437 karma · joined January 3, 2014
https://github.com/esbranson
Now it is closer to 46.6% of adults working. That's the best of times for the Detroit area.
> A home network running IPv6 should deploy ULAs alongside its globally unique prefix(es) to allow stable communication between devices (on different subnets) within the homenet
> When an IPv6 node in a homenet has both a ULA and a globally unique IPv6 address, it should only use its ULA address internally and use its additional globally unique IPv6 address as a source address for external communications.
> A home network running IPv6 should deploy ULAs alongside its globally unique prefix(es) to allow stable communication between devices (on different subnets) within the homenet
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7368.html#section-2...
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7368.html#section-3...
I would think the same, crime rates would be unaffected in the short and medium term, since I don't think it prevents much crime given the short or non-custodial sentences given many criminals. Clearance rates and justice (conviction rates) would likely go down though IMO.
In November 2023, the prime age (25-54 years old) labor force participation rate was 83.4%.[1]
> At the same time, the labor force participation rate edged down from 62.0% in February to 61.9% in March, the lowest level since November 2021.
The prime age LFPR was 83.9% and 83.8% in February and March 2026, and 82% in November 2021.[1]
The prime age labor participation rate is just about the highest it's ever been in recorded history. The gender gap is also the lowest it's ever been.[2]
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060
[2] https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/spotlighting...
Because I don't want to deal with formatting, I want to focus on data. Firefox and Safari formatting looked great.
The reality is that the official United States Code gives plenty of history for statutes, while the Code of Federal Regulations gives less but still basic history. Both are also provided in XML in bulk, though the former has a modern USLM format and the latter has an archaic schema. Case law is less amenable to git histories.
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/help/api/
[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/help/coverage/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70722326/291/american-a...
First section summary. This is an X post.
> First, the bar covers actions "under such authority"—meaning actions that exceed the statute's grant fall outside it entirely.
The authority, which is omitted in the article, is likely the subsection entitled "Authority". Who woulda thought. (a) Authority.—…(1) carry out a covered procurement action; and (2) limit, notwithstanding any other provision of law, in whole or in part, the disclosure of information relating to the basis…. There is no mention of "was built to address foreign adversary threats to the IT supply chain" in the aforementioned authority. The rest reminds me of sovereign citizen arguments: good luck lol this is about military procurement.
> "Adversary" is undefined, but
This holds more water. Too bad the court will be prevented from reviewing the underlying record with which to decide, for a coequal branch, who are adversaries. And unlike IEEPA, their declarations are not in the Constitution.
> Pretext
The underlying record, and their decision to "limit" disclosure (not "not to disclose"), is unreviewable.
> the required findings don't hold up
Dang, ignorance of "no action … shall be subject to review" is doing real work. It does not matter if only the record cannot be reviewed. If a court cannot review the information, it cannot make contrary decisions.