Eccitaze @ Eccitaze @yiffit.net

Posts

4

Comments

338

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah, because the presidency was already covered by the phrase "any office, civil or military." This very concern is brought up during the congressional debates over ratifying the amendment, and is addressed:

But this amendment does not go far enough. I suppose the framers of the amendment thought it was necessary to provide for such an exigency. I do not see but that any one of these gentlemen may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation. No man is to be a Senator or Representative or an elector for President or Vice President.

Mr. MORRILL. Let me call the Senator's attention to the words "or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States."

Mr. JOHNSON. Perhaps I am wrong as to the exclusion from the Presidency; no doubt I am; but I was misled by noticing the specific exclusion in the case of Senators and Representatives.

Source: https://stafnelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment.pdf page 60

So the original people drafting the Amendment understood it to cover the presidency.

That makes literally zero sense, because the 14th Amendment bars anyone from holding any civil or military office who engaged in insurrection. And before you go on about "well durrrrr the presidency isn't an office," the constitution refers to the presidency as the Office of the President of the United States repeatedly:

Article 1, Section 3:

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

Article 1, section 3:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

(This provision is especially important because it means that if the presidency isn't counted as an office the president is literally immune from impeachment because there's no provision in the constitution to actually try the president for impeachment.)

Article 2, section 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows...

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected...

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

12th Amendment:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. *Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

22nd Amendment:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. Claiming that the 14th Amendment doesn't cover the presidency completely ignores the plain text of the entire fucking constitution!

Another fun side effect is that the president not being an office covered under the 14th amendment would also mean they're exempt from the Emoluments clause, though that one might already be dead.......

Smaller doesn't matter if they're going in a 3.5" tray. There are some models that only come with 2.5" trays, but go figure, the only 2.5" model that isn't a 5-figure all-flash enterprise-scale model is one of our least popular models

I work tech support for a NAS company and the ratio of HDDs to SSDs is roughly 85-15. Sometimes people use SSDs for stuff that requires low latency, but most commonly they're used as a cache for HDDs in my experience.

The public has the memory of a goldfish. We're less than 3 years out from the single worst administration in the history of this country, and we're seriously considering putting him back in office.

You need to learn your Internet history. It wasn't so long ago that we had a diverse, interoperable community of instant messaging platforms based on XMPP, an open, federated protocol. Anybody could host their own XMPP server, and communicate with any other XMPP server. Then in 2006, Google added XMPP support to their Talk app and integrated it into the Gmail web interface. But there were problems:

First of all, despites collaborating to develop the XMPP standard, Google was doing its own closed implementation that nobody could review. It turns out they were not always respecting the protocol they were developing. They were not implementing everything. This forced XMPP development to be slowed down, to adapt. Nice new features were not implemented or not used in XMPP clients because they were not compatible with Google Talk (avatars took an awful long time to come to XMPP). Federation was sometimes broken: for hours or days, there would not be communications possible between Google and regular XMPP servers. The XMPP community became watchers and debuggers of Google’s servers, posting irregularities and downtime (I did it several times, which is probably what prompted the job offer).

And because there were far more Google talk users than "true XMPP" users, there was little room for "not caring about Google talk users". Newcomers discovering XMPP and not being Google talk users themselves had very frustrating experience because most of their contact were Google Talk users. They thought they could communicate easily with them but it was basically a degraded version of what they had while using Google talk itself. A typical XMPP roster was mainly composed of Google Talk users with a few geeks.

Only a few years later, Google would discontinue Google Talk, migrated all their users to Hangouts, and decimated the XMPP community in an instant. Most of the Google users never noticed, outside of some invalid contacts in their list.

That's why everyone distrusts Meta. Even with Threads being a relatively unsuccessful platform by commercial social media standards, its active userbase still dwarfs the entire Fediverse combined. There's absolutely nothing stopping Meta from running the exact same playbook:

• Add ActivityPub support, but only partially
• Add new features to ActivityPub without consulting with the rest of the Fediverse or documenting the extensions, degrading the experience for everyone not using Threads
• Entice Fediverse users to migrate to Threads--after all, why use Mastodon or Lemmy when 95%+ of ActivityPub traffic originates from Threads?
• Deprecate ActivityPub support after most of the Fediverse is on Threads, leaving it smaller and more fragmented than if Threads had never federated at all, while forcing everyone who migrated from another Fediverse platform to Threads into an impossible choice between abandoning the vast majority of their contacts or subjecting themselves to Meta's policies, tracking, and moderation

I'd bet the ticket slipped through the cracks--it might have been pulled by an agent near the end of their shift who thought "I'll respond first thing tomorrow" and was let go the next day, or the ticketing system glitched and improperly took it out of the queue, or a tier 1 agent didn't follow proper escalation procedures and reassigned it to someone who never bothers to check their ticketing queue.

I'd suggest submitting a fresh ticket along the lines of "Following up re: ticket 29XXXXX" and copy-pasting the original message into the new ticket.

Source: work for a different company's support team that also uses a public-facing ticketing system

UwU

Who says the government has to hire anyone? Have the sysadmin set it up, have your existing Twitter staff swap to using mastodon, done.

The entire point of the season 1 finale is that if Pike's fate gets retconned it'll turn out very, very poorly. If Pike doesn't end up the way he did in TOS, it means he doesn't vacate the captain's chair on the Enterprise, and when the events of Balance of Terror happens, Pike's inclination towards compromise and peaceful negotiations leads the Romulan empire to conclude that the Federation is weak and declare war, causing the death of millions. Future!Pike even says at the end "every timeline where you don't end up in that accident ends up with something horrible happening, and someone else taking your place."

Hell, I've seen accusations that the author of this mod made literally that exact mod for BG3 that "fixed" Wyll and his father by turning them white. Shit's disgusting.

Nah, I got that, you're all Gucci

You think there are curves on this abomination?

The Sharrans' Shadow Ambush ability will now only trigger on weapon attacks.

Son of a... I just did this stupid fight YESTERDAY and they nerfed it the very next day! The mages causing 10-20 AOE necrotic damage every time they cast Darkness was easily the single most BS part of the fight, I had to look up a cheese blade barrier/wall of fire strategy to eventually beat it.

In what world did Democrats owe McCarthy anything? He backtracked on the debt limit deal he personally negotiated in the summer to try and appease the nutjobs, and on his commitment to require a vote by the full House of Representatives before launching an impeachment inquiry into Biden, proving himself unreliable, untrustworthy, and a slave to the whims of the extremist fringe in his caucus. He publicly stated that he did not want house Democrats to help him keep the speakership, never reached out to them once in the leadup to his ouster, and offered zero concessions to entice Democrats to vote for him. So why in the world is it Democrats' fault that they didn't vote for a backstabbing, untrustworthy, extremist lunatic that spit on them publicly and gave them nothing to entice their vote?

I'm sick and tired of the rhetoric that since Democrats are the responsible adults in the room, they have to bear responsibility for not bailing the GOP out of their own messes. How about we hold McCarthy responsible for not keeping his caucus under control, or the right wing nutjobs for voting like they have full control of the government instead of being the fringe of the fringe in a party that controls a single chamber in Congress?

Who even knows? For whatever reason the board decided to keep quiet, didn't elaborate on its reasoning, let Altman and his allies control the narrative, and rolled over when the employees inevitably revolted. All we have is speculation and unnamed "sources close to the matter," which you may or may not find credible.

Even if the actual reasoning was absolutely justified--and knowing how much of a techbro Altman is (especially with his insanely creepy project to combine cryptocurrency with retina scans), I absolutely believe the speculation that the board felt Altman wasn't trustworthy--they didn't bother to actually tell anyone that reasoning, and clearly felt they could just weather the firestorm up until they realized it was too late and they'd already shot themselves in the foot.

...So your metric of "too much AI safety" is that it won't let you fuck the fish...?

The speculation I heard in the Ars Technica article is that the board was unhappy with how quickly he was pushing to commercialize OpenAI, and they were wary about all the AI side hustles he was starting, including an AI chip company to compete with nvidia.

Iirc There's a remaster floating around that revamps the super dated CGI. It's no SNW but if you can stand TNG & DS9 you'll be OK.

I've had an AI bot trained on our company's knowledge base literally make up links to nonexistent articles out of whole cloth. It's so useless I just stopped bothering to ask it anything, I save more time looking it up myself.