|
Class3KillStorm posted:This Q stuff that Trump is dabbling in isn't incitement, and probably wouldn't rise to that level. However, if he were to be taken to trial over the Jan. 6th stuff, or any future riots he incites, wouldn't it be admissible as evidence of a basic pattern, possibly even as examples of what defines Trump's particular speech and message in regards to the actual inciting message/incident? Or is too broad for anyone to consider in a legal sense, even though we all know what it is in a practical one? It is protected speech to promote a violent conspiracy theory, no matter how noxious you or I might find it, absent a call for imminent lawless action or other specific exception to the first amendment. If Trump some day crosses the line into unprotected speech, the relevant evidence will be him crossing the line, not previous or future incidents in which he did not do so. There are plenty of lawyers with relevant subject matter experience. If Trump engages in something even close to non-protected speech, we will not lack for qualified people to let us know. We will not need to guess it for ourselves.
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
Class3KillStorm posted:So Trump can only get in trouble for the speech that crosses the line, but can no one point to the months of similar speeches leading up to that moment as way of establishing a pattern of guilt? Of a downward slide of acceptability until his speech does what it is inevitably designed to do? If the speeches previous to him crossing the line are protected, they're not a pattern of guilt. An incitement of imminent, unlawful activity would be proven by establishing that incitement. A downward slide from legal behavior to illegal behavior does not make the legal behavior suddenly illegal. Trump pumping up Q is noxious. But casting about for ways in which it might be illegal doesn't seem productive. Cranappleberry posted:Marginalized communities have been spied on, harassed and otherwise had their rights violated for far less. True enough. I am doubtful that Trump is going to be subject to this, though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Well, OK first of all that is stupid we are talking about a murderer for someone who is not even a US agent at all, but whatever, he's in a German prison and not even ours to trade. Having not followed the Paul Whelan stuff much, is there a reason to affirmatively believe Paul Whelan isn't a spy? I'm good with the burden of proof being on Russia or whatever, just wondering if there's something more than that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
And keep in mind that "net energy gain," as commonly used in fusion research and as described in the article, is only taking into account the energy used to power the lasers that ignite the reaction. There's other systems in a fusion reactor that draw power and they are not even hinting at a net power gain for the system as a whole. Would still be a nice step forward and all, but even if the story is true, it's not describing a fusion reactor that produces more power than it uses.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2022 22:26
|
|
|
the other hand posted:Setting aside other issues already pointed out, I found this to be a very helpful video on problems in reporting about fusion power advances. Every step forward is great though. Yes, the issues pointed out here are relevant to what Financial Times reported: quote:The fusion reaction at the US government facility produced about 2.5 megajoules of energy, which was about 120 per cent of the 2.1 megajoules of energy in the lasers, the people with knowledge of the results said, adding that the data was still being analysed. As is often done in fusion research, they are comparing the energy output of the lasers to the energy production of the fusion reaction. Lasers take much more energy to run than they output as power. The system contains elements that use power other than the laser. The useful energy produced by a reactor as electricity is lower than the energy produced in the reactions happening inside it. Any one of these would mean that this isn't yet a design for a functional fusion reactor. Combine them together and add the requirement that a real reactor would need to run for decades, rather than damaging itself in a brief experiment as this one did, and you can see how much work still needs to be done. I'm not claiming these aren't solvable problems, that this isn't an impressive step forward, or we shouldn't be happy to see progress. But it is one step out of many that are needed. Please do not assume that this announcement means fusion reactors of all things will save us from climate change, which is some real poo poo I've been seeing people say.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Do they have any theories as to how and why it damaged itself? That implies either the reaction power greatly exceeded predictions or there was a major flaw in the reactor design/construction quote:Two of the people with knowledge of the results said the energy output had been greater than expected, which had damaged some diagnostic equipment, complicating the analysis. It's because they got more out than they expected, which doesn't necessarily imply a serious problem. The fundamental issue, as I understand it, is that all of the various factors that aren't being included make the 2.5:2.1 ratio they're selling off by several orders of magnitude in the wrong direction if you want an actual power plant. It's a common way to discuss it in the field, but that's not often made clear in the reporting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:They did, and they put out a release with the stuff they found and no one in the media cared at the time. Do you have a link to the release or any information on it? As in, what exactly they put out a release on, did they run advertisements on it, etc? I'm not saying I don't believe you, just curious about the details, and doing a search for it at this point is completely dominated by recent articles.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2022 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Professional oppo researchers and other political operatives have been pushing an "actually the DCCC knew everything and it's the media's fault for not covering it" narrative, but as more and more lies come out, it's become clear that the DCCC only scratched the surface, taking most of his resume at his word and completely failing to follow up even when they knew something smelled funny. Okay, that makes sense. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2022 21:50
|
|