Some federal prosecutors believe, and the President believes that federal prosecutors are his personal attorneys.

Is it worthwhile to try and ones who believe otherwise?

Do you mean federal or state prosecutors?

Not just that racist! You’re in other good company as well:

youtu.be/DUO_dsbYulA?...

If nothing else, does it give you pause to re-examine yourself that you accidentally share the same opinion on this topic as avowed racists?

Does he often quote scripture?

Sorry, I should be clear - is it unusual for a federal judge to include a bible verse in an opinion? I’ve read a lot of opinions, and this doesn’t seem common. But people have pointed to other opinions by this judge that are also less than typical. I’m wondering if he quotes scripture often?

Does anybody understand the bible verses? It seems unusual (but maybe not for this judge)?

There are seriously like 10 major events that are common to all four Gospels, and this is one. Seems kind of hard to miss.

I should clarify - things that can be done within a reasonable scope of a commercial enterprise not in the Forbes 100. Financial encryption, not military encryption, if that makes sense.

Practically, given it’s hard to defend against quantum technology that doesn’t yet exist, is there anything one CAN do now?

Assuming the system will be difficult to modify in the future, are there openings or breadcrumbs that could be useful in the future? Or just standard encryption techniques?

Next 30 years*

This is fascinating! If one had to design a record keeping system with encryption necessary to “future proof” to the next 30, do you have any thought as to what would be sufficient? Is traditional 256/512 bit encryption (sorry if the tech details are wrong!) sufficient for a 30 year time horizon?

Anyone who has studied what the US Government did to the Hmong people should be both horrified and unsurprised.

Isn’t that what body mounted camera are for?

Other than liability (of course), is there any kind of consensus amongst researchers how to address this? Is it 998 warnings, or just making some subjects off limits? Is it technical, legal, policy, or all of the above?

Is there a limiting principle here? Are there NO arguments too heinous to make and yet still retain tenure? Can you really advocate anything so long as it is done within an academic context? If there are some limits, then Dean Edley’s take feels more about line drawing, and not principles.

I mean, of course they do. But for any reason other than bigotry or ignorance?

It seems uncontroversial to believe that (1) some amount of “talent” is naturally occurring within people regardless of any training or circumstances and (2) this “talent” is randomly distributed across the globe. As a result, some talented people were born elsewhere. I wonder if people disagree?