goodluckchuck

The logic remains sound, but the facts are different. There was real territorial gain / loss in the Pacific theater. Japan's imperial motives make sense, because they actually did conquer a lot of Asia / Pacific Islands. The US's defense / retaliation motives also make sense, because the US did re-take its territory and force a surrender. So, the proffered motives don't appear to be a pretext.

There's also an absence of an apparent ulterior motive. The US and Japan were also on opposite sides of the world, and had little to no prior history. It's not clear why (or along what lines) they would cooperate with each other in the presence of such real territorial conflict.

Germany is a somewhat closer case. Germany and the US had a shared history and tradition. Socialist / Communist politics were widespread in both, and the US was largely divided as to whether they would support or oppose the German socialists / war. So there is a much stronger case for an ulterior motive here. Indeed, Germany indisputably wanted many of their own people to be killed. Their leadership's desire to kill jewish German is beyond dispute... so as it relates to other classes of Germans (e.g. those who fill the Wiermact ranks)... I don't think we can rule out the possibility on the grounds that those people were (also) German.

However, to get back to the territorial aspect, Germany conquered a lot of land, and the Allies took it back. So, a closer situation to the current stalemate in Ukraine would be WWI. If they're not making any progress in terms of territory... what progress do they think they're making? The main change I see from here is that people are dying... so that's probably the whole point.

Anything is true if you define the terms contrary to their meaning.

I don’t see how personal preference should control other people’s speech. When I put terrible Google reviews down for a shop… I’m sure they don’t want that said publicly either… but it’s not libel… what I’m saying is true. There isn’t generally value in concealing the truth.

I disagree with this idea that businesses should have to keep their customers secret. If I go to Wal-Mart, then I should be free to tell my neighbors about what products were on sale and also how the produce was old / left to spoil. I’m not sure why that should be different for the store.

For a family going without relatives, a couple decades may be an eternity. For a nation-state, a couple decades is the blink of an eye.

It’s easy for a small group to seize the benefits when productivity is centralized in the hands of a small group. If you diversify the ability to build boats, then you may not be rich, but you’ll have a boat.

I think you’re just believing whatever the author says, and not considering the fact that reasonable people can disagree and be wrong and make mistakes. For all we know the procedure was entirely unnecessary and they agreed because he pushed for it. Also, what’s the alternative? The only system where you can go get procedures that authorities think unnecessary is a free market where you self-pay. A government-run system could equally decide that the procedure isn’t recommended.

No, government is the greatest threat to liberty. If the guy in charge of prosecuting feels the need to not just not prosecute, but actively protect someone from the state, then we really really don’t want (who? his unelected subordinates?) prosecuting people. It’s supposed to be an “err on the side of” failing to prosecute criminals. The whole point is yes… sometimes we want criminals to get away with crime, because it’s better than the alternatives.

What is the alternative? One of them is the public vote for a leader, the state destroys that leader (or his allies, etc) and then what? Do we think the public just says “Oh, well, I guess we didn’t pick the right guy?”

I’d say 170k / 5 = 34 * 25 = $850. Throw in air filters, and a couple transmission fluid changes, and it would certainly be under $2k.

That’s assuming DIY, but even if you’re paying $80 per change. If you do them every 7,500… you’re still $1,800 total.

$12k is plenty for a whole new engine, possibly a new engine and transmission on an economy car. For example, Ford will happily sell you a brand new 2.3 Ecoboost for a Mustang or Ranger or Explorer for $6k: https://www.trackey.ford.com/part/M-6007-23TA

This is why we have courts and judges, to hear complaints and issue remedies when the defendants are unwilling to do so. A better solution would be to reign in arbitration agreements, which are horribly inefficient. Arbitration purports to be lest costly, but it encourages unnecessary litigation by preventing the operation of res judicata, it increases the costs of litigation by preventing class actions, etc. It increases injuries by keeping wrongdoers conduct confidential.

Yeah, he was a minor / outlying figure in the same sense that Archduke Franz Ferdinand was.

Things are truly twisted when conservatives are being called socialists.

The article defeats itself by acknowledging that he uses the term in a different sense… which doesn’t deny the existence or effect of germs, but focuses on the fact that for example many of the worst effects from COVID-19 were in obese people. His point is we have 364 days a year to address obesity, but - in practice - the medical community waits until the last day and tries to develop a vaccine that will allow us to stay overweight and just kill the germ. He’s saying we miss the forest for the trees when we forget to focus on the underlying health of our bodies. Of course they wanted to write a hit piece… and what he’s saying isn’t actually controversial.

I’ve dealt with a lot of government agencies and never had a relationship with any of them. I doubt farmers have tight relationships with their local DOA rep.

That’s how I feel about the title. How could that sentence ever make sense? People can support whatever they want. Which renewable resources? Pulpwood? Is it illegal to recycle?

Turns out the department that deals with farming, is going to focus on farming… and not on pushing electricity production.

Well yeah, the Department of Energy should probably be the ones spearheading our solar, wind, etc.

It sounds like you’re judging by the political outcomes, and frankly the tactical effectiveness is pretty far disconnected from that. It’s like saying a Chef’s knife must be dull because the meal tastes bad.

This is tautological. They’re effectively defining conspiracy theories to be things which are not widely believed, and then proclaiming that the things which are not widely believed are not widely believed…

Okay?

I agree it’s incredibly clear.

> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens

So e.g. subjects to the British Crown and the jurisdiction of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, are not citizens.

Indeed, if my wife gave birth while we were vacationing China, the I would be furious if China claimed my child was a Chinese citizen and “subject to the jurisdiction of the peoples republic of China.” For all I know the laws of China might say the kid can’t leave. There are lots of countries where the dictator’s subjects are not free to leave. So, yeah, I would absolutely insist my kid is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States even when born in China.

It’s in the quote:

> The Government has no incentive to file a petition here either, because the outcome of such an appeal would be preordained. The Government recognizes as much, which is why its emergency applications challenged only the scope of the preliminary injunctions

She’s saying the outcome is already known (ie they would lose) and the government knows they would lose, and the place they would have lost would have been right here (in front of me in the Supreme Court).

Again, the point of being a judge is to not just make assumptions about what you think their argument is going to be. If your opinion is made up before you hear the case, then your opinion is bullshit.

Absolutely, and they discussed this. The “problem” with that is the results of a class action are binding on the class, win or lose. So it’s possible that you’re a member of the # Million person class-action claiming to be exempt from deportation because of X (because you didn’t opt-out) and the class could lose.

The Universal Injunctions were a one-way rule. If the government lost any one case, the injunction would apply against the government in every other instance. However, if the government won, only that one person would be deported and the opposition would be free to try the same argument again with any of the other judges.

Universal injunctions are superfluous. If the law says the government cannot do X, then who is a judge to command that the government not do X? That’s the legislature’s job. Judges have no authority to create rules saying people shall and shall not do certain things. That’s called passing a law. Similarly, when a party violates an injunction, who is the Judge to enforce his command? If it within a case or controversy between litigants, then that is one thing. When the judge they’re going to proactively punish someone any time the law as against anyone… that’s a purely executive function.

In terms of efficiency, it’s more efficient. Those in favor of universal injunctions are saying there should be hundreds of judges all racing to rule over the government, and to have their opinions control in the abstract as to cases that aren’t even before them.

If the government forces the same issue over and over there are plenty of remedies at hand: 1983 civil penalties against officers, sanctions against attorneys for frivolous arguments, and ultimately the court can hand the legislature everything it needs to impeach and remove a president by ruling that he / she is intentionally failing to enforce the law.

A declaration of war is an invitation for the other side to attack. Rather than being a restraint against war, empowering Congress to declare war allows them to force a potentially unwilling president into war.

This article is about NASA, and the existence of a large and successful pharmaceutical company industry proves that when there is a public good to be achieved, there is private funding for the research.

The OP asked for an answer, and the fallacy I’m trying to point out is this assumption that “all” research is generally worthwhile. And I don’t mean just that there are exceptions, but swaths of topics and institutions and researchers and methods that aren’t really adding anything of value. Some areas, like aerospace, have been the focus of intense research for a long long time. This is to the point where SpaceX has been able to walk in and build a space program from scratch. I don’t mean to minimize their hard work, but it just shows that we’re not in the 1930s anymore. It makes sense that you should occasionally adjust your priorities from time to time based on your needs.

Public research is just government subsidies to corporations, which acquire IP for pennies on the dollar for their own profits while leaving taxpayers with the chaff. It’s a net loss for the public good who has to pay twice.

1

I would read the constitution and come to terms with the fact that the executive authority is vested in a president. It’s not quite a king, because it’s not passed down by inheritance and they can’t enact laws by fiat… but the president is supremely powerful during their term.

And that’s good. There’s no denying that the executive branch (its agencies, officers, regulators, etc) is supremely powerful. The only question is whether the public have any democratic control over the exercise of that authority.

If software engineers are more effective, I would expect there to be more software engineers. They’ll put out more and better code. More code means more engineers.

The contrary view is like saying gold miners are finding more gold, and it’s easier than ever, so we expect folks are going to leave town.

If OpenAI just provides AI, then the various IDEs development wrappers / IDEs / low-code etc. can collectively bargain against OpenAI for low rates. If OpenAI has an alternative, then they can charge higher rates for all plugins/ etc. and give the market an alternative.

Incarcerating someone until they comply is a tried and true approach, but it’s complicated with a company.

Who do you jail? The CEO? What if he’s directed his subordinates to comply and they simply know he doesn’t really want them to? It’s hard to jail those lower down the food chain, because does Apple even care? I don’t know that would be effective. They might get indignant and use it as a rallying cry, because it doesn’t really cost the business anything.

A more comparable analogy would be to enjoin Apple from selling the relevant products, e.g. they cannot collect any commissions until they comply.

Jail is a good punishment, but not a very effective form of coercion when the wrongdoer is a business.