Also they think they have the upper hand because of willingness to use violence, but most people are capable of being violent when they have to be.
People who use violence in normal times just want to dominate others, won't work out that way in a fair fight.
People who use violence in normal times just want to dominate others, won't work out that way in a fair fight.
December 6, 2025 at 5:52 PM
Also they think they have the upper hand because of willingness to use violence, but most people are capable of being violent when they have to be.
People who use violence in normal times just want to dominate others, won't work out that way in a fair fight.
People who use violence in normal times just want to dominate others, won't work out that way in a fair fight.
Everyone remembers the "give me your tired" line but there's a lot going on in this poem, in particular a lot of Gender.
December 6, 2025 at 5:42 PM
Everyone remembers the "give me your tired" line but there's a lot going on in this poem, in particular a lot of Gender.
It would be an FAFO but not in the direction that guy thinks.
December 6, 2025 at 5:35 PM
It would be an FAFO but not in the direction that guy thinks.
You can't expect an officer to know that some action is unconstitutional when a court hasn't said so, or when a court has said so.
December 6, 2025 at 5:34 PM
You can't expect an officer to know that some action is unconstitutional when a court hasn't said so, or when a court has said so.
IIRC in Myers v US, they say "the president can remove heads of agencies because it's ancillary to the power of appointment"
To which the obvious rejoinder is "but the Senate has to approve appointments, so they should have a role in removals"
To which the answer is "... nuh uh"
To which the obvious rejoinder is "but the Senate has to approve appointments, so they should have a role in removals"
To which the answer is "... nuh uh"
December 5, 2025 at 6:11 PM
IIRC in Myers v US, they say "the president can remove heads of agencies because it's ancillary to the power of appointment"
To which the obvious rejoinder is "but the Senate has to approve appointments, so they should have a role in removals"
To which the answer is "... nuh uh"
To which the obvious rejoinder is "but the Senate has to approve appointments, so they should have a role in removals"
To which the answer is "... nuh uh"
But agree the first one is supply/demand - used to be you could get important career skills online (or some other unlikely source), and it was still a niche/nonexistent subject in schools, that's going away.
December 5, 2025 at 6:01 PM
But agree the first one is supply/demand - used to be you could get important career skills online (or some other unlikely source), and it was still a niche/nonexistent subject in schools, that's going away.
IMO a good reason to do comp sci is the 2nd one - similar to why you'd do math or physics, because it's a signal that you're smart/quantitative, and even because it's knowledge you'd want for its own sake.
December 5, 2025 at 5:57 PM
IMO a good reason to do comp sci is the 2nd one - similar to why you'd do math or physics, because it's a signal that you're smart/quantitative, and even because it's knowledge you'd want for its own sake.
Seems like there are some key distinctions that get blurred:
* person described here: xkcd.com/519/
* person with a deep academic knowledge, beyond just "I can code", can get technical job on that basis or because it's seen as a "smart" subject
* techy guy who knows about gadgets
* person described here: xkcd.com/519/
* person with a deep academic knowledge, beyond just "I can code", can get technical job on that basis or because it's seen as a "smart" subject
* techy guy who knows about gadgets
11th Grade
xkcd.com
December 5, 2025 at 5:56 PM
Seems like there are some key distinctions that get blurred:
* person described here: xkcd.com/519/
* person with a deep academic knowledge, beyond just "I can code", can get technical job on that basis or because it's seen as a "smart" subject
* techy guy who knows about gadgets
* person described here: xkcd.com/519/
* person with a deep academic knowledge, beyond just "I can code", can get technical job on that basis or because it's seen as a "smart" subject
* techy guy who knows about gadgets
People talk about the Swift Boat thing against Kerry, but AFAICT the real source of anger was that Kerry testified that US troops did war crimes.
People argue about nukes etc during WW2, but the ones most loudly defending it are usually on the right.
People argue about nukes etc during WW2, but the ones most loudly defending it are usually on the right.
December 5, 2025 at 5:49 PM
People talk about the Swift Boat thing against Kerry, but AFAICT the real source of anger was that Kerry testified that US troops did war crimes.
People argue about nukes etc during WW2, but the ones most loudly defending it are usually on the right.
People argue about nukes etc during WW2, but the ones most loudly defending it are usually on the right.
Bad, but is it surprising?
I kinda always took "we don't have to follow the laws of war" to be the conservative opinion. Maybe it's just growing up during the War on Terror days but seems like that was always their view (similar on due process/privacy).
I kinda always took "we don't have to follow the laws of war" to be the conservative opinion. Maybe it's just growing up during the War on Terror days but seems like that was always their view (similar on due process/privacy).
December 5, 2025 at 5:49 PM
Bad, but is it surprising?
I kinda always took "we don't have to follow the laws of war" to be the conservative opinion. Maybe it's just growing up during the War on Terror days but seems like that was always their view (similar on due process/privacy).
I kinda always took "we don't have to follow the laws of war" to be the conservative opinion. Maybe it's just growing up during the War on Terror days but seems like that was always their view (similar on due process/privacy).
True, but put it this way, to have a direct effect (as opposed to exposure, obstruction, etc) requires 2/3. The things you say are all good, but I also want to actually undo the changes in policy.
December 5, 2025 at 5:44 PM
True, but put it this way, to have a direct effect (as opposed to exposure, obstruction, etc) requires 2/3. The things you say are all good, but I also want to actually undo the changes in policy.
"All of your responses here" I made two responses, didn't mention evil corporations or being a humble common folk, and for a lot of companies, the people they are catering to are people they're selling data to, not just the person using the thing.
December 5, 2025 at 4:38 PM
"All of your responses here" I made two responses, didn't mention evil corporations or being a humble common folk, and for a lot of companies, the people they are catering to are people they're selling data to, not just the person using the thing.
Obama won Iowa by 5.8 in 2012, Trump won it by 9.4 in 2016, a 15.2% swing.
The nationwide swing towards Republicans was 1.8%.
The nationwide swing towards Republicans was 1.8%.
December 5, 2025 at 4:29 PM
Obama won Iowa by 5.8 in 2012, Trump won it by 9.4 in 2016, a 15.2% swing.
The nationwide swing towards Republicans was 1.8%.
The nationwide swing towards Republicans was 1.8%.
Why is that absurd? Toilets are better than other things because they aren't wired by default, but "stuffing AI into things that didn't have it before" seems like it's happening all over the place.
December 5, 2025 at 4:21 PM
Why is that absurd? Toilets are better than other things because they aren't wired by default, but "stuffing AI into things that didn't have it before" seems like it's happening all over the place.
I don't know what the background is, but not every toilet I use is one I bought. Also I worry that a "choice" like this for a consumer good soon becomes the default/only option available.
December 5, 2025 at 4:14 PM
I don't know what the background is, but not every toilet I use is one I bought. Also I worry that a "choice" like this for a consumer good soon becomes the default/only option available.
I agree with that as well, but impeachment requires 2/3rds of the Senate. Reacting to every RFK Jr action with a law that reverses it only takes half (or 3/5ths depending on filibuster nonsense).
December 5, 2025 at 4:08 PM
I agree with that as well, but impeachment requires 2/3rds of the Senate. Reacting to every RFK Jr action with a law that reverses it only takes half (or 3/5ths depending on filibuster nonsense).
House Dems should organize a petition for a vote to reverse this, like they did with the Epstein files.
If that doesn't work, obvious first move when they retake Congress is to reverse this by law.
If that doesn't work, obvious first move when they retake Congress is to reverse this by law.
December 5, 2025 at 4:01 PM
House Dems should organize a petition for a vote to reverse this, like they did with the Epstein files.
If that doesn't work, obvious first move when they retake Congress is to reverse this by law.
If that doesn't work, obvious first move when they retake Congress is to reverse this by law.
IMO the problem is that, sure "being comfortable with yourself" is good, but if you aren't, it's hard to change that if you think other people don't like you.
December 5, 2025 at 3:38 PM
IMO the problem is that, sure "being comfortable with yourself" is good, but if you aren't, it's hard to change that if you think other people don't like you.
That answer from Cotton is a smart-sounding phrase that makes no sense in this context.
What factual assumption is being made in that question that is untrue or implausible?
Are there no lakes in Arkansas? Are drug dealers unable to get on boats in lakes?
What factual assumption is being made in that question that is untrue or implausible?
Are there no lakes in Arkansas? Are drug dealers unable to get on boats in lakes?
December 5, 2025 at 3:34 PM
That answer from Cotton is a smart-sounding phrase that makes no sense in this context.
What factual assumption is being made in that question that is untrue or implausible?
Are there no lakes in Arkansas? Are drug dealers unable to get on boats in lakes?
What factual assumption is being made in that question that is untrue or implausible?
Are there no lakes in Arkansas? Are drug dealers unable to get on boats in lakes?
so, uhhh, who's the girl?
December 5, 2025 at 3:33 PM
so, uhhh, who's the girl?
There's a vision that you *could* have of an executive branch that's more unitary but also more limited.
But that doesn't fit with e.g. Trump v US, nor allowing impoundments. In practice what they're doing is just maximizing executive power ... except to the extent it conflicts with their own.
But that doesn't fit with e.g. Trump v US, nor allowing impoundments. In practice what they're doing is just maximizing executive power ... except to the extent it conflicts with their own.
December 5, 2025 at 2:16 PM
There's a vision that you *could* have of an executive branch that's more unitary but also more limited.
But that doesn't fit with e.g. Trump v US, nor allowing impoundments. In practice what they're doing is just maximizing executive power ... except to the extent it conflicts with their own.
But that doesn't fit with e.g. Trump v US, nor allowing impoundments. In practice what they're doing is just maximizing executive power ... except to the extent it conflicts with their own.
I didn't read past the free part but the obvious issue with her argument is Trump v US.
She seems to be going for a "unitary executive but stronger Congress" view, but that doesn't work if the president is also immune from any laws that Congress passes.
She seems to be going for a "unitary executive but stronger Congress" view, but that doesn't work if the president is also immune from any laws that Congress passes.
December 5, 2025 at 2:03 PM
I didn't read past the free part but the obvious issue with her argument is Trump v US.
She seems to be going for a "unitary executive but stronger Congress" view, but that doesn't work if the president is also immune from any laws that Congress passes.
She seems to be going for a "unitary executive but stronger Congress" view, but that doesn't work if the president is also immune from any laws that Congress passes.
Can't wait until in the next Dem administration every national park burns Trump in effigy on his birthday.
December 5, 2025 at 1:22 PM
Can't wait until in the next Dem administration every national park burns Trump in effigy on his birthday.