muaytimbo

Live in NH, no insurance required.

The ATF examples are egregious, they issue letters of determination that pistol braces are permissible for a decade, then rescind and overnight make all buyers felons.

But they are not the only agency that is evil, the CDC asserting the right over all housing in the US to prevent evictions was insane. The FDA not allowing terminal patients who have exhausted all other treatment options to try anything experimental. The list goes on.

The intent of congress should be clear from the laws they write. If laws are ambiguous the doctrine of contra proferentem should be preferred as it is in contract law.

In the constitution, congress is tasked with making laws, not "experts" if there is such a thing. If congress wants expert opinion they can invite them to testify and then write the law instead of this end run around legislating.

Agreed on that, but I think it was the very first case before the supreme court in which they declared their central role to be to decide "what the law is" or some similar statement. Even though it's not constitutionally defined, like all old, atrophying organizations, inertia basically guarantees survival.

The document itself is useless unless there is a mechanism to enforce laws which encroach upon it’s central tenets. We have that, the judiciary, but on the whole they completely abdicate their responsibility to strike down affronting laws.

Are we really to the place where people are openly denying Stalin and the Bolshevik revolution each killed millions? You should go to 4chan with the other Qs and revel in your conspiracy theories.

Things you forgot:

- the murder of millions of innocent people

- the worst nuclear accident on the planet

Russia was bad then and continues today. Nothing needed other than history to make that case.

I would make them fire me, then file for unemployment.

I'm not sure it's a matter of political identity here, the police just push back against anything that makes them accountable, they want to be able to kill, maim, and hurt without being questioned.

Oversight could easily mean installing surveillance infrastructure to monitor guards as well as inmates. Making that public would offer even more accountability.

Right, pretrial detention is clearly already at odds with the constitution, specifically "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". Your person has been seized without conviction.

Eliminating pretrial detention would force prosecutors to ensure the right to a speedy trial if, in fact, the accused is dangerous.

And this will only cost . . . billions more than whatever already enormous projection we get from the city and be completed 10 years after the promised date.

Prediction: all future lots have exactly 79 spots.

One thing that is suspiciously absent from the abstract is the stability of this material to O2.

I mean the NYT is wrong about everything. Krugman said the Internet was never going to be a thing, post Covid the editorializing was inflation wasn’t possibly a thing, the government should go bigger with stimulus and print more money. Their whole paper ages like milk, the only reason it persists is apparently Americans have no short term memory.

So when you said, “I know many families” you actually meant “here is my anecdotal experience?”

Lol: “Source, I know a guy.”

I think your example in Kanye might be a good one.

Maybe his tweet should stay up, ambiguous speech isn’t clearly illegal. Illegal speech is much easier to recognize. But Twitter probably wouldn’t want to put that tweet on the trending front page or advertise next to it but he has an audience and can continue to interact with and grow his audience.

Minimal regulation as required by law, no moderation, and maximal participation.

2. and 4. are not necessarily givens.

Perhaps the product this engineer works on does not pan out, maybe he unwittingly makes the company weaker by siphoning capital on a project that eventually fails. This seems to be a common case at Alphabet.

It could also be the case that reinvestment of capital from the engineer's efforts is in a line of business orthogonal to surveillance. Indeed a company making flying cars and engaging in surveillance is clearly already not contributing 100% of their working capital to expand their surveillance capabilities.

I worked at a company where the new CTO instituted SAFe (which he used at a previously failing company).

It was an unmitigated disaster, everyone was miserable. Developers were leaving so quickly consultants were brought in to stem the bleed.

When I left the CTO was trying to retain the little talent there was left by holding monthly Q&A sessions. The final question I heard before I left was something like, “why are the consultants treated better than the employees? They don’t have to do SAFe.”

Logistics is in direct support of, and enables, Russian military action in your example. Designing a propeller for a flying vehicle does not further surveillance.

My reference to distasteful was meant to reference a much more vile flavor of speech than gossip and celeb junk news.

read my mind, I guess the way to win an argument is to assert you already know future outcomes.

Not really, I don't blame a mechanical engineer working on flying cars at Alphabet for Google's surveillance. Doesn't make sense.

Evidence, that basic thing that is always absent from assertions like the one above.

I think distasteful nonsense gets deprioritized in all public squares as a natural consequence of our social mores.

There's a vast difference between defending them and saying their actions had no consequences. You seem to think that since they are not immediately forgotten, disowned by the public and de-celebrityfied, and plunged into poverty that nothing happened. That's not true, their actions did have consequences. You can not defend them while also acknowledging something did, in fact, happen when they were cancelled.

Ye got his deals with Adidas (and others) cancelled and Louie CK got a Netflix show and comedy tour cancelled. In both of your own examples "shit" happened.

I think there could be a balance here, allow that which is legal but distasteful but don't promote it or advertise beside it. You could probably repurpose some already pre-existing ML models searching for users to ban over takes that are too hot for twitter to mark as un-monatizable. Cleaning house is the way to make this vision of twitter a reality.

Bots I think is both the harder and existential problem.

Totally agree, the hydroelectric juice wasn't worth the squeeze on our ecosystem.