No. Additionally, Tennessee does not have firing squad as a listed method of execution.

TCA § 40-23-114

(b) Any person who commits an offense prior to January 1, 1999, for which the person is sentenced to the punishment of death may elect to be executed by electrocution by signing a written waiver waiving the right to be executed by lethal injection.

That’s her only option, outside of the savings clause in (d) which permits any other method if all other methods listed are unconstitutional.

Also for your other question, yes. Things like espionage, high treason, aid and comfort to the enemy, large scale drug trafficking, etc… But usually if it isn’t because you murder someone, it has to be that you’ve done something really bad. Like if you gave tactical blueprints of thermonuclear devices employed by the United States to North Korea and the blueprints for the vehicle to deliver those devices, yeah, that’s getting up there.

Yes, sweetie she likes you for your personality and not your money or your power…

The vote on the resolution.

Every Republican plus Democratic Senator Fetterman (MI) voted down the resolution which called on the US Government to provide information related to the deaths of:

• Omar Assad
• Shireen Abu Akleh
• Tawfic Abdel Jabbar
• Mohammad Khdour
• Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi
• Amer Rabee
• Khamis Ayyad
• Sayfollah Kamel Musallet
• Nasrallah Muhammad Jamal Abu Siyam

All US citizens that have been killed in Israel.

These resolutions are just the Senate officially invoking it’s investigative power, which has been done multiple times before. The difference is that Republicans plus Fetterman have opted to table that power for the time being. Absolutely wild.

Okay. I mean the farmers might have something to say about it, but sure thing on my end. I love beef, but I ain’t married to it for the fuck it all prices it’s currently going for.

Right? There’s a legal distinction here and if the hiring people weren’t aware of that distinction then, that’s on the HR.

Someone who has engaged is VERY DIFFERENT than someone who is a victim of.

And you know, they’re kind of a law agency related thing, the FBI is… Ya know?! Like the FBI does law stuff… Just. I don’t have words here. It’s like five year olds running the place or something and actually that feels insulting to five year olds.

As you’ve discovered, there’s another element before a court accepts a case. Standing.

To have standing, you must show that you have a personal and direct stake in the outcome. You cannot sue just because you are angry or disagree with a law. Courts only solve real, active disputes, not hypothetical questions.

Congress has to bring the suit. Courts have routinely held that in order for “Congress” to have standing in court, they must show that “Congress” has a direct stake in the outcome. To show they do so have such a stake, they routinely vote on a Resolution to establish that Congress as a body is bringing the case.

So while individual members might try to bring a case, it really depends on what’s to be litigated before the court. A President not following the law usually indicates that Congress who created the law, is the one who is to bring it. But if the President does something that affects specifically a single member, then that member by themselves would have standing.

Citizens can sue if they can show they were directly harmed and have a direct stake in some resolution to the harm.

As far as, the Senate or the House, it depends on the injury being talked about. A simple resolution from a single chamber is the most common when the injury is specific to that chamber. A joint or concurrent resolution (by both chambers) usually is to address a broad power violation. It really depends and it’s up to the Judge to uses what’s come before as a guide.

The House usually originates the spending, and so if that’s the topic, usually just the House is enough. If the President is abusing something like war powers, then that is indicated in the Constitution as “Congress” as in the entire thing. So both chambers might be needed to have standing, unless the issue at hand is that “The President has abused their war powers and not reported to the House Oversight Committee”. In that case, the argument is that the President isn’t reporting their abuse to a single chamber and thus only the House is required to have standing. Same if the Senate is conducting an investigation and the President refuses the subpoena. The injury is just to the Senate in that case.

It all depends on how the entire thing is brought before the court.

Article III section 2 of the US Constitution.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Congress can say the President has done something illegal. The President can say they have not done anything illegal. You now have a controversy. The Constitution indicates that the judicial power will now handled it.

To sue someone or something means in the strictest of senses, “I wish to bring this matter before a court of law.” So a controversy has arisen, the courts have the right to review it. The Constitution outlines who is allowed to do what, and nobody is allowed to step out of that. So if a controversy wasn’t present, the the courts would have no jurisdiction.

Congress believes there is a controversy and thus they are suing. That means they wish to bring the controversy to the thing that’s indicated in the Constitution to settle such a thing.

However, you run into the very first question, “Is it a TRUE controversy? Or is it just a disagreement?” This is the no political questions doctrine. Congress and the President routinely disagree on things. The Courts aren’t there to settle a disagreement. It has to be a genuine controversy. That means “The law objectively says XYZ. The President specifically did not do XYZ. Ergo, this is not a disagreement but a President who is not following the letter of the law which is a controversy.”

So like anything Congress brings up, the President is allowed to say it’s not a controversy. What the ruling on that question, the President or Congress can appeal it. If the appeal isn’t good enough, the Supreme Court gets to make a final ruling. Once a controversy has been established, THEN, there’s the actual case. The the final decision of the case can be appealed and then brought before the Supreme Court.

Rarely do we actually get that far with things because you can’t get all that stuff done within a single President’s term. And the real reason a Controversy is attempted is to get discovery and things the President has been doing on the public record. Depends on what Congress is looking for. Perhaps they want to ensure Musk stays out of politics forever, a deep and heavy discovery process into him may just do that.

But Congress can bring a suit to the Courts so long as it’s within the powers of the Constitution for Congress to do so.

This is the Bundibugyo variant. Current vaccines target the Zaire strain. Current violent conflict is a major driver of this current infection getting out of control, but there is no approved vaccine for it yet. Current vaccines for this variant are in human testing phase.

All of this is compounded by the fact that the WHO has only received 60% of it’s international pledge to combat Ebola, with the United States specifically behind the most to their commitment by 70%.

No it only applies to books because books have an entirely different legal system than everything else.

SCOTUS case: White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. (1908) created a new issue for the Government about copying people’s printed works.

Copyright Act of 1909 is passed. New framework is established, books get an entirely different legal system from everything else. Publishers lobbied to prevent it’s passage and fought it especially hard in the Great Depression because libraries were becoming very popular during that time.

But printed books have a whole different thing that applies to them that doesn’t apply to anything else. So you can’t use “physical medium” because books are a special case and have their own special US law.

For books, transformative, has to deal with the intent.

• Book - I want to read them.
• Anthropic - I want to convert it to weights for use in massive matrix multiplication operations.

Since the intent is different, the book first sale doctrine applies here to grant transformative. Which is but just one pillar in their defense.

Same goes for what Google did like a decade ago.

• Book - I want to read them.
• Google - I want to convert it to a searchable database of terms that can refer you to the correct ISBN.

And transformative applies too to things like DVDs, it’s just under a different framework known as the DMCA.

• DVD - I want to watch the movie.
• MP4 - I want to watch the movie.

That’s not transformative.

• DVD - I want to watch the movie.
• MP4 - I want to take clips to make memes.

That is transformative. And again, transformative is but one thing out of the whole “fair use” thing.

This is the thing. Those news articles are oversimplifying a massive amount of legal technicalities. I’m not saying what Anthropic is doing is correct or not. What I am saying is that the conclusion that people are getting from these stories is like the last 10% of a massively technical legal battle. And running with that small amount can lead to conclusions that aren’t true.

And I know someone is going to bring it up. No you aren’t LEGALLY allows to rip a copy of a DVD for your personal use. Violates the DMCA. BUT in order to sue you, a publisher has to know ahead of time before discovery, that you broke their encryption scheme, which if you only keep it personally, is impossible for them to ever enforce. So we have a law that is written in a way, that if you never put it online, it’s impossible to enforce the law. As a summary of how all that works.

What it means.

    ----6EQUJ5-11--1-
   U       *
   T       |
   S       |
s  R       |
i  Q      *|
g  P      ||
n  O      ||
a  N      ||
l  M      ||
.  L      ||
t  K      ||
o  J      ||*
.  I      |||
n  H      |||
o  G      |||
i  F      |||
s  E     *|||
e  D     ||||
   C     ||||
r  B     ||||
a  A     ||||
t  9     ||||
i  8     ||||
o  7     ||||
   6    *||||
   5    |||||*
   4    ||||||
   3    ||||||
   2    ||||||
   1    |||||| **  *
   0****||||||*||**|*
    0----6----1-----1-
    0----0----2-----8-
    0---- ----0-----0-
    Seconds

Man, I don’t really follow Florida’s primaries and I’m pretty progressive… But dang I hope she loses and that loss is massive. Lady is an insult to progressive politics. Besides she’s made a massive pile off of stock trading, so getting her out is one more gone.

流れてく　時の中ででも　気だるさが　ほらグルグル廻って

私から　離れる心も　見えないわ　そう知らない？

So the case is EMALS had a few corners cut when it was put in. Long story short it’s isolation issues. The old steam systems could isolate a track, the electrical system is just one big unified thing. So on steam, a track goes down they can just turn off that track and keep launching on the others. On the electrical one track goes down, they have to shut the whole thing off, zero aircraft get launched.

There’s already contracts to fix this issue being put out. But this happens with Government projects. Corners get cut to hit a deadline, those cut corners then come back to haunt everyone.

And the thing is what the Government sees isn’t the whole picture. They’re looking at the metric of “number of planes system got into the air”. Which I’m sure we all understand averages here. If a system is getting a 0/hour when one track goes down, that zero brings that average down hard.

But very few want to go back to steam. It’s very costly, requires a lot of very specialized equipment to house all the high pressure systems, and some drones we toss into the air with these systems aren’t made to take the sudden thrust steam gives it. The EMALS system can give a very clean and well defined ramp up for thrust that drone engineers can build around.

But this is one of those things where some wise guy’s cut corners idea starts to threaten a full project because people start getting all worried about sunk costs and what not. But the electrical system is flawed, but we can work around those flaws to bring better isolation to it. It’s just going to take time because… you know, it’s a military vessel, it’s kind of hard to be like “let’s just drag it out of an active war zone and dry dock it for half a year.” Clocks tick differently on projects like that.

But going back to steam, and to be fair it took a while to properly develop those systems as well, is less than ideal. It’s got a much high cost and takes a whole lot more maintenance to keep running. And some aircraft we’d have to yank off duty and fix them to handle steam’s level of yeeting things. But Congress and what not aren’t looking at that dollar metric, they’re mostly focused on “how many aircraft did the system on average get into the air?”

But to be fair here, we are talking about some dude who decided to level an entire wing of the White House before actually going through any kind of approval or formalizing any kind of plan. So… He’s consistent in that whole doing shit and thinking about it later.

As the other person mentioned, they’re looking to fix the “shortcomings” of the current system. Happens in government projects that corners get cut and that short-term “fixes” ends up having long-term “issues”.

That said, dropping the whole thing to go back to steam because of corners being cut is a royally stupid idea. But I mean we are talking about a guy who decided to just level an entire wing of the White House before anything to replace it was actually thought out and approved.

Ding, ding. Yeah. Happens with Government contracts. Corners get cut. Just a symptom of … gestures towards Washington DC

The issue between the two systems is isolation. In the old C-13 series if one track needed repair, you have to shut steam off to that track. The rest can keep going. In the EMALS there’s just the one centralize power architecture, so if a track has to go down, it takes the whole thing down with it.

Few really want to return to steam. It requires a lot of the ship to house special high pressure equipment and requires more maintenance overall to keep it running. Additionally, a lot of the drones designed need the precise control that the EMALS provides to not break apart. But it’s hard to point out all the various tooling that has to go on behind the scenes when one track goes down with steam, when the whole effing thing with EMALS has to go down and no launching happens for hours.

And that’s ultimately what happens, the metrics that are being used are getting aircraft into the air, not overall downtime or cost to operate. And EMALS is still struggling to hit the numbers it has to hit and likely won’t hit them till around 2030. Every time it goes down, every zero aircrafts it gets pulls that metric down hard.

Okay. The bill is an interesting one. It does have the side effect that it will significantly damage independent courier services. Which, New York City being New York City and all, they’ve got a lot of two or three employee ran courier services.

I get what the ultimate goal here is. Amazon would then have to pay particular wages, insurance, 401(k) options, etc. That’s a great goal. But Amazon contracts a lot in NYC. Which means the courier business in NYC isn’t owned completely by a single entity, now the primary customer of that industry is one really big company, but Amazon doesn’t own any of those couriers.

What this will do, is force Amazon to buy all of them out. Hire the employees and give benefits. But it will also mean that Amazon owns most of the NYC courier service in the city at that point. Now obviously, it’s better for Amazon if they don’t have to have employees and just subcontract, but push come to shove, if they have to by law take stake, they’re going to want to own all of it. And when Mamdani is gone, they’ll have a unique position to convince a Mayor from the other side to pull the ladder up.

Now all of this is just me thinking out loud. Don’t take any of this with any significant grain of salt. I get what the goal is here, I’m cool with that. But forcing Amazon into the courier service in NYC and take ownership, I can’t imagine them wanting to play fair once they get in. And this honestly relies on a lot of the “new invented” local union that this would create to mitigate a lot of issues.

I get the goal, I’m just thinking concentrating Amazon into pure entity that dominates entirely a local industry is asking for trouble. Maybe I’m being cynical.

They are picking up law-abiding citizens. They’re destroying families, jobs.

DUH!

I think people forget how that chapter turned out.

• First French Revolution (1789–1792): Absolute monarchy collapses; replaced by a shaky constitutional monarchy.
• National Convention (1792–1795): Republic declared; quickly devolves into the Reign of Terror (1793–1794).
• The Directory (1795–1799): Moderates take over; heavily corrupt and universally disliked.
• The Consulate (1799–1804): Napoleon overthrows the Directory in a military coup.
• First French Empire (1804–1814): Napoleon crowns himself Emperor and invades Europe.
• Battle of Waterloo (1815): Napoleon’s final “Hundred Days” comeback fails; exiled for good.
• Bourbon Restoration (1814–1830): The old royal family returns to the throne.
• The July Revolution (1830): A 3-day revolt replaces the Bourbons with a more liberal cousin, King Louis-Philippe.
• The February Revolution (1848): The king is ousted; Louis-Napoléon is democratically elected President of the Second Republic.
• Second French Empire (1852–1870): Louis-Napoléon pulls a family tradition, ends the Republic, and becomes Emperor Napoleon III.
• Third French Republic (1870–1940): Napoleon III is captured by Prussia; France sets up a highly unstable parliamentary democracy.
• Vichy France (1940–1944): Nazi puppet state led by Marshal Pétain during WWII.
• Provisional Government (1944–1946): De Gaulle cleans up the post-war mess and restores basic laws.
• The Fourth Republic (1946–1958): A weak, hyper-unstable republic that collapses during the Algerian crisis.
• The Fifth Republic (1958–Today): De Gaulle writes a new constitution with a strong President. See EZPZ!

I think people tend to forget that it was a very long 169 years from bopping off rich people’s heads to stable government. Millions of people died in senseless acts of violence along the way. Whispers were treated as fact and rumors as final judgement. It was an absolute terrible time.

Yes Musk has a very long record of not paying people until they eventually sue him. This isn’t a new thing, this has been a kind of lifelong thing of Musk’s.

Salomone was persuaded by a video deposition of Joseph Killian, a former Twitter executive, who testified that Twitter stopped paying rent in December 2022 as a “renegotiating tactic — a tactic to save money.”

This has literally been Musk his entire life.