goodluckchuck

Which, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Modern residential (and small scale commercial) construction is designed for a 30-50 year useful life. The structure may be worth renovating if the location / design remain relevant, but it’s not like there’s a huge amount of wasted value. A larger waste would be encouraging labor to be under-utilized.

Yeah. The archetypal “second amendment” weapon… the kind any regular American would need to hold his own was a musket, then a rifle, then lever or auto loader, then an M16. Now it’s a drone. A man or crew out in the country with AR15s are Don Quixote tilting at windmills with the advent of cheap drones.

It’s criminal. Many people donated money, worked for them, gave data, etc. on the promise that OpenAI was working towards the public good. It turns out those transactions occurred under false pretenses. That’s fraud.

I could see it being close, but also feeling an urgency to get there first / believing you could do it better.

… engage in corruption only to the extent that it is profitable or it otherwise suits their desires / morality.

Governments however, will be corrupt even when corruption loses them money and is contrary to their own self-interest.

That may make the Brazilian government less authoritarian, but that doesn’t make anyone else more authoritarian. If anything, the fact that Musk is opposing even a very small act of authoritarianism would suggest that he is very strongly against authoritarianism.

A ruling of a court - even the highest court of the land - does not make something law. Courts get things wrong all the time.

How do you get to authoritarian, when it’s the Brazilian authorities demanding that people be silenced? Perhaps you’re referring to some unrelated situation where X has been censoring people?

Governments tend to be corrupt by their very nature.

I would push back some. Humans have communicated orally long before writing and lectures / interviews / discussions remain highly effective.

After all, not everyone was in favor of the pulp that churned from mass-market printing presses.

However, I can certainly imagine a voice-enabled LLM trained on European History that students could learn a lot from. People have been printing books for 500+ years, but we’ve really only gotten into user-generated video within the past 10 years.

Throughout my childhood video was really quite time-consuming to produce. It largely still is. If we can continue get that friction down, then over time I expect we’ll se more and more valuable video content being produced.

True, but it’s a numbers game. If there are 5 electric cars on the market, 2 are Teslas and the others are Nissan Leaf comparables then Tesla will get a lot of sales.

If there are 80 different models on the market and Tesla makes 5 models… that’s a tiny percentage of the choice that consumers have to pick from.

I’m mostly referring to the design language. The newest Model 3 refresh looks a lot like the previous Model 3, which looks a lot like a shorter Model S. Then look at the visual difference between Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, Mazda. Tesla has improved their vehicles a lot, but they’re all still Teslas and some people prefer more X, or more Y.

And a technical sense yes but the only new model they’ve released recently is the cyber truck. Otherwise their sedans and crossovers outwardly appear to be basically the same thing they were selling in 2012. Meanwhile, BMW has a fleet of eight different electric vehicles, with more modern styling, leather, and just the ability to differentiate. Of course, Tesla is well into the black on their models whereas I doubt the BMW will get out of the red anytime soon.

It’s misleading when Tesla is one company with 4 old models and 1 new model, and the competition is 17 companies with dozens and dozens of mostly all brand new models.

So 2-3x better than Stellantis. Their CEO must be further right than a willow.

Uber didn’t ask for any regulatory approval.

If you want to be a dictator, then you have to say you’ll be a benevolent dictator and that people will have work and there will be food and they will have shelter and an education. Would-be dictators don’t get very far telling people they’ll be cold and hungry.

The rules exist so that certain people have a pool of “off the books” informants / assets that they can leverage. If you allow them in, then you lose the stick. If you can’t grant citizenship, then you lose the carrot.

The Feds know where most illegal aliens live and work, they just don’t do anything about it.

I think you could get 90% of the way to “all” with information that’s already in federal databases. People have jobs. Look at the fake / duplicate SSNs. So, John Smith with SSN 999-99-9999 is a White Male born in 1943, but the family at his residence is Asian and in their 30s? Absolutely no need to harass random people.

Yeah, you understand and you’re right that the current rules accurately describe the current prevailing wisdom, but that’s kind of tautological.

Some of the weak spots are rational basis review being too deferential. Certainly a law is constitutional unless there is some claim to the contrary, but when it comes into conflict with individual rights, a judgment has to be made and that’s an inherently judicial task, not suited to deference.

Another weak spot is the commerce clause, because it is certainly legitimate evaluate whether the law falls within Congress’s legislative authority. Anyone who reads the enumerated powers can tell “essentially anything” would have been a lot easier write… and yet the founders enumerated specific limited areas.

It’s hard to predict exactly what they’ll say, but my best guess would be focusing more on this connection between the legislative authority and the means employed by the statute, balanced against the rights allegedly being impaired (without regard to whether those are fundamental / class based. If a law is squarely within legislative authority, then congress shouldn’t need a rational basis. Rather than saying it impairs a fundamental right, they could focus on the fact that regulation of speech is not strongly within the legislative authority. As a law ventures further from historical and transitional exercises, the basis for the law would have to get stronger.

Honestly, this isn’t a major change, but erroneous New Deal Era caselaw has corrupted the logic. Sure, in theory everything could be called interstate commerce, but regulating viewpoint based speech is a has a stronger impact on speech than on commerce. Meanwhile, regulating the length of merchant vessels falls a lot closer to regulating seagoing commerce than to speech. No need to apply different standards.

I don't understand what you mean by varying powers of review.

I would push back on the need for a "paradigm" because as much as lawyers like rules and predictability, the judicial process is ultimately a matter of judgment. Discussion about the "factors" a court should consider is often just that, guidance to other courts about what may or may not be relevant. A decent phrasing of this that kind of puts it into a "paradigm" would be recent 2A cases suggesting courts should look to the "history and tradition." All that's really saying is to do your legal research and make a decision.

As conflicts between reasonable judgments, that's the judicial process. The supreme court can allow circuit splits to exist, or they can express their own opinion. Of course, the Executive is free to make reasonable judgments within their realm. They're free to not prosecute questionable cases, and they're also free to prosecute defendants on cases where the court ultimately disagrees (that the conduct was legal).

This is a step towards a deeper and more established flaw: differing standards of review.

It is clearly a violation of equal protection to give "strict scrutiny" to some claims, "intermediate scrutiny" to others, and then apply only a "rational basis" test to others. All parties are entitled to "equal paternal conservation of the law" regardless of their class, be that racial, sex, or otherwise.

Early comments by justices in the 50s and 60s stated they never intended to establish such a paradigm, but law schools and lawyers adopted it and essentially foisted it upon the court.

I think the heart of the question was whether it is even a valuable service. Does it serve enough people to be worthwhile. Even if it’s tax-funded, everything has to pay for itself one way or another (i.e. tax receipts).

Not intent, but the location and nature of the order. If it’s not in a war zone, not targeting an enemy combatant, etc. that’s not an order that falls within the scope of the core actions of a commander in chief.

Impeachments take time because the impeachments we’ve had so far have tended to be political theater. I have no doubt that if there was a bi-partisan super-majority wanting to remove the president, they’d hop on a Zoom call and have it done by the close of business.

Edit: My example was going to be if the President addressed the nation and declared himself to be king… but Biden literally just did that, reluctantly accepting that he was beyond the review of the courts and accountable to no one but himself.

Yes. It does limit theoretically limit the evidence, but it’s the same crime whether they accept the money and follow through with the appointment or reneg and appoint someone else. The crime is in the solicitation.

They said in effect that using Seal Team 6 would be presumptively immune, and at that point the court would have to consider whether prosecuting a president for assassinating his rival would impose a chilling effect that would impair future presidents ability to command the armed forces. Since killing your domestic rival is not an important part of tactical wartime decisions, the government would easily overcome the presumption.

IMO The rule of law derives from precedent. Prior to courts there was the rule of the monarch. The common law then developed as courts resolved disputes. It was all gap. The authorities would say the accused did something wrong and should be punished, and the courts came up with things like “murder” and “negligence.” Statutes are a relatively new way of making laws. They’re crude. Rather than simply resolving a real dispute based on the facts of an actual situation (and limiting the scope to the same or similar situations), legislators twiddle their thumbs and prospectively guess at what situations might occur and which words may address a multitude of unpredictable nuances. Statutes are pretty terrible because they’re so hard to refine. If a situation bumps against the plain language of a statute, the courts are essentially compelled to absurd and unjust results. However, that’s democracy. The people say they want the power to make the law, they say they want the clarity of a statute over a law book, and their errors are better than an overthrow of the system.