through impeachment would be pointless.

> Can you explain how nonreviewable power over control of the military and DOJ fits the description of "limited"?

The President can't just kill anyone he wants, it's just a power he doesn't have. The President is not judge, jury and executioner. Having control doesn't mean you can do what you want with it.

> e won't need to -- the whole point of giving the President this broad unreviewable power was so that non federal officials couldn't harass the president by charging him with crimes for carrying out his official duties.

You're beginning to understand

> Where again what constitutes an "official duty" is left up to SCOTUS.

And?

> The prospect of this very ruling was considered so insane by legal scholars so as to be implausible, and yet here we are!

These same legal scholars were fine with not charging the last 4 presidents with war crimes and other atrocities. Because it was always the case, nothing has changed except limiting the scope of presidential immunity.

> Judges don't have to find the assassination of elected officials to be legal, they just have to find the Supreme Court doesn't allow them to use most of the evidence of that crime at trial, and that they must presume motive for the assassination was good. How do you prosecute that case? Can't subpoena any evidence because it wouldn't survive an "absolute immunity" challenge by the President's lawyers.

If the armed forces are killing politicians then at this point the Constitution is a mere piece of paper and no amount of super-majority or SCOTUS rulings is going to make a difference.

> That is the implication of the plain text of this law, it's with Justice Sotomayor is worried about, and I think it's pretty beneath you to try to compare her vast level of expertise to Alex Jones.

Sotomayor is an emotional militant judge and not taken seriously outside left leaning political militant circles. The oral hearings over the vaccine mandates is a good example: "but there are millions of dead children" she said crying. Yes, she did that. This is JFK assasination level conspiracy theory whether you like it or not.

I did, cite the relevant part that I missed then.

> That's a fascinating interpretation of PRA

But is it wrong? That's what the legal scholars I've read said, otherwise the PRA wouldn't be constitutional.

I've listened to her during the vaccine mandates oral arguments. She was emotional during all the hearing and made blatantly false emotion based statements such as "think of all the millions of dead children".

Only the President can decide what happens to his records and documents. This has been made clear under Navy v. Egan. Congress can pass no laws regarding classification or record keeping. The Presidential Records Act has a caveat where the "personal records" of the President belong exclusively to him, and it's the President who decides what is personal or not.

> But the President can declare a person an enemy combstant,

"Citation needed"

If that happens then at this point you have other problems that any 2/3rd majority could not solve anyway.

> Again, citation needed.

Read the judgement. It's literally in the first pages.

> No, but it does say the President has an unreviewable pardon power to absolve them from any crime they are ordered by the President to commit.

A President can't pardon non-federal crimes or overturn the a conviction through impeachment as it would remove power from Congress and the Senate, which a President can't remove.

> It's now also very easy for a court to decide that it is. That is the problem.

Believing that ordering the assassination of elected officials would be considered lawful by judges is just so insane that it makes Alex Jones look like a legal scholar.

Again, removing elected officials by any other process other than the what the Constitution provides for is not within the Presidents' power.

This is clearly an unlawful act that all military members are obligated not to obey.

That's not what the judgement says.

I don't think this is the case. All military members of all branches are taught that they must not obey unlawful orders. Killing elected officials is clearly unlawful.

And the president is still subject to impeachment.

It also goes the other way. A recourse against the only elected official of the executive is also political in itself. Without immunity, any of the thousands of prosecutors could charge, blackmail and kidnap any predidents during and after their terms. This would make Presidents effectively answer to the courts and not the people.

Just saying "but Brexit" is a non-sequiture

I don't think having some sort of philosopher kings bureaucrats is better just because you disagree with some democratic choices

"Generally, the heads of independent regulatory agencies can only be removed for cause, but Cabinet members and heads of independent executive agencies, such as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, serve "at the pleasure of the president" and can be removed without cause."