If this is true, why then couldn’t Arm prevent Qualcomm from using a license agreement they had with a company Qualcomm bought?
All licensing agreements aren't the same. It's possible that the ARM agreement didn't address transferable rights but that the Intel / AMD agreement did.
It’s Schrödinger’s control: for the purpose of having executive authority over the project 2025 policy agenda he is in control, except when doing so is illegal in which case he isn’t. The status depends on who’s looking, as it is always exactly the status that evades accountability.
They aren't imbeciles. They are pursuing their objectives in ways that are inconsistent with US Law and tradition and when they run into trouble they obfuscate as much as possible to forestall the consequences.
As an example read the court filing from Joshua Fisher (pdf warning). If you read 3 & 4 carefully you'll come to the understanding that Musk is a SGE of the WHO with the Job Title "Senior Advisor".
Then you run into #6 where the text turns itself inside out trying to explain that the US DOGE Service Temporary Organization is under the umbrella of the US DOGE Service which is separate from the White House Office (that employs Musk) but the US DOGE Service is still a component of the Executive...which Musk works for.
Once you are done bending your noggin' around all of that you are probably too tired and confused to ask the most important question. If Musk isn't in charge of DOGE then who is?
We all know it's Musk but they can't say that nor can answer the question with someone else's name because then the jig would be up and they'd be hosed. They need it to be Musk for popularity reasons but they also need it to not be anyone at all so that no one can be held responsible.
They know what they're doing. Don't assume for a single second that they don't. You aren't seeing stupidity, at least not on this, you are seeing methodical, planned, and deliberate attempts to confuse the issue in order to escape consequences and oversight.
“Outlawry” was applied to people who refused to submit to the legal process in the US.
The concept of an "outlaw" goes at least as far back as ancient Rome and was used in England until something like 1869. It held on in Scotland as part of Civil Law until somewhere in the 1940s. It was also present in France, Germany, and several Nordic countries.
This isn't just a US thing.
there is no legal process to submit to because they aren’t subject to US law to begin with.
Yes...because they are "Outside the Law". An Outlaw is neither subject to nor protected by the law.
It's that last part that so many people in here are missing. If the Elongated Muskrat were declared an "outlaw" you could kick in his front door, drag him out of bed, load him onto a catapult and fire him into the sun and the legal apparatus would not, nay could not, do anything about it.
People need to understand how deeply that "no legal process to submit to" goes. The "outlaw" isn't subject to the law but neither is anyone else as it relates to them.
My understanding is that outlaws were still subject to the law in the UK ...
English Common Law had the "writ of outlawry" and the subject was deprived of all legal rights, being outside the "law", but others could kill him on sight as if he were a wolf or other wild animal.
If these people are not under the jurisdiction of the US then we have no legal right to deport them as they aren’t subject to our laws.
No.
Outlaws, people literally outside the law, have no legal protections at all. Taken to its limit this means that deportation is not necessary as they could simply be executed where they are found.
This is why being declared an outlaw was such a big fucking deal back when that word wasn't just a synonym for "criminal". You could be executed in broad daylight by the first person that found you and there would be no repercussions.
Well then by that logic all illegal immigrants arent under any US jurisdiction.
Honestly that is the original meaning of the word "outlaw"; iIt literally meant someone who was outside the law. Today we most use it as a synonym for "criminal" or "law breaker" but at the time the Constitution was written or at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified most people would have understood it with its original meaning.
"Outlaws" were neither subject to nor protected by the law. They had no legal status nor standing in the law.
Elon / DOGE accessing the data is an obvious outcome of the US Federal Government having far more data on its citizens than it was ever supposed to.
The real problem here isn't that Elon is digging his grubby mitts in it it's the untold numbers of other people who've been quietly doing the same thing since the computer age began.
Be angry but let's solve the actual problem here and that problem isn't Elon / DOGE.
It doesn't work for me since all of my network equipment is 19" and there's no point in having two racks but having a 10" standard is still a great idea!
I have Z-Wave switches but being able to make a voice command like "Nabu, setup to watch TV in the living room." is faster and easier than pulling out my phone, unlocking it, opening the HA app, and then triggering the "Watch TV in the Living Room" automation and that's assuming my phone is actually with me. I often roam the house without my phone, relying on my Smart Watch to alert me to text messages and phone calls.
Here's another one. I'm taking laundry downstairs but the stairs lights are off and so are the basement lights. My hands are full carrying a basket of laundry so flipping the switches or using my phone to do it means that I have to set the basket down. Instead I say "Nabu, turn on the stairs and basement lights." and the lights turn on for me. When I'm done and back upstairs I can either wait for the motion timer to turn them off or simply say "Nabu, turn off of the stairs and basement lights." EZ-PZ and so convenient.
Different strokes for different folks and all that, I'm not judging how other people live, but I really don't understand why people choose to do without voice control when they have an HA setup and the ability to run it all local.
That's the answer commonly given but I don't understand how automation can handle the ad hoc nature of life. Here's some examples, maybe you could explain how this works for you?
Watching TV and I'd like the lights dimmed or turned off.
Finished putting laundry away and laid down to go to bed.
Someone left the kitchen and the light is still on. I want it turned off without having to get up from the couch and I don't want to wait for the motion timer to expire.
Someone is coming over, say Pizza delivery, and I want the exterior lights to go back to full bright before they arrive.
Despite the headline USAID wasn't investigating Musk or Starlink. It was investigating how Ukraine was using the Starlink terminals that USAID gave them and how USAID itself was overseeing Ukraine's use.
Basically the headline is completely misrepresenting what was happening.
How do you know that Nuvia no longer exists as a legal entity? A company can be acquired without it being dissolved (ceasing to exist).