volkris @volkris@social.cleverlibre.org
Since I guess everything is political these days, I'll identify as extremely liberal but without a home in US politics.
Mainly, there's so much misinformation out there that people in society have trouble even organizing into coherent political groupings. So I'd rather not talk about politics but instead focus on information and education. Nothing else matters until the bedrock of fact is buttressed.
So: Old man yells at clouds is a famous joke from The Simpsons, and it probably fairly describes what we do when venting on social media.
Joined Dec 2022
@rysiek check out the editor's note on the article you linked.
Yeah, it sounds like Hawaii officials botched this, maybe understandable in the confusion surrounding the FAA ground stop.
It never made sense to announce a halt to flights over rocket debris thousands of miles away, and I wish reporters had immediately flagged that issue since a lot of people seem to run with the story.
These headlines don't seem accurate.
There were no SpaceX debris involved since the rocket was far on the other side of the country. I haven't seen any explanation as to why Hawaii shut down airspace over a launch so far away.
It seems more likely that Hawaii was confused by the FAA ground stop drama.
Reporters really should have been clear about this, as it's an obvious inconsistency.
They had many successes.
Before each launch SpaceX would lay out their goals and they'd generally succeed in meeting them.
It's a mess, as this administration can't get its story straight about who is actually responsible for the Starlink/Starshield restrictions.
Based on the track record, I suspect the Department of Defense is botching Starshield administration but administrators don't know or care how any of that works.
volkris
boosted
My publicist doesn't like my science fiction book.
On the planet Zoc, beef is mined, not killed. Ironically, my protagonist dies when the beef mine collapses.
He died in a meaty ore shower.
Practically, I expect an agent in that position to quit.
But your personal expectations aside, the basic point is that these are executive branch agents, and should they act against their executive branch departments, courts can hold them accountable for that violation.
In the end, courts commonly keep their powder dry. Have you considered that maybe these experts on the ground have an awfully good reason for doing that?
You're confirming what I said, as does your link: the Marshals Service is part of the DOJ. Executive branch, not judicial, showing that the judicial branch doesn't have the power.
Even if we can rely on these executive branch agents to work with the courts, they are nonetheless exercising power from the executive branch.
And yes, this regime does want to drive itself of the cliff because it doesn't know how any of this works, same as when Trump drove himself right into a felony because he didn't know.
There's nothing new in that argument, but it tends to fall flat, not the least as the same framing can be applied to just about anything.
We generally accept that obvious problem as we look to balance the pros and cons of top down management of behavior in society.
Folks should realize that, unlike in the House speakership, the Senate majority leadership is more or less symbolic and ministerial.
Whether it's Schumer or VanHollen in the chair, it's all still up to the rest of the Senate to conduct day to day business.
They do often mislead the public so as to act as scapegoat to insulate senators from accountability, but only if we play along.
As you indicate, it comes down to the executive branch enforcing court levied fines.
Because the court doesn't have that power. Wrong branch of government. It's for the executive branch to execute the orders.
That is, act on the slips of paper.
This is exactly why they keep their powder dry, because they don't have the power you're pointing to.
@Nonilex I'd encourage folks to read the attached letter, as NYT here is sensationalizing things, focusing on one tentative line out of context instead of the whole.
This is sinking down to the administration's level, as the two parties reacted with the same breathless rhetoric when the shoe was on the other foot.
In reality, this letter was the same as the commercial "reminding" servicemembers not to carry out unlawful orders.
Yes, congresspeople have used nutty rhetoric, and it is wrong to abuse congressional powers, mmkay? That's all the letter conveyed.
Trump's people wanted attention from this, and NYT is giving it to them.
@aardvark, you're giving Trump too much credit here.
Traitorous implies a plan and mindfulness. It even leaves room for his supporters to say he's acting on the next level, playing a chess strategy we just can't see.
No, when he's oblivious and a puppet that's not only the simpler explanation but one that undermines his base of support.
I imagine the real issue is that it's easier to upsell addons to humans than their AI agents,
Otherwise whether it's an agent doing the booking has as much significance as which web browser the human is using.
Answer: No.
If the US wants to shoot itself in the foot over these allegations that will be the fault of America, not Huang.
As I recall, the key number from this event isn't the big one but the smaller green +40% below it.
The rules of the game look at how many minds were changed in each direction, and the debater arguing in the affirmative switched 40% of the audience.
@joeinwynnewood maybe one thing to keep in mind is just how common it is for administrations to violate court orders, just not to this extent and to such headlines.
No, it doesn't happen every day, but certainly every administration, which is part of why the judicial branch holds its fire, negotiating for compliance, as they've done with Trump.
You talk about enforcing court orders, but there's the rub: HOW does the court enforce? On its own a contempt citation is worth little more than the paper it's printed on.
Again, this is why the judicial branch must hold its fire when administrations violate orders. It would be strategically cavalier to waste what little power it actually has on any but the most egregious violations.
I'd say the key is getting fact and logic correct first.
It is factually false and logically empty to say "doesn't oppose" is equivalent to "supports"
All too often folks rush right past factual accuracy with barely a glance before heading headlong down a path based on myth.
With the National Popular Vote idea raising its dumb head recently it's worth remembering that one of the great advantages of the Electoral Collage is certainty in who is selected as president.
Thanks to the EC we were able to demonstrate conclusively that Trump had lost the 2020 election by confirming each of the EC votes. No grousing about state polling places mattered.
Technically the NPV retains this by going through the EC, but it does add complexity and challenge to the process, undermining it somewhat.
So many don't appreciate what they have in the EC so they don't understand how they're taking away from it.
Oh no, so many in the GOP electorate are still fervently backing Trump.
In particular, the Sean Hannity crowd is rejecting the idea that Trump did anything wrong. They don't understand how the rest of the country could possibly dislike or disagree with the guy.
Regardless, the House minority leader is there to herd the cats, regardless of Trumpism or not.
The selection isn't a referendum on Trump. It's really a question of who wants to deal with the nutty representatives we chose.
Since I guess everything is political these days, I'll identify as extremely liberal but without a home in US politics.
Mainly, there's so much misinformation out there that people in society have trouble even organizing into coherent political groupings. So I'd rather not talk about politics but instead focus on information and education. Nothing else matters until the bedrock of fact is buttressed.
So: Old man yells at clouds is a famous joke from The Simpsons, and it probably fairly describes what we do when venting on social media.
Joined Dec 2022
