|
Subjunctive posted:What’s the basis for starting a new clock? Was there some reason that Trump’s lawyers couldn’t have been aware of those requirements? Are they unusual? Because privilege means you get as many tries as you need. This is an important case about serious people, you aren’t seriously going to hold him to the same standards as all the rabble who have to follow a judge’s instructions the first time.
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2024 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
Crab Dad posted:He was considered incompetent and a buffoon not malicious rear end in a top hat. Which is actually kind of interesting since bush jr was pretty easily responsible for way more human suffering than trump. Sure trump completely dropped the ball on covid, but even then the US only had about 20% more per capita deaths from covid than the EU or about 200k if you attribute the entire difference (including '21 onward) to trump. trump is by all means more of a personally malicious rear end in a top hat, but his unprecedented incompetence and laziness prevented him from doing most of the terrible poo poo he talked about. bush on the other hand unilaterally started two country-engulfing conflicts, putting 50+ million people into a state of war for decades with estimates of deaths in the high hundreds of thousands, if not millions. He is legitimately a monster who gets a pass because the media played up his aww shucks personality. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Apr 5, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2024 20:47
|
|
|
LtCol J. Krusinski posted:Remember when Mitt Romney was the loving right wing boogie man? He's still a labor-sucking ghoul, he just goes about it in a way that's acceptable in polite society.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2024 18:42
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:You really, really can. For all the glaring and thoroughly unjust faults in our judicial system, there's a lot to be said for it compared to others. What is there to be said exactly unless you're rich? Access to the parts of the US justice system that people praise - right to a speedy trial, exhaustive appeals, presumption of innocence, judicial impartiality, guaranteed trial by jury, protection from extrajudicial searches, no cruel punishments - is broadly gated by the defendant's ability to pay.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 19:09
|
|
|
psydude posted:In Japan, a lot of the train stations have started using turnstiles that are open by default and only close if you don't scan a valid ticket. Charging people at the point of use for a service that’s generally a clear public good and gets better the closer it gets to capacity is silly policy making in the first place. Fares add unnecessary friction to a system that should be optimized for throughput to do what exactly, give people an incentive to drive instead of taking transit? There are ways to fund trains and trams and buses without fares and they would all be a better experience for it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 23:16
|
|
|
pseudosavior posted:Not them, but I get the feeling the gist was basically "maximizing the usage of public transit makes it even more efficient. Therefore, public transit should be free to better maximize usage of public transit." Yup, exactly this. The design of the turnstile, or turnstiles vs fare enforcement employees isn't really the point. When you take into account the avoided infrastructure costs and various externalities from someone taking a trip on most public transportation (there are some ill conceived exceptions) instead of driving, the goal should be to make it as easy as possible to take mass transit. Yet charging a fare, going through the process of confirming that fare at the point of use, and adding overhead to enforce fares is standard practice practically everywhere, just feels like one of those absurd things where there's an easier and better answer right there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2024 03:22
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:That's a loving monster once that rule hits law (180 days, but chamber of commerce might challenge it). And who gives a flying gently caress about the senior executives? Make them sign a forever non-compete for all I care Right, aren't non-competes unenforceable except for senior salespeople and c-levels, who can negotiate consideration for the non-compete clause anyway? Who does this help?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
not caring here posted:The employees whose old employer is a vindictive poo poo, and threatens to sue the new employer over the non-compete, and thus new employers drops the new employee because it's just not worth the hassle. Does this actually happen? I've signed employment agreements that include non-competes for practically every job including some in seriously anti-labor states, and it has never been a factor with changing jobs. It seems like a good policy change on paper, but is it like the federal marijuana possession clemency where it helped like 11 people in practice? If it's just a press release while a meaningful rule change is passed off to someone else for years (like actual marijuana rescheduling) that's less impressive. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Apr 23, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2024 20:23
|
|
|
maffew buildings posted:non-competes are a big issue for physicians. it's common that if they take a job with a health system they'll have a non-compete for practicing within a 30 mile radius or whatever, and since new physicians tend to have lots of debt they're signing contracts very one sided for the employer and very difficult to get out of. anything that helps not gently caress providers at the altar of shareholder value so they can do their jobs better is a good thing With doctors earning an average of $350k/year* how many of them fall under the $151k/year threshold for the FTC rule? Again, not saying that this is a bad policy change. Just questioning whether it's going to practically help people, or if it's just something that comes off well in a press release. *https://www.nber.org/papers/w31469
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2024 22:05
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:Fun legal day coming today. This is always a weird line of questioning because killing people based on political disagreements is one of the things we unquestionably give presidents immunity for. How many tens of millions of people did the US help murder because of "communism" or "pan-islamism" since every president starting with Eisenhower? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Apr 25, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 16:02
|
|
|
Defenestrategy posted:I took "opponent" as domestic political opponent. Because foreign political opponents are fair game? That sounds like an argument that presidents are allowed to arbitrarily murder people over there, but not over here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 18:04
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:I think on paper the US government can't internationally assassinate people, either. Technically a "court" has to approve those assassinations. No, you can't see their notes or decisions this century, and they never* actually deny murder requests. Stop asking for details or transparency. *0.2% of FISA requests have been rejected in about 40 years if you want to be pedantic. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Apr 25, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:Still a bit shocked by this one. Promising, but where did the money come from? Without a "Ben Collins is actually the grandson of a 19th century industrialist" is this being backstopped by some PE funding that's going to look for a way to cash out?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 01:06
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:Yeah, the money guy is: There we go, that makes more sense. https://www.businessinsider.com/twilio-founder-jeff-lawson-bought-the-onion-2024-4 Hopefully it's a rich dude trying to enable comedy instead of trying to flip the IP!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 01:24
|
|
|
Mr. Bad Guy posted:This reminds me of the time some internet dufus (I can't keep track of all of them) got dunked on when he responded to some article about a bunch of people saying what they would make illegal if they had the chance, "Notably, none of them said 'crime'."  Technically I think he's saying nothing should be illegal. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Apr 29, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2024 15:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:They’re so bad at this. They're not bad at this, this is what they want. There's no platonic ideal of university administrators who want open debate and learning, their goal is to protect the reputations of the people who give them money. And since the money is overwhelmingly pro-imperialism that will always be the position of people in power. It feels conspiratorial to type out, but the the people who raise funds for universities are beholden to the same people who own our arms dealers. There's no realistic way to make them take the moral high ground instead of the stance that dumps literal billions into weapons manufacturers as long as that's true. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 06:51 on May 1, 2024 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2024 06:34
|
|