Thank you! I think it was the just one standard deviation part that you've now clarified for me.
891 karma · joined March 14, 2024
Again... Congress doesn't decide what a so-called inferior officer has the "power to do"—merely whether the POTUS has the power to appoint said person without their advice and consent. The POTUS decides what its subordinates have the power to do. The check to such an exercise of executive power belongs to the judicial branch by way of legal challenge before a federal judge up to and including the SCOTUS.
In Comments
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.
Not knocking the vocation. But that sort of thing seems like it could be much more competitively contracted.
Calorie counting aside, many, many people become strongly adapted to excessive daily consumption, and they're completely unaware that it's their root issue. It's not so much that weighing can show people how much they should be eating, but rather how much they should not be eating.
Hard to imagine how a reduction in neural cell/synapse volume, albeit acute, wouldn't have any lasting effects.
"The effect of caffeine on the brain was noted as particularly relevant in the right medial temporal lobe. This area of the brain includes the hippocampus and is responsible for processes such as memory formation and spatial cognition."
"In contrast, the subjects in group 1 underreported their actual food intake by an average (±SD) of 47±16 percent and overreported their physical activity by 51±75 percent."
Title of this post should probably have "(1992)" appended, too.
"[The POTUS] shall have Power [ . . ] and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [ . . . ] all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."[1]
Nor has Congress bestowed upon the POTUS the exclusive authority to nominate and appoint whatever Elon's position is without their advice and conset. That's what the after-the-colon part is all about: whether or not the appointment of any "such inferior Officer"[3] whose position is not otherwise expressly provided for (like Elon's) is vested by an act of Congress in the POTUS not requiring their advice and consent—not whether or not any such position is actually 'established by Congress' as you say. That's exactly the point: Congress derives no appointment power from the Appointments Clause. Their role is limited to providing either constitutionally-required advice and consent, or vesting a direct appointment power not requiring their advice and consent in the POTUS.
That being said, if the executive branch does something novel, like create and appoint thereto a position (or even an entire department) that didn't exist previously, then certainly that act may be ripe for constitutional challenge under the Appointments Clause. That is squarely one of the primary constiutional issues with what Elon and DOGE are doing, and that would be squarely for the SCOTUS to interpret.
Just curious since I don't think I've heard this argument before—from where in the Constitution do you interpret that "it would have been perfectly Constitutional for the last Congress to have removed the entire Supreme Court and replaced the justices"?
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#ar...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_of_the_United_States
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause#Appointmen...
No need for the 'you should carefully reread' snark. Not only am I the OP—but I've also passed a bar exam in my lifetime, which preparation included careful US constitutional law study.
"That being said, because mast cells are also involved in innate immunity, the researchers wondered if scratching's role in activating them conveys some kind of infection-fighting benefit.
Sure enough, they found that scratching did in fact reduce the amount of Staphylococcus aureus on the skin. S. aureus is the most common bacteria involved in skin infections and is most famously responsible for staph infections.
Still, in the research team's opinion, the reduction in this bacteria from scratching doesn't outweigh the way in which the behavior worsens the area around an itch." A firewall (which must also host a resolver)
Even some of the most popular desktop web browsers are configured to utilize DoH by default nowadays.
The most that a network administrator can do to prevent this is configure firewall IP blocklists of known DoH servers and NAT all outbound 53 (and 853) traffic to a desired resolver (like a local Pi-hole instance, for example).
Everyone would need to be generating the same 'random noise' for any such tactics to be truly effective.
"For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by [sic] and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong."Our constitutional republic is not merely "just blots of ink on paper" but rather alive and well.