nkw

Do any of the financial gurus have opinions on what happens if/when the Tether fraud collapses? My naive guess would be the price of bitcoin increases short term since that is probably the only quick way out of Tether in the event it loses its peg or there is a stampede for the exits.

That terminal is beautiful. The colors, typeface, and sparse layout make it incredibly readable for me.

This will do absolutely nothing. Since the Supreme Court gutted the TCPA there is zero downside for companies to violate it.

Looks like G Suite (or Workspaces or whatever it is called now) is experiencing this too.

You might consider NX if build times are an issue. It is monorepo based and includes computation caching[2] and incremental builds, but under the hood uses the angular build tools. We've found it pleasant to work with.

[1] https://nx.dev/latest/angular/core-concepts/computation-cach...

So how is Elastic going to fare if Lucene makes a similar switch?

You might consider giving credit to the sources of data used to make this.

This appears to be part of the CDC's 9/4/2020 order. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/04/2020-19...

> if they want to prevent evictions they need to pay the landlords what they’re owed

There is cognizable legal argument that this order might qualify as a 'taking' within the terms of the 5th amendment, which might require the government to compensate landlords, but I don't think that argument will be successful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

An argument could be made both that it does and does not. I would probably say no if I was the judge deciding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption

That would be 42 U.S. Code § 264. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/264

> This should be unconstitutional if it's not already.

Sounds good. I suggest contact your elected representatives to express your support for such an amendment.

So I'm not the above poster, but for me the one that killed my workflow was this still-open, 17-year-old bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=195361

There are much better ways for the judiciary to maintain their finances than relying on arbitrary non-cost based fees for public access to public information. Judiciary funding is around $7 billion/year. Pacer makes maybe $150 million/year. Agree that Congress should fix Pacer fees, but the judiciary is not free from blame here.

This is pretty much doomed to fail because of the pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses coupled with class action waivers contained in the carriers' contracts. Under the current law surrounding arbitration it is a practical impossibility for consumers to sue cell phone companies.

Contact a member of this organization: https://www.nacdl.org/ who practices in the area (geographic and subject) of your pending charges. Almost all have websites that will accept messages and most will communicate by email and take credit cards. Find one you are comfortable with.

However there is one wrinkle - be aware that lawyers are inundated with emails from overseas/out-of-the-country potential "clients" looking to hire them that are, in fact, fake check/wire transfer scams, so any mention of being outside the country and wanting to hire the lawyer will most likely lead to your emails being ignored/spam canned. You will need to be ready to provide some specific information that can be verified such as the case number/pending court, and possibly be willing to start off with a telephone call.

> Because my life is fucked worse than it already is if I don't show up.

This is already the case, but surprisingly people (including those accused of crimes) do not always make choices which are in their long-term self interest.

> If that's not the case, then that's almost the working definition of "flight risk", and you don't release them for any amount of money.

So how do you determine who is a "flight risk"? Past FTA? Past convictions? Don't own property? No family ties to community? From the wrong part of town? Wrong skin color? These are the types of things that will end up going into detention decisions when you take the posting of security off the table and start trying to decide who is a "flight risk". The reason we have our bail system, including in many places a constitutional right to bail for non-capital offenses, is before that Courts would simply deny bail willy-nilly for certain crimes or people they didn't like.

> you have to be tried within 56 days

If this was attempted in the United States, and we wanted to maintain the due process protections afforded by our Constitution, we would have to fund our indigent defense programs at levels far, far beyond what anyone has been willing to do.

I'm actually surprised there has not been more pressure by the business community to decouple health care/health insurance from employment. Health insurance costs, and the administrative effort to provide it, are an enormous burden on businesses/employers. From small business to giant corporations, it is an extraordinary burden that is only going to increase and at some point is going to start seriously impacting the competitiveness of US business. It should be an issue the Republicans have front and center.

> Yeah, I'm sorry, but as a citizen of the UK, the US system of bail and bail bounty hunters is just nuts.

Which is somewhat ironic since the foundation of our bail system originates from UK common law and the limitations on it (e.g. the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) originate from limitations put into place after abuses of bail in the UK legal system. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excessive_Bail_Clause#Origins

I think most people with more than a passing acquittance with the bail systems in most states could agree with the title, but what I have not seen are any proposed solutions that address the underlying problems certain characteristics of our bail systems are meant to address.

For example, without the threat of forfeiture how do you ensure people actually show up to court?

Without bail bondsmen how do you fund the extra police/marshals/sheriffs to find and arrest those who do not show up for court?

Without the ability to set bond amounts based upon offense characteristics and individual financial circumstances and criminal history, how do you prevent especially violent offenders with a likelihood of committing more violent acts while on pretrial release from committing new violent offenses? Keep in mind there are some jurisdictions where you are constitutionally entitled to bail of some amount.

There is much (justified) lamenting on the evils of the use of the bail bond industry, but after bail reform in the Federal system which effective ended the use of the industry for the Federal criminal system -- do people really think the Federal system is better? If so why?

If you want to go the other direction and eliminate money bail, do you really want to police/prosecution to able to indefinitely incarcerate people until trial?

Do you want to seriously jack up the criminal penalties for failure to appear in lieu of money forfeiture? That is going to screw over a lot of people.

Again, there are serious problems, but I haven't heard significantly better solutions.

So I like to think I'm pretty darn on the liberal side of the spectrum, but the (ACA if Democrat) (Obamacare if Republican) was overall a giant handout to the health insurance companies while carrying forward almost all of the pre-existing problems with health care in the US (see the charts in the original article). Both parties share substantial amount of blame for the current state of health care in the US.

It is honestly such an entrenched and complex problem I do not see any way it is going to be fixed (or get better) anytime soon.

Where in the OFAC regulations or any IEEPA type executive order is a requirement that a U.S. bank obtain proof of U.S. citizenship from an accountholder?

> It’s a regulatory requirement.

Really? Do you have a citation to that regulation?

I'm not sure how much legal protection such silliness buys them. I'm sitting in an airport lounge in Frankfurt and just flipped on a VPN to access the article. I can't imagine that whether or not I access the website via the IP the airport lounge gave me or via my VPN IP in the US makes much difference in the real world as to whether or not they would have obligations under the GDPR.

If anyone wants it, I put a copy of the actual order here: https://www.woodlaw.com/casedocs/gov.uscourts.cand.305531.24...

Even though it is marked as an opinion (and should be free) I don't see an easy way to access N.D.Cal. opinions from their webpage without a pacer login unless it is whatever they deem a "Case of Interest".

I also downloaded it with the RECAP extension[1] so it should be available on CourtListener[2] soon.

[1] https://free.law/recap/

[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/

Not much beyond looking at the product pages. The only piece of Office 365 that we are in love with is Word. Slack is the choice right now for us because we can use G Suite as our identity provider for SSO and the Slack integrations that are available for other products we use as well as our internal system.

The effort barrier just to get Office 365 to use G Suite for SSO keeps us from seriously deploying any of the other Office 365 features. It seems MS has made setting that up particularly annoying while almost all other app/providers have made it blissfully simple. We would probably be more likely to move to the new Hangouts Chat as a slack replacement, just because we are much more likely to continue to use Gmail/Calendar vs ever moving to Outlook 365/Exchange.

The primary roadblock for us is gDocs. Sheets would probably meet our needs because spreadsheet aren't really a core need, however word processing/documents are our lifeblood. While gDocs has improved it doesn't come close to Word for us. It isn't just that it is a web app -- the Office 365 web based Word actually would be usable for us vs. the desktop apps. That fact is actually pretty amazing to me, I would not have anticipated that to ever be the case when Microsoft first put out their web based version of Word. As it happens a while back I mentioned on here one of the big bugs/lack features that kept us from using the web based Word and some guy from Microsoft asked for more details and then the issue was resolved a few weeks later. That was pretty surprising and impressive to me.

I have no doubt Google has the talent and ability to make Docs competitive, but for some reason it is just not a priority for them.

I'm going to look at Hangouts Chat, but we had a particularly painful process (for no technological reason) when we migrated from using Hangouts for IM to Slack and I don't really look forward to the eye-rolls that are going to come with "Remember Hangouts? We're going back..." even if the Hangouts Chat is an entirely different product. But that is our issue.. Kudos to Google if it can eliminate the need for Slack.

I don't really get why this is that useful. Except maybe the Gmail/Dropbox integration. Our office pays for 1) G Suite - from which we use Gmail and Calendar, 2) Dropbox for Business for file storage/sync, 3) Office 365 for Word and Excel, and 4) Slack.

I would really really like to give my money to one company, except Google Docs/Drive sucks (er, doesn't meet our use case), Office 365 - Outlook sucks (in comparison to Gmail) as well as whatever the Microsoft file syncing option is (OneDrive?). Our Dropbox for Business comes up for renewal this month and Google and Microsoft's file sync stuff isn't remotely comparable. Same for Slack vs the Hangouts incarnation of the moment.

I primarily blame Google. We are probably paying an extra $500/user/year because outside of Gmail and Calendar the other G Suite services are pretty awful in comparison to their competition. It is super frustrating.

This is a very insightful comment. In my opinion one of the largest shortcomings of our system of minting new lawyers is a lack of practical training. While doctors generally must both go to medical school and complete an internship and/or residency in order to treat patients, a freshly licensed lawyer can represent someone without previously having ever entered a courthouse, drafted a will, or taken a deposition. I think most recognize this is a problem and there are some law schools that are doing an excellent job of addressing the issue by requiring 3rd year practice court, externships, or clinics that actually give lawyers some experience in the things they will be doing after law school. Bar associations are trying to address the issue through mentor programs and CLEs aimed at new lawyers. No longer can the profession depend on mid to large law firms to bring lawyers up through the ranks, both because their clients aren't really interested in subsidizing it and the firms cannot or will not put in the resources to train all those entering the profession.

> Accessing PACER from a courthouse is free.

... other than the half day you had to take off work, transportation to the courthouse and fees for printing out an electronic document -- and that is if you are local. What if I want to get a 'free' document in a court that is 2,000 miles away?

> Accessing PACER for a case you are involved in is free.

This is false. If you are an ECF user you theoretically can get "one free view" of a document as they are filed in a case you are a party, however this rarely works so you end up having to pay the pacer fee anyway. You still have to pay PACER fees anytime you view the docket, search, or view any document in a "case you are involved in".

> Getting judicial opinions from PACER is free.

... a relative recent development and only covers some opinions.

> If you convince a judge that the cost of PACER is a burden to you, it is free.

Really? You have a citation for that? I'm sure I can convince at least one federal judge my several thousand dollar a month pacer bill is a burden. That would be great.