techostritch

Does this article really start “the first amendment was great when it was used for people like me (news organizations) but now others are benefiting? That’s out of control!”

I have to imagine employers will be using the global turn right to attack worker protections at every angle. I would be surprised if something wasn’t significantly clawed back over the next 10 years.

This also depends on the kind of work you do. If you’re an influencer/contractor/consultant/executive, I can maybe see what he’s talking about it but if you’re a skilled IC or creative… Imagine telling Lebron James what’s really holding him back is his routines.

I get it’s threading the needle and people en masse aren’t going to understand nuance, but I don’t think his point was that electing him would bring hope/change, I think it was a call for America to remember it can change.

I don’t think “I have faith we can change but don’t put your faith in me” has the same ring to it as a campaign slogan.

I think it becomes too hard to define good faith moderation. Unless maybe you try to define how big a company is?

One of the reasons Elon Musk bought Twitter was because the Babylon Bee was moderated for misgendering a trans person. I could see an argument for why this might not be ok, but for me the same argument to me would fall apart on the /lgbt or /trans subreddits.

I don’t love the idea (nor do I think it’s feasible to distinguish) when you’re social media site becomes a “public square” and now your moderation decisions have to have some standard… regulated by the government? Which I think circles back to being a valid 1st amendment concern.

Renewable resources are one of those things that get me going because it seems like there’s a broad swath of issues that both sides care about (foreign policy, energy independence, lower price of energy) that could be improved with renewable power but the politics are more incentivize by which company spends the most on legislators.

This doesn’t seem like the proper reading of Chevron Deference to me.

Chevron deference says that when the delegation is implicit but not explicit then you defer to the agency. So in the FDA example, there is no implicit authority to regulate motor oil.

So, I don’t think I’ve seen this language used, but does this basically end the use of “executive orders”? That’s what executive orders were right, advice to agencies on how to interpret laws?

Huh, not my experience at all? Going for a run is a great way to get less angry, meditation often not so much.

Austen Allred posted a defense of getting rid of Chevron, but in a lot of ways, this seems like it could have the opposite impact that he predicts, this makes predicting legal outcomes even harder for small companies and it may further benefit large companies that can understand the nuances of how all the different judges will respond.

Couldn’t this have the opposite impact Austen is describing? Now instead of a central agency clarifying rulings, it’s up to each individual judge?

“Unfortunately that deference has gone too far”

I don’t think I can support an objective idea that it’s “gone too far” when the decision was on ideological boundary. This was political activism not jurisprudence.

There's this pro-growth pro-tech mantra which seems to be "everything will always be ok" and it just seems there has to be limits to it.

We can nit pick what you meant by 'automatically' morph, but the fact that it was just forced into a pretty severe morph to adapt to what 6 particular persons wanted I think challenges the argument you're making.

"even if it's an overreach beyond their congressional authority "

Chevron specifically says though that it should be within their authority and reasonable.

Yeah, maybe I would need clarification on what the person I responded to meant by "severe punishments".

I have thought about the car thing and wondered if I do the punishment wrong and make them run into the street faster.

My best hope is this may actually encourage people to come up with better solutions; it feels like we've got into this stalemate where no one wants to fix the problem, and homeless camps are not great compromises.

This seems really inefficient though. Do we really want top-down authority of decision making like this? No one would think it was good if in a company where if the rules of how to do your job were vague (and in this case, we're talking about delegated responsibilities), you had to go to the board of directors to get them clarified.

And yet, doesn't this give undue authority to the legal branch? like it just makes the legal branch the new administrative state. Reading through Chevron, it seems excessively logical to say that if a rule is vague, you defer to the people who made the rule to interpret it.

Something I’ve observed, and I don’t know of anyone on this forum has this opinion, but when the free market favors businesses, everyone says that’s capitalism and don’t get in the way of the free market, but when the free market favors workers, or a company decides to do something like pay workers more to keep them there’s a response that it’s woke and anti-capitalist. Is there an intellectual / non-emotional reason for this distinction?

I’ve never really understood punishment.(directed from humans, I’m all for putting kids into challenging situations and letting them learn from the world) Shouldn’t we be teaching kids self restraint and intrinsic motivation? Like I’m not hoping that my kid grows up to be someone that just blindly pursued pleasure / avoids pain, I hope they use they’re frontal cortex.

The only think being punished as a kid ever taught me was not to take the person punishing me seriously and strategies for avoiding that person.

I think we need to differentiate between types of lawsuits. This current lawsuit is abusing the environment impact system to harm it's competition, it compares it to a previous lawsuit

"The filing follows similar moves in past years, including in 2021, when Blue Origin sued NASA for awarding a lunar contract to SpaceX and not considering other alternatives."

Suing get your business considered fairly seems much more above board then suing for an environmental impact that you would probably violate if you had the opportunity.

I think it’s because for a modern liberal first world democracy we’re remarkably religious, most other countries are either more religious so it’s settled anti-abortion or more secular/liberal so it’s settled pro-choice.

So, and I say this as someone who is indisputably pro choice. It was an open secret that Roe V Wade was a bad legal decision, and tons of ink has been spilt on that, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has commented on it, and there’s some thought that it may have turned the tide against an organic pro-choice movement that was happening at the time. That being said Dobbs was an incredibly cynical power play, with everyone involved saying that Roe V Wade was settled law and they weren’t going to touch it, then doing to opposite.

What does this mean? Which Americans and on what opinion?

One potential flaw that I see in this study is that I think Republican strategy has changed from a strategy of positive sentiment to a strategy of negative sentiment. I notice that Ronald Reagan rates highly here, which doesn't surprise me since Reagan is known for his "morning in America" campaign, he was optimistic to a fault.

It's not surprising to see George W Bush so low, because I think both sides have turned against George Bushes neo-conservative interventionism, and Trump, regardless of how you evaluate his policies or leadership is a negative sentiment machine. Trump is the anti-Reagen in terms of his approach, and in general I would say the Republican strategy of the past decades has been oriented around a more negative sentiment.

So yeah, maybe a different methodology is required or something that takes this into account?

How do you cover Trump in a fair way without including words that bias towards a negative sentiment? Without ever quoting him?

“Despite the left’s predictions, the fall of Roe hasn’t ushered in a “Handmaid’s Tale” dystopia”.

This is really in the eye of the beholder isn’t it, interesting that another recent article shows an increase in child deaths and attacks on IVF and people arguing against no fault divorce feel pretty dystopian. Aside from the fact I think there’s really no way anti-abortion activists don’t want to make it illegal at the federal level as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/24/texa...

I’ve been really interested in this idea of people should be able to choose their own government recently though. It’s I think a thing that sounds good but doesn’t really mean anything. Any time you start to limit individual freedoms in this way, especially when it aligns with a religion it makes me wonder, who is really choosing? Do people really “choose” a government that reflects a minority opinion(I mean this with the Dobb’s decision but also other arguments in favor of more authoritarian governments). Can you say people “choose” a government if that government is not a liberal democracy. Like this is an argument against overthrowing someone like Saddam Hussein.

I’m not sure what the different incentives are, but I’ve read people say Tik Toks comment section is where it’s at, but I’m almost never inclined to read the comments, which differs from Reddit/hn/threads where I may be more interested in the comments than the original content.

Elon seems to want all the benefits of a public company with none of the obligations. Either way seems more and more that he better be right up there on his high wire without a net.

Whelp if I’m too stupid too read, then I’m definitely too stupid to replicate her results.