_heimdall

No you are describing a scenario where one is shirking blame. One person commits a violent crime against another and you aren't holding them entirely accountable for their actions, your looking to who they may have listened to and what they may have heard such that some blame belongs there.

Notably you didn't engage with my analogy at all. Would you tell a victim of sexual assault that they were partly to blame based on their clothing choices or decision to be in a particular part of town a particular time of day? If not, how would you legally distinguish the two scenarios?

The judiciary absolutely decides what cases to take to trial. From grand juries to motions for dismissal, the judicial branch is responsible for deciding when a case is heard vs when a case is thrown out.

Its important to note that the DoJ is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch.

I never saw anyone fishing with nets at least in the area of the gulf coast I was at (around the Florida pan handle).

Its all deep sea fishing around there, you drop a line near the artificial reefs looking for bottom feeders.

To be fair, they linked to abc.es which is a Spanish site.

Laws and the constitution are very different.

Procedurally they require different actions to create or change. More fundamentally though, the constitution protects rights while laws limit them.

The line must be drawn somewhere, we don't hold everyone responsible for every action they take.

I'd compare "inciting violence" to a woman dressing in provocative clothing in a bad area of town late at night. Very few people would blame the woman and say she's legally responsible if she's attacked, I hold the same line on speech.

Say what you want, dress how you want, it doesn't matter. If another person actually causes harm they can't shirk the blame off on you, they made the choice to commit violence.

The pompous snark likely won't help if you're concerned with down votes, but that's for the sources.

That leaves the Europe claims, as it stands your comparison would be Spanish railways vs Chinese.

Elected administrations should notbbe deciding who is or is not prosecuted, period. We have three branches of government for a reason, its up to the judicial to decide what cases will or won't be tried, and they should be basing that on evidence alone.

I get that we have laws on the books making this illegal, but I still 100% disagree that the laws are constitutional.

People can say whatever they want without hurting anyone. In the case of incitement of violence, the issue is the person(s) who actually committed the violence, not a tweet online.

No you likely got downvotes for claiming the yet to be known number of deaths.

I know there have been other Spanish train crashes in recent years but does you're pointing to all of Europe. Source?

Have they produced statistically significant outcomes yet?

Genuine question because I don't know the answer, I've just anecdotally heard all about the promise and nothing about real world results.

Most of the comments here mention divers, I would have expected thus to be focused on fishing. When I lived on the gulf coasts there were quite a few sunken ships marked as common fishing spots.

That was my initial reading and I may have just misread it as them intending it to be compound rather than an aside modifier.

Oh maybe I did just misread the intent of the sentence? I read it as "something like audio" but yeah that is confusing since that would be all music.

That's a proper use of a hyphen though, an emdash would be wrong.

Oh gotcha, I may have misread you comment!

In comparison with what I've seen in big tech layoffs over the years, this offer is pretty "generous" in comparison. I'd assume any layoff following this would be as well, at least beating the 1-2 week per employed year norm.

Why not? People believe the FDIC has enough money to prevent any bank runs from wiping and cash on hand. Very few check the tape, especially if they're in the middle of a fear or panic reaction and an authority claims its fine.

They aren't going to solve their capex problem through voluntary layoffs or RIFs. They may letore people go, but I expect its more about reorganizing and refocusing what they're working on rather than saving money.

I started my career as an SDET at Microsoft. Yes its correct they no longer have test automation engineers, but I never felt the org I was in was useless or that people were too narrowly focused.

Maybe it was the org we were in, Office could have been different, but our challenge was usually wanting more people on the team to help spread the load rather than less.

And for what its worth, I didn't intend to go into test at the time but it was a great place for me to start. I picked up a habit of writing production code in more testable ways, considering edge cases, implementing observability, etc. Those skills are often picked up along the way but it definitely helped me out starting with a much stronger basis of those skills.

Unless something has changed drastically since I worked at MS, they absolutely can do mass layoffs without having to buy out contracts.

Sure they offer severance, industry norm is usually 1-2 weeks of severence per year of employment, but in no way are they contractually limited to only lay people off for cause.

Firing an individual is different, on that front they are careful how its handled to avoid being sued and having to settle. Employment laws also vary by country, I'm mostly familiar with US laws.

I can only assume DO took a bath on this. Buying CSS Tricks from Coyier to largely sit on it silently before rolling it back off the books seems like a terrible investment strategy.

Reading the main README, I'm not sure why I'd reach for this over ant other typed JSON RPC, tRPC or similar. What are the benefits I'm missing here?

Why is it you see a sovereign wealth fund as the right answer? Why should the sovereign own the means of production, and why should the people creating and enforcing laws be the same as those in charge of our economic future?

Nationalization is fundamentally different from a bailout. It tends to go poorly when a government begins taking over the means of production.

Though I agree with you a bailout is a slap in the face. In my opinion bailouts shouldn't be legal, governments should pro actively be making sure individual corporations don't become so large that a failure would wreck the economy or national security.

For the same reason the government bailed out the banks, they're too big to fail.

Two companies account for most of the frontier R&D, and something like 7 companies account for a huge portion of growth in the stock market. The government, especially under Trump, is very focused on continuing to see those numbers go up.

I also expect the government is pretty bought in on AI being the future and on us being in a race with China. They'd have to bail out the labs for those reasons alone.

Lastly in my opinion, Trump has a pretty socialist bent to him and regularly talks about a sovereign wealth fund owning portions of companies. He'd love to have take a partial stake in AI companies, and a bail out is a great way to do that.

I think we agree in a backwards kind of way.

Yes they do need to grow margins to cover expenses, eventually when Amazon had to turn a profit.

My point was only that the numbers we do know clearly show a drop in growth rate of revenue, I can't judge numbers that aren't publicly known.

Sure, and I hope that (a) everyone votes and (b) most of them agree with me. Bit what is your point exactly?

If you consider Nvidia an LLM company, and I do at this point given how heavily they've invested in frontier labs and where much of their revenue comes from, they alone are worth slightly more than Apple.

Meaning what? Cast more than one ballot?

I live in a state that votes heavily in one direction, most states are the same. Its fine for me to vote, but the winner of a majority of states is pretty well decided before a ballot is cast (by strong majority, I'm not claiming fraud).

Completely agree it will be a huge slap in the face to the public, unfortunately that's a common solution.

When everyone is afraid the market will collapse, or more likely distracted because the market collapsed just enough to hurt the average person, the government will bail them out and either people won't notice or will welcome it as a solution to huge levels of fear.

Voting isn't usually much of a solution after the fact, the political machine doesn't allow for candidates that would fix anything to have a chance at any office that matters. There's a reason our politicians today all seem to have roughly the same goals and all seem to become extremely wealthy while in office.