I don't think he "face planted", he's telling us exactly who he is. The good Senator from Alabama, one of the lucky 100 to make major policy decisions for all of us, is a defender of white supremacists.
But don't worry, racism is dead and gone. SCOTUS told us so.
This is just bizarre...what's the goal here? Putin already declared their acts as treason, how can he let this go unpunished? Is the Russian state really so weak that they have to forgive literal treason just to maintain power? What did Prigozhin gain from this? What about Kadyrov's movement towards Rostov, does he stand down as well? Was this all a weird performance?
Just...bizarre.
He bought the company to bootstrap his idea of his "X" app which he envisions becoming something like WeChat for the world outside of China.
I think it's a terrible idea that's a solution in search of s problem. WeChat works in China because the government literally enforces it's usage. The rest of the world isn't interested in a one-stop-shop for anything and everything.
It's the problem of trying to be everything for everyone. You end up with mediocre or bad solutions for many problems instead of great solutions for a couple of problems. It works when there's no competition, see WeChat, but when there is competition that competition is going to beat you at their game because you're too busy playing a dozen others.
I don't think he knows how SCOTUS works...
I don't think you solve one problem by introducing another problem. The solution to over-criminalization is to decriminalize things. If a person is a danger to society, charge them with a crime and let a jury of their peers decide their guilt. Hacking into someone's property so that you can spy on them is absolutely not an alternative worth entertaining.
I think too often we get caught up on "the game" and try to frame decisions solely in that context.
The reality is that sometimes in politics people hold genuine beliefs, and when it comes to the GOP I think a non-insignificant caucus of them genuinely opposes abortion for various personal reasons.
This line from Schindler's List always stuck with me:
“Whoever saves one life saves the world entire.”
The context is that at the end of the movie Schindler is distraught thinking of how many more he could have saved if he just did certain things differently, like selling a ring and using that money to hire another Jewish worker. One of the people he saved tells him the above line.
It's stuck with me for two reasons, I think.
First, it's an interesting perspective on individuality. Each person has their own unique perspective of the world. When that person dies, that perspective is gone forever. An entire universe dies with them, never to be seen again. I think that's a powerful way to view the individual.
Second, it's a reminder that we do what we can, and while it may be imperfect, it's enough. You can't save everyone, just live well and help those you can in the capacity that you can. If you save one of those people, you've saved the world.
I think their words are accurate, it's just that their allegiance isn't to the United States of America.
I know people are quick to jump on this as a sign of cognitive impairment, but could this be a form of aphasia resulting from his fall a few months ago?
I just ask because it's possible it's a motor issue (knows what he wants to say but can't physically say it) rather than a cognitive issue (can't think of something to say).
As much as I'd love for McConnell to GTFO, and certainly support age/term limits in Congress, if it is a motor issue it'd be similar to what Fetterman has dealt with since his stroke (auditory issue vs. cognitive issue).
I've had Pixels since the first one, this is news to me.
Edit: Just went looking for it, not installed. It's in the play store but not sure how it could be unavoidable when it's not pre-installed.
He'd probably have to put all of his eggs in the reincarnation basket and start doing some good deeds.
Or bad deeds, depending on your opinion of actors.
The major question doctrine acts as a “get-out-of-text-free card” that conservative justices make “magically appear” whenever they see an executive branch policy that goes against their ideological “goals,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent in the 2022 case of West Virginia v. EPA.
Apparently legislating from the bench is fine for Conservatives as long as you make up your own judicial doctrine as justification.
I don't know how we fix the problems we face. The court is seated by politicians, Congress is seated by grifters and ideologues,, and the people are too defeated/controlled to make meaningful changes.
I don't think so, his "X" idea has been around for a long time, he really thinks it's his next big idea. I'm sure people have raised all of these concerns with him, but I doubt he's listening. Tesla, SpaceX, etc. are ideas that he bought, this one is his baby. I don't think he's open to ideas or criticisms on it.
OP analyzing the Lemmy logo.
It's pretty incredible how out of step Alito and Thomas seem to be even with the other conservative justices. Anytime there's a 7-2 or 8-1 ruling you can almost guarantee they'll be writing the dissent.
I'm not sure what could be done. It's an executive order, not a bill, and it's scope is fairly limited. It doesn't create any new powers, just uses what's outlined in the HEROES Act to reduce the burden of student loans. Since it's an executive order the next President could revoke it, but the cancelled amounts can't be brought back so that would just wipe away the changes to how interest is handled.
The Exorcist got me pretty good
It's so incredibly frustrating. One of the main reasons Trump rose to popularity was his campaigning against D.C. ineptitude and corruption. Drain the swamp and all of that. And now we have the perfect encapsulation of why those issues exist. He is the ineptitude and corruption. But the people who are supposedly railing against that are embracing him without wavering. Now they're about to nominate someone who had a laundry list of indictments.
If you can't hold yourselves accountable how could you ever expect to hold others accountable? It doesn't work like that. The GOP is broken, but perhaps more concerning are the supposed independents who for one reason or another just don't seem to care.
It was a defamation case in which the courts determined that Trump made false statements by denying the allegations because he most likely did sexually assault E. Jean Carroll.
No criminal case was brought because it's beyond the statute of limitations, and since the legal bar in a criminal case is higher I don't think any prosecutor would bring those charges even if statute of limitations wasn't an issue.
At the time when Carroll alleges Trump raped her, the statute of limitations for rape in the state of New York was five years.
I'd take both boxes.
We've been given no information on the accuracy of the machine's predictions. Therefore, we have to assume it has just as good of a chance of being wrong as being right. There's essentially a 50/50 chance that box B has $1,000,000,000 regardless of my choice, so I would choose the option that at least guarantees the smaller prize while still giving me the same chance at the larger prize.
They claimed that his statements made while President served an interest to the government. It's wildly stupid, and really just a flimsy excuse to protect him, but that's what they said.
I think this may just be another excuse, but part of why they're reversing course is that he's now made statements long after losing office, so how could you argue that his actions were driven by his service to the office?
Justice Department lawyers said they took into consideration Trump’s deposition that was played in the battery and defamation trial, as well as statements Trump made last October repeating the denials long after he left office, as an indication that he was not motivated to protect and serve the US when he first made the comments.
He endorsed Elon for saving Twitter too, so maybe he's not the best judge of character?
It also doesn't get you off when you don't pay your lawyers, for whatever reason.
Haven't used my desktop in ages, has been completely replaced by my personal and work laptops.
Why would this be treated any differently than googling things? I just googled the same prompt about hiding food that's mentioned in the article and it gave me pretty much the same advice. One of the top links was an ED support forum where they were advising each other on how to hide their eating disorder.
These articles are just outrage bait at this point. There are some legitimate concerns about AI, but bashing your hand with a hammer and blaming the hammer shouldn't be one of them.
Well, takes one to know one, ya know?
When the success of a media organization is bound to the rules of capitalism, it's unsurprising that their objectives becomes capitalistic. The responsibilities of the 4th estate and the incentives of capitalism are misaligned.
The catch-22 is that the solution to this is regulation by the government. But the 4th estate is itself a check on government. So if the government is given regulatory control over the 4th estate, you open up the possibility of neutering that check.
Then again, that check has already been neutered by capitalism so...
In this case the article states Meta did not comply with the requests and responded to the FBI with concerns about the accounts being flagged. It also states that Meta was not pressured to comply with the requests.
I think this is a tricky situation. It's in the interest of social media companies to limit the spread of misinformation on their platforms. When that misinformation is coming from state actors (e.g. Russia) it's not uncommon for the US Government to have the best knowledge of those efforts. It follows that the social media company would want to consult with the US Government to improve their efforts. But the US Government obviously also has its own interests and biases that can very easily corrupt those efforts.
There has been cases (as pointed out in the last court case) where I think the government did cross the line from advisory to directive. I think that's a problem that absolutely needs to be addressed.
IMO the answer to this is a bit of a one-way communication and transparency. The US Government should keep a publicly accessible database of what it believes to be misinformation efforts including posts, accounts, etc. Third parties can audit that DB and conduct their own reviews. It would then be up to them whether or not to use that information to aid their own efforts. The public can also review that information and they (and the media) can point out the flaws and mistakes they believe are being made.
Do we know why they dissented? In another article it referenced that they didn't think a ruling was appropriate because the NC courts overturning the ruling in question rendered the case moot. Neither article I've read gave more of an explanation than that.
Or did they flat out endorse the independent legislature theory?
"Not guilty" is distinct from "innocent", and such a verdict, if a trial ever comes of this, would not impact libel or slander. Being unable to prove your accusations in court to the standard required is not a determination that the accusations were false, only that doubt remained.
North Carolina got it's very own George Santos, and it's been vastly more impactful. There needs to be a fraud investigation carried out by someone here. You don't have this level of dishonesty without crossing the line into illegality somewhere.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch would have dismissed the case because of the intervening North Carolina court action.
Was this the crux of their dissent, or did they disagree with the actual ruling in regards to the independent legislature theory? Having 3 justices endorse that theory would be alarming.
Happy this is settled for at least this iteration of the court. The idea that state legislatures can ignore their own state Constitution, that they themselves wrote, is absurd and paradoxical. Being bound by the state constitution isn't giving or sharing power with the state courts, it's a limitation placed on themselves by the state legislature.
Bathtub is a common spot for my GSD during fireworks and thunderstorms.
There's a significant difference between the people rising against their government and the people rising against some of the government on behalf of the rest of the government.
That's what happened on Jan 6th. Those people were launching an assault to support their preferred representatives, they were very much pro-government. Nothing libertarian about it.
I feel like there's a concerted effort to delegitimize the entire concept of whistleblowing. They're getting more common, more partisan, and less backed by physical evidence.