xracy

I guess what does he care... he's vegan, right?

This is needlessly combative. They were asking a different person this question...

But a better question might be. "Why is apnews an unreliable source for this information."

General distrust of a news outlet doesn't mean that the given article is false. I've seen some questionable shit from the BBC, though I generally trust them.

> It had nothing to do with safety since there was no provision for remote workers.

Citation needed for all of these claims. Please show me this information in the executive order.

> Keep in mind this was very early on before they had any reasonable amount of time to even test the vaccines.

Sorry, the Moderna vaccines were approved under their expedited schedule under the Trump administration in December of 2020.[1] You're complaining about gov't overreach by the same administration as is implementing the above policy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_in_the_Un...

But how will they continue their claim that there are millions of them, if they take such an approach?

China has better trade relationships with more of the rest of the world than the US does, (especially thanks to recent policy changes by the US Gov't).

The only requirement to be the worlds reserve currency is that everyone has to keep it in reserve in order to trade later. One can imagine that if China has trade relationships with the rest of the world, they would begin to stockpile more of the Yuan to keep in reserve, and as a result, the need for the dollar would become lesser.

Other than that, pricing commodities would be the next thing that would need to change, and that's not that hard. I could see a world where we move to 3 different reserve currencies based on the biggest economic powers and then, if the current administration continues its stupid trade war, everyone stops needing to hold onto as many dollars.

Sorry, how is recycling not the scam if they were actually just pretending to recycle and not doing it?

At scale if every (or even 90% of them) solar company were pretending to get solar energy, I would absolutely consider it a scam

Also, for the most part, my understanding of plastics recycling is that it doesn't really exist in practice. Glass Recycling, and Paper Recycling are actually able to reclaim most of the product, but plastic recycling is actually only downcycling where it can be used for a different purpose.

WHy is your initial answer 'no' when the backend of the answer is functionally "But they got away with the recycling scam."

Seems like your initial answer would actually be 'yes?' Specifically because the "non-functional governments were unable to implement this as a cost to the producers."

Plastics producers are absolutely trying to shift the blame of these failed programs onto "personal responsibility."

> What currency could replace the dollar?

I think the comment is that the danger to the dollar is that people are asking this question. I can think of 3 possible answers to what could replace the dollar.

1. The Yuan

2. The Euro

Distant

3. The Indian Rupee

Both of the first 2 are maybe not immediately ready to be the reserve currency, but if I'm in charge of either of these 2 currencies, I would certainly be thinking about how I could go about making myself the reserve currency. Especially as the US has demonstrated a capability of volatility and uncertainty twice in the last 10 years.

Maybe no one is ready for this, but if you didn't start asking this question the first time this administration came around, the last 5 months have probably convinced you to make a 3-4 year plan to figure out how. (If we are asking this question, I have to imagine that gov't's more incentivized to consider this, are figuring this out themselves).

Pun intended?

What "impulses to protect"? Please demonstrate to me one of these "impulses to protect"?

Disclaimer: The below is not a complaint about the pi-hole itself, but the ways in which companies integrate ads into their online presence.

I've found my complaint about having a pi-hole is there are a number of services I use that expect/depend on ads existing in order to function. Things like, some shows on paramount+ (as an example) will fail to play (hang indefinitely) if an ad hasn't run before one of their shows, even though it theoretically shouldn't have ads?

Additionally, the other thing I run into, is that the first page of google is basically useless to me, even when the top result is an ad to the thing that I want, because when I click on the ad link, the pi-hole doesn't route me to the link I want. So I find I have to scroll down a half-page to get to the regular link I googled for.

If anyone has any workarounds for these issues, I've otherwise really enjoyed having a pi-hole. (Though my friends frequently tell me to stop talking about it, they'll say "shut your pi-hole", really weird).

Edit: Seems like they recommend tailoring the list of accepted domains for things in the article. (Will do this for paramount, I guess).

For Google, I separately stopped using an ad-blocker because it broke youtube when I did, even though I shouldn't get ads on youtube to begin with... God I hate the internet some days. But I imagine the easiest thing to do is to add that back so I can ignore those links.

I suspect that's why a competent government might invest more in these tracks as they might contribute a lot to delivery infrastructure. Especially in a consumer-based economy where shipping goods is important.

I'm reminded of the 'surfin bird' family guy episode where Peter is fishing for a prompt to sing surfin bird, and Brian in-good-faith bites, but Stewie yells at Brian for doing the bad thing.

It's like we've given up on the people with bad behavior to the point that we tacitly endorse them to have whatever terrible viewpoint they have, even while we admonish others like they're more responsible than the person with the bad behavior.

We have to stop giving bad-faith-actors the benefit of the doubt. RFK is a grifter. It definitely doesn't matter where he got the viewpoint from, he has 1 million terrible viewpoints that are not grounded in science. He's figured out how to pedal this as non-extremist and couch it in friendlier language, but that just makes him more of a snake.

Stackoverflow could help answer specifically targeted questions about how thigns worked, or suggest areas of debugging. They couldn't/wouldn't take a direct question from an assignment and provide a fully working answer to it.

As originally written this headline is sensational. As now written, I would be surprised if this wasn't a bad estimate. Either way it's a meaningless number guessed off the cuff.

How much boilerplate code exists that gets generated from a template, probably most of it.

The dumb thing about this, is that the republicans are going to blame democrats whether or not they do anything. Play dead is a really dumb idea because it looks exactly like the rest of the democratic do-nothing strategies.

Someone needs to stop listening to Carville. Every time I see/hear him I am reminded of everything wrong with the DNC. They don't even pretend like they want to fight for people's rights. That's not gonna win them any elections. I would argue the reason they lost the election was for how little they actually promised they would do beyond "maintain the status quo".

facility is intentionally broad. I think the point being that all of those things are being provided by the University to many researchers/students/professors.

The point is that separating out what gets allocated where, when there are so many things that might have multiple uses, is a pointless task if you're trying to reverse engineer how much money should be given to individual research teams to account for it. The University already has the systems in place to manage the overhead. There's no reason to do more work to try and get to the same result.

That's not how facilities work or are accounted for.

Facilities are common to all of the university. It doesn't make sense to force this individual requirement on each grant when the University has hundreds of ways it is using a given building or lab equipment.

It isn't law, but why does the principle exist in law? That's what I'm asking you to think about. Why would judges who have to make decisions about people's lives do this? Is there a good reason for it?

Yes there is.

You don't go and decide a case on the merits when you've thrown it out on standing.

Addressing the other question is a pre-requisite to considering the one included in this piece. And given that they are ignoring the presumable answer to the other question, they have not justified the existence of this article.

The overhead is what makes research possible. How do you do research without a lab, or a building?

Because our system would fall apart every 4 years when a different party started diverting money to their cronies.

How corrupt do you want a nation to be?

Take a read of the constitution?

Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions." Feels like you're just ignoring what they have to say in the guise of "asking for more knowledge" when you don't actually know if they don't have the knowledge because of your own lack of expertise.

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Po...

What is "a lot"? The question is pertinent.

Additionally, the follow-on questions are irrelevant. There are a million better questions to ask on the other side of this as well, before we ask why someone can't live without the money that they've been acquiring entirely above board and legally. "Why does the gov't think it has the authority to do this?"

Why do we need to have theoretical debates about legitimate circumstances, when there are real debates about illegitimate circumstances happening? having this irrelevant follow-on discussion is doing the gov't's work for them.

In a different setting I can see asking this question, but there is no need to ask this question while the circumstances are clearly illegitimate.

There's a reason that court cases typically address standing before addressing the underlying question. It matters much more that you're taking on a case before you determine the case on the merits. If the case doesn't have standing it is not worth considering.

"Conveniently Ignoring" the standing question is frankly an admission of compliance to something that is not the law. Who cares "why people can't live without food" if someone is saying "let's starve the population." One question isn't worth platforming while the other is on the table.

I think the concern is that this on its face seems like a pretty egregious thing for an administration to do in a politically motivated fashion.

It seems like they are pushing the bounds of what the public is willing to put up with. I think that trying to rationalize the best argument of their case, is doing their work for them, and the administration has regularly demonstrated themselves to be bad-faith actors.

All of this is to say, that my knee-jerk is to say the administration is wrong, and let cooler heads prevail in the follow-up if that's not the case. Because I have yet to see the case where the administration wasn't overstepping their authority WRT ICE.

I don't know that I have the brainpower to analyze 95% of the forum posts on here. And less to determine what I think is "better", so I guess I'll drop the point.

Then they weren't obstructed. They're just shit at their job.

If I know you're in a building and haver permission to arrest you, it's not "obstructing arrest" if you use the back door. What if your car's parked out back?

To quote the 10 year old who destroyed me in fortnite "Get good."

> obstructed an arrest by changing standard procedure

Sorry, then would a janitor who puts up a slippery floor sign in front of a door and asks someone to use a different door be "obstructing arrest by changing standard procedure."

This is absurd on its face. You don't have the right to arrest a Judge for "obstructing justice" because they let someone use a different door to leave. And you should think 1 million times of the implication to the rule of law before you do such a thing.

ICE are not gods, and I would hope after this, that Americans would start to consider taking away what power they have, because they are abusing it. And it's threatening our democracy.

Why would I trust that an "entertainment" network like fox news would provide a good legal analysis of how a judge messed up the law? LLMs are worse than this.

ICE has been regularly overstepping its bounds and going after people in ways that impact our legal system's ability to function. This is a terrible precedent to set for no other reason than it impacts the rule of law. If people who are accused of crimes can be disappeared without a trial, just for showing up to court, what incentive is there for anyone to go to court? They are literally ignoring the "innocent until proven guilty" that is critical to the rule of law.

If you take away people's ability to get justice within the system, you are making it inevitable that they will go outside the system to get justice.