Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)F
Posts
1
Comments
1301
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Jails are administered by judges. Put a judge in jail illegally, and another judge will immediately release them.

  • I answered this elsewhere, but the upshot is that banks treat court orders like checks drawn from your account. Once they are signed, there isn't any good way to stop the funds from being withdrawn.

  • THEY is the judge.

    Suppose you sued Bob, and Bob was dumb enough to openly defy the judge. The judge could write a court order that says "Bob owes Melatonin $1000" or "Bob owes the court $1000".

    For all practical purposes, that order works the same as a check signed by Bob. If it's written to you, then you and your lawyer can take it to the bank. The bank teller will give you $1000 and deduct $1000 from Bob's account. It doesn't matter what Bob says or what Bob's employees say. The bank teller doesn't work for Bob.

    The same is true if "Bob" is a DoJ lawyer or even the DoJ itself.

  • Judges can drain bank accounts of those who don't respect rule of law. That's kind of the point of draining their bank account.

  • That's not going to work either. It's a bad idea to openly defy judges, because they can easily drain your bank account.

    You'll note that even now, Trump lawyers claim they are doing their best to comply with court orders.

  • Reminder to all that despite its name the FEC does not control elections. Elections are controlled by the states.

    The FEC enforces campaign spending laws, but as we've all seen even lawbreakers can be elected president.

  • Technology is only one part of the equation. If a factory upgrades its machines but loses half its workforce, it could end up producing less than before.

    In Japan, technology improvements are not enough to make up for an aging population. So either workers put in even longer hours or the country has to make do with less stuff than before. And workers are approaching their limits.

  • So we should be able to get by with less labor, right?…

    Sure. Or everyone could get more stuff for the same amount of labor.

    Suppose your boss told you, "You've been doing a great job at work. We could give you 10% raise, or we could keep your paycheck the same and cut your hours by 10%." I don't know which you would choose, but most people would take the raise.

  • Less productive means less things for you.

    Suppose you ate 100 bananas this year. Suppose you were told that next year you are only allowed 90 bananas, and what's more you will never have 100 bananas a year again. Even worse, after next year you will never have 90 bananas again. And the same is true of everything else you enjoy.

    Most people hope, at a minimum, that next year will be no worse than this year. They do not like knowing, for certain, that every year will be worse than the one before. Forever. But that's what happens when productivity inexorably declines.

    In fact, in this situation the only way to make things better, for anyone, is at someone else's expense. There is no such thing as a win-win outcome. That makes for a very unpleasant society and it's easy to see why leaders want to avoid this.

  • If population is decreasing because of decreased birthrate, then the population is aging. And all else equal, an aging population is less productive because fewer people are working.

  • Uh no, the AI didn't crack any problem.

    The AI produced the same hypothesis that a scientist produced, one that the scientist considered his own original awesome idea.

    But the truth is that science is less about producing awesome ideas and more about proving them. And AI did nothing in this regard, except to remind scientists that their original awesome ideas are often not so original.

    There's even a term scientists use when another scientist has the same idea but actually managed to do the work of proving it: "scooped". It's a very common occurrence. It didn't happen here.

  • The SCOTUS already held that schools cannot consider race in their admissions. But schools can still use geography, so they often give preference to applicants from disadvantaged neighborhoods. I don't think Trump's latest EO is going to change that.

  • Yes, but that does not mean they want to be publicly traded.

    There are plenty of privately held for-profit companies, for example Valve. Their business model does not involve stock prices, in fact it is impossible to buy Valve stock.

  • I doubt that's their plan, since they aren't on the stock market.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • There are no commas in the text. And even under your interpretation, the US is only obligated to seek action by the UN Security Council. They have done so.

  • Everyone agrees IGs can be removed after 30 days notice.

    The legal question is whether in some cases they can be removed without 30 days notice. Team Trump argues they can, the IGs argue the only way they can be removed is with 30 days notice.

    The judge has to decide who's right. Probably the IGs, but at this point it's too late to reinstate them. So instead the IGs will have to argue for money damages.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Section 4:

    The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used

    The US promised to seek action from the UN Security Council if Ukraine suffered or was threatened with nuclear attack.

    Ukraine hasn't suffered a nuclear attack. Even so, the US did seek action from the Security Council, but it was predictably vetoed by Russia.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • The US promised they would not invade Ukraine, but they never promised they would protect Ukraine.