That wouldn‘t be very democratic now, would it?

I TOLD you, we’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We take it in turns, to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions OF that officer must be ratified at a special biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, or by a TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY in the case of more immediate…

Oh good. /s

Let’s push the idea that “good people are tired of being filmed by creeps”.

Start the narrative out nice and soft.

Countdown to "it’s okay to smash the phones of people filming ICE agents doing their jobs"or whatever agenda is most on the radar of people who are against video accountability when they’re in the wrong.

I don’t particularly like the concept of these glasses or the fact that creeps will use them, but this is not how we tackle a problem we already have with creeps being able to use cell phones and easy-to-hide body cams.

Puff pieces like this are how narratives get used to put bad things into law.

Remember Cambridge Analytica and note the current state of xitter.

New kinds of water, you say? The marketing department is already on it and boy have I got news for you!

Aside from one (seemingly very out of place at the time) early mention that the author used Bitcoin, there was no hint of it being pro-bitcoin until the very, very end.

I found it to be a very worthwhile article right up until that point and even slightly intriguing from an academic perspective after that point.

I despise the endless blind parroting of the typical cryptobro refrains elsewhere on the Internet when crypto is brought up and I still liked the article, so I wouldn’t write it off just because one guy with a cryptohammer inevitably sees the very real SMTP problem as a cryptonail in the end. It’s natural when you have a “solution in search of a problem” situation like we do with crypto (and block chain, and for that matter SharePoint. People with knowledge of a thing often try to use it to solve problems it probably wasn’t meant for.)

First Mojo, now Kinky.

:(

60,000 Guinea pigs

you leave my end users out of this. It’s not their fault the higher ups chose a crappy software vendor

I don’t think it matters which way the blunt goes as long as nobody’s bogarting.

I could be wrong though, I’ve never actually partaken, just hung out.

I believe this is what “[sic]” is for.

So I looked up what “federalizing the National Guard” means in this case.

The National Guard is a unique entity in that it answers to both state and federal governments. Troops can be mobilized by a state governor or the president, depending on need. The National Guard personnel restricting access to Shelby Park are on state orders as part of Operation Lone Star, Abbott’s sweeping border security initiative.

In theory, the president or the defense secretary could divert those troops by tasking them with a federal mission.

“There are a variety of statutes that allow the president to federalize the National Guard in different circumstances. But the only one that would clearly apply in this case is the Insurrection Act,” said Joseph Nunn, counsel at the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program.

Nunn described the Insurrection Act as a “nuclear bomb hidden in the United States Code” and explained that using it would be politically costly.

“The Insurrection Act gives the president sole discretion to decide whether the criteria for invoking it are met,” he explained. “There are quite literally no safeguards to stop it from being abused.”

Historically, Nunn said, presidents have only invoked the act to federalize National Guard troops as a last resort. That was the case in 1957, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower mobilized the Arkansas National Guard to enforce a Supreme Court ruling on desegregation.

So, this would mean USURPING the Governor’s control of the Texas National Guard in order to get them to do something else.

THAT’S WHAT THEY WANT BIDEN TO DO.

THIS IS A STUNT.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SECESSION.

They want to be able to point to Biden’s actions in this and say “Bad” in twelve different ways.

They ALSO want someone to invoke the insurrection act so everyone can have carte blanche to use it whenever they want LATER, no matter who is in control.

This is a horrible precedent to set.

This whole situation is bad.

Rep. Joaquin Castro said: “Governor Greg Abbott is using the Texas National Guard to obstruct and create chaos at the border.”

The best option here might be to let his own idiocy backfire on him. I just hope there’s a way to do it without more loss of life.

Deference only applies where the law is not specific.

But it only applies to to laws. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by “policies”, it shouldn’t apply there. Since it sounds like you’re worried about overreach due to application of chevron deference, I was trying to see if I followed your train of thought correctly.

In my extremely limited understanding, the issue with the RIFO and Chevron Deference is that the gap is so damned wide with regards to how to regulate the internet that there needs to be a better test than “does the solution proposed in the RIFO fill the gap?” I would consider the RIFO to be such an outlier in cases of chevron deference law that it almost looks like a strawman when compared to other uses of chevron deference. We should definitely shore something up to allow future questioning of the wisdom of courses of action recommended by agencies when consulted in deference matters once the consequences of such deference have come to fruition, but that very possibility (as I understand it) is part of WHY the deference to agencies occurs instead of simply allowing judges to decide. The people at the agencies, being theoretically put in power for a set term, have more to lose from bad decision-making than judges-for-life do.

…when the bishops blessed the blueshirts down in galway…

I’m unaware of a solid answer on this.

It’s an old enough nickname that the origins are likely lost to obscurity.

It’s been said that it’s a shortened version of “chip off the old block” but I find it more likely that it’s an evolution of “chib” as it seems to predate the phrase, from what I can tell.

Household economics are both micro AND macro.

The handwaving that typically occurs when people try to throw a layer of obfuscation into economic conversations is both disingenuous and counterproductive to actual fruitful discussion about the current state of things.

You might as well just say “money is wealth” or “what’s good for the goose”.

The reality is we’ve been chasing a short run fallacy for a really, really long time now and there’s more and more in the way of misrepresented statistics in order to keep everyone from examining all of the indirect consequences.

The problem isn’t that the courts are deferring to the agencies. The problem is the degree of deference. I have no problem with presuming agency policies are valid, provided a plaintiff is afforded the opportunity to rebut that presumption in court.

Okay, but isn’t the current setup such that deference is only a concern for issues that have already passed through formal law?

It would be hilarious if this was overturned, Biden was elected and he filled the nation with progressive justices.

…who then use their newfound power to close a crapload of loopholes, then re-write chevron in a way that it can’t be taken down so easily again so it becomes much harder to create more loopholes or abolish good laws when people with bad intentions have power.

That’d be the best outcome of it getting overturned in my mind, anyway.

Okay, can someone explain THIS giant load of seeming bullshit to me?

In 2023, the U.S. economy vastly outperformed expectations. A widely predicted recession never happened. Many economists (though not me) argued that getting inflation down would require years of high unemployment; instead, we’ve experienced immaculate disinflation, rapidly falling inflation at no visible cost.

By every marker that matters to the POPULACE (costs of food, shelter, energy for shelter, cars, gas for cars, and medical insurance (required)) inflation has gone WAY THE HELL UP, shows no signs of abating, and jobs (in the tech sector at least) are taking a dive. Wages are not keeping pace with costs of living, and people I knew who were on the low end of “rich” are now starting to be as scared as the upper middle class.

Everyone keeps saying the economy is fricking awesome, but rent is astronomical, groceries are bonkers, gas prices are still at “I DID THIS” sticker stupidity levels, few people can get a home, used cars are going for 5 to 10 times what they’re worth, and everyone I know around the country is running a much tighter ship than they were during COVID LOCKDOWN.

All of these “new jobs” we keep hearing about are just a small percentage of positions vacated by layoffs. Companies let tons of people go in one fell swoop and hire new people for 1/10th to 1/5th of the positions at lower wages with worse “total compensation” packages.

The recruiters have COMPLETELY stopped hitting up myself and my employed friends. Not a single fricking “you look like a great blahblahblah” for almost a month when it was previously multiple hits a day.

As far as I can tell, we’re IN a recession, we’re just calling it a recovery for some reason.

It’s worth noting that the whole reason MTG wants to oust him (IN HER OWN WORDS) is because he’s reaching across the aisle to pass a bill that includes things that support Ukraine.

Johnson is one of them in all aspects and they still want to oust him.

Read this one correctly folks – Going against Russian interests is the real problem here.

Some of these GOP folks are bought and paid for by Russia.

It does not matter how hard you toe the party line, if you go against Russian interests, the far reachers of the party will try to get you removed from power and replaced with someone who can be bought.

This is what takes them so long to find someone to fill the seat.

“That guy from Alias”

You said that and I was all “Oh cool! Is he getting a lot of roles, I’d better go look!”

Turns out I was thinking of Kevin Weisman, who I haven’t seen in anything since Runaways.

President Joe Biden pardoned thousands of people who were convicted of use and simple possession of marijuana on federal lands and in the District of Columbia

So that pardons people who were convicted of using or possessing while located in one of the red areas here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands?useskin=vector#/media/File:Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg

Aside from D.C. itself, that’s what, Land under the control of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Defense, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Tennessee Valley Authority, and a few others?

I guess, in the words of Angie Martinelli “That’s not nothin!”.

Hopefully this reaches the right ears and starts more change:

Biden on Friday reiterated his call on governors and local leaders to take similar steps to erase marijuana convictions.

The number of people we have in prison for this is bonkers and the fact that it makes life as a productive member of society much more difficult is absolutely ridiculous.

I’m working to overcome a particularly troublesome piece of technology right now and enjoying a cold, refreshing, Diet Dr. Pepper, so I guess the sentiment stands.