DOJ: Ex-IRS employee who leaked Trump's tax returns intentionally got job to disclose records
IHeartBadCode @ IHeartBadCode @kbin.social Posts 1Comments 618Joined 2 yr. ago
IHeartBadCode @ IHeartBadCode @kbin.social
Posts
1
Comments
618
Joined
2 yr. ago
Replace it with one where people have a say and not a ruling class?
You want everyone to vote on every issue? Because outside of that, we've already got that system you talk about.
There’s enough anarchist/communist/leftist literature out there discussing these issues, they’re not new
And those systems have flaws in them as well. It's not like rich and powerful means "Oh no, I cannot learn to exploit a new system!"
And the idea that you can vote your way out of this mess is adorable, naive, but adorable
See there's not an "out", that's where you've got it wrong. There's never a point where people stop pushing back on rich and powerful. That's literally the human condition, it's forever, always, until the heat death of the universe, an uphill. There is no top of the hill. There is no "out". Democracy is not a spectator sport, it requires all of us to continually and forever until the last of us is gone, fight the indoctrination with education, fight the power grabs with justice, and fight greed with humility.
At no point do we make progress by breaking laws and further showing how irrelevant that sheet of paper we call the Constitution is and rewriting it to be communist or foregoing it to be anarchist do not make it where suddenly human proclivities cease existing. You cannot do off with the evil side of human nature by adopting some magical means to live one's life and govern one's society. It is only with an enteral effort or the cessation of humanity itself that it can placed in check.
No you have all of this completely wrong. There is never "out".
Your legal system exists to protect itself and the ruling class, it is indefensible
Well the obvious question. What system would you have it replaced with?
This person sacrificed themselves to bring to light one small part of the injustices you allow to perpetuate
And this person has now also made it where everyone will ask, "if this person existed in the IRS, how do we know there are not more?" This is how distrust gets sown. This is how the IRS loses more funding. This is exactly how "ruling class" gets even less oversight. This is how these people, you want to go after, get away with it. This person didn't solve anything, they made it worse.
That person's is absolutely heading to jail on the 29th. Where's Trump at the moment? You think you got some sort of win?
They’re a hero, your a problem
They are going to jail and will likely never have the right to vote ever again in their life. I can still vote for a different world than the one we currently live in.
So if you think this "solved" something, then you didn't understand the problem. I'm just going to tell you, this kind of tit for tat stuff. We won't survive it. Every hero ultimately turns into a Robespierre. We don't solve this with a single person, we solve it together, otherwise we don't solve it period.
It’s not that you’re wrong, it’s that the chance to fix things “within the system” flew the coop decades ago
I don't disagree with the rest of your comment. But I see the younger generation of our time and I have hope. Maybe foolish hope. Myself being part of the fucking old person crew. I don't think we're yet too far gone, but my goodness you're right, if it hasn't flown the coop yet, it's already got it's boarding pass.
It does not. The Linux kernel is not a multikernel OS and HarmonyOS is. Now Harmony does indeed implement the ability to bring in a modified ASOP to provide Android app compatibility, but the actual OS that supervises that isn't Linux based, though it does provide a UNIX environment.
The reason HarmonyOS works well with the devices is because the OS and the devices are being built by the same person. It's likely that HarmonyOS would run like ass or not at all on anything not made by Huawei, it's also why the OS is mostly closed source with some open parts.
But just because they both present a UNIX environment, does not mean HarmonyOS is or derived from Linux. They are indeed two different OSes with fundamentally different approaches to managing the underlying system.
I'm guessing I'm going to have the most hated opinion on this. But fuck that person. I get a lot of people want to celebrate it as "person had to commit a crime so that they could point out crimes being committed by Trump" but ultimately this wrecks public trust of an institution, of which the IRS doesn't exactly enjoy a lot of it to begin with. And if we don't have trust in our government, it's doesn't matter, we're fuck Trump won.
This whole thing, literally proves the argument of "weaponizing Government". This person walked into the IRS, had an agenda, and was absolutely going to abuse their position to make a point that they had zero legal right to make. Did anyone directly tell them to do the thing? No. Was there a lot of talking heads that might have colored this person's opinion about Trump? You better believe it. So no one "directly" weaponized this person, but someone would be hard pressed to convince me it wasn't indirect. Which brings up the question of, are we a nation of laws or vendettas? Do we settle our beef in court without blood or are we just finding out who can sneak the most without getting noticed?
I get it, I don't like Trump either, BUT NOT LIKE THIS. This is too far. This person is no hero, they violated the law and even worse abused public trust. If we don't have public trust, if we're just celebrating when someone takes the piss on an oath to obey the law (which IRS employees take), then we have nothing defensible. We're literally talking about the shit that we're going after Trump for, violations of his oath to defend the Constitution and uphold the law.
If we're violating laws because "trust me bro, it'll be worth it" then the laws mean nothing. I get it, too long have we had our faith in this system forsake us. Too many rich assholes bend the law to their whim to escape actual persecution, so "it's okay to rob from the rich to give to the poor every once and awhile". But that's actually not how we solve things, that's just gasoline to make things even worse.
Acting above the law doesn't always mean, you get away with it. Acting above the law means, that you don't view the law as always being a guiding principal. That sometimes, somethings require operating outside of the law. No matter the consequences. That the ends justify the means. And if we aren't able to hold enough faith to believe that the law will eventually ring out and that we can eventually find enough justice in this world…
Hang it up, we're done here. Because that's all that's holding any democracy together. Faith, blind faith, sometimes dumb faith that we're all going to do the thing we promised to do, and that we're all going to come together when that's violated. It's easy and quick to settle a grudge with fists but a lasting peace and understanding comes from settling it with our minds and voices. Breaking laws to expose Trump's crimes, that's not a victory for democracy, that's just a victory for people who don't like Trump.
The used razor blades were arming the rats who were also in the wall.
For years they told us that Government would mess everything up.
And by god they're going to prove it!
One of the oddballs for the rejection is perhaps South Dakota who indicated that they both lacked the ability to actually administer the program without running afoul of the regulations and lacked the fund to even get it started in the first place.
Or as I took it. We're too incompetent and poor to do this.
Interesting; you have to dig past the usual misandry sites to find an impartial source but Pew research found 53% of stem graduates female in 2018 and rising
I mean, at this point you're just cherry picking and not doing all that well with it. As indicated from, again YOUR source.
The gender dynamics in STEM degree attainment mirror many of those seen across STEM job clusters. For instance, women earned 85% of the bachelor’s degrees in health-related fields, but just 22% in engineering and 19% in computer science
That lines up with the whole thing I had mentioned here. You keep wishing otherwise, but you also keep providing evidence to the contrary.
So I mean at some point I guess you'll read your own sources OR you won't. But the sources you keep providing agree with the original statement that women are under represented in traditional STEM studies. So I mean you square that with yourself however you want.
Nah you’re still being disingenuous. The stats don’t lie - even the stats you provided
I mean you provided those last stats I just gave. That's literally taken from your link.
I would have thought you’d be happy to see stem taken over by women
I think you're conflating how I feel to facts. Fact is the 38.6% figure I quoted from your article. How I feel about it or the price of gasoline is notwithstanding.
Right. Let's look over the related parts.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Congress was supposed to "figure out" slavery in 1808…
Oh slight aside, the US Constitution is kicking the can on slavery here, which Congress in 1808 kicked the can, and so on until we decided to have a flight about it. So just FYI, kicking the can has been a tradition of the US since inception. It's clearly a time honored tradition.
Anyway, On Art. I S9 C1 and with Art. IV. S1 C3 we got the Dred Scott vs Sandford which posed this question.
The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied [sic] by that instrument to the citizen?
And hold on to your seats folks, because the answer was "no". The Supreme Court ruled that only white people could be called citizens. And to be clear: NO MATTER WHERE THEY WERE IN THE UNITED STATES. That was a 7-2 decision.
On the contrary, they [black people] were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.
This is considered to indicate that black people could never become citizens and that States could only confer selective rights to them that only held so long as the State they were in continued to confer that right. Meaning, if say Illinois decided that they weren't going to protect black people's rights because the composition of the State Assembly had changed, POOF, black people had no rights, no matter how long they may have previously enjoyed freedom before hand.
They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.
No person who has ever read the Dred Scott opinion in full could ever say the words Haley has spoken and take themselves seriously. But the decision didn't stop there. It went further.
Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory; even if they had been carried there by the owner, with the intention of becoming a permanent resident.
This effectively removed every single compromise that Congress had created thus far to appease slave states. It basically indicated there could never and for all time be a free black person anywhere in the United States and there was absolutely nothing any State or Congress could do to fix that outside of amending the Constitution. And furthermore it super charged this part of the Constitution.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Art. IV. S2 C3 of the US Constitution. The is the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution and after Dred Scott, slave states used this as justification to invade neighboring states and take any black person they could lay their hands on back to their state to be placed into slavery. Because their State laws allowed such "claims" and they were coming to take delivery.
This is the full text of the Dred Scott ruling and I encourage anyone facing someone who says "America was never racist" to give them this to read. I think this should be mandatory reading for everyone, because Justice Taney isn't just spouting things from a vacuum. The words in this ruling come from somewhere deeper than the person giving them. I could go on, but there's no way to reasonably think this nation has never been racist. Facts just do not support that view.
Well I mean, do you read the links you provide?
While women now account for 57% of bachelor's degrees across fields and 50% of bachelor's degrees in science and engineering broadly (including social and behavioral sciences), they account for only 38% of bachelor's degrees in traditional STEM fields (i.e., engineering, mathematics, computer science, and physical sciences; Table 1).
There's where your 50% comes from. And as you can see, your link also aligns with the 38.6% previously mentioned.
See? Now was that hard? See how once you explained yourself we could clear up the confusion you were having? Nothing wrong with that, easy to be confused by the various terms that are being tossed around.
What are you even going on about? It literally says:
Women represent 57.3% of undergraduates but only 38.6% of STEM undergraduates
That means women are obtaining most of their degrees via non-STEM studies.
Women represent 52% of the college-educated workforce, but only 29% of the science and engineering workforce.
And that is reflected in the study's figures for employment as well.
I’d search for another but people shooting themselves in the foot amuses me to know end
Well let's look over the score here. Someone has provided two different links to back up their argument and you've provided… Oh look, none. You're making claims and pointing out things that clearly do not exist or are anecdotal. Nothing you have done in the last three comments indicates to anyone that any of us should take anything you have to say with any kind of value.
So I guess you are amused to know [sic] end, but a point or logical argument you have not made. But hey if you thinking you took the W here and that keeps you quiet, then good job you totally owned everyone here. Amazing wordsmithing.
Yo OP. If you're going to post people's Noots, try through something other than Bluesky. Here's the same Noot via her Masatodon account.
OTPs only ensure that you "physically have" the thing that the OTP presents.
UPS used to hand over a signature pad to collect a signature. Amazon's OTP implementation should have an OTP that the customer enters into a pad that the driver hands over. The driver gets the pad back once the package is given to the customer. The package is then marked delivered when the driver enters their OTP into the pad.
The entire point is that the delivery pad is the presentation of the OTP. The customer entering their OTP into the pad indicates they physically have the pad (not the product), the driver entering their OTP into the pad means they have recollected the pad (ideally in exchange for the parcel). The OTP only proves that someone physically holds the device that the OTP was entered on, it proves nothing else.
No good OTP implementation has in it a point where the OTP is told to another person. Amazon's OTP implementation is just flawed from the word start. I think more people would understand it if the whatever digit number was called something like "signature code", in that the set of numbers constitutes the equal to a signature. You wouldn't let someone, especially the driver themselves, sign for your package, so you shouldn't tell the OTP to anyone, except those who you think should be able to sign for your package.
I have a Brother HL-L3230CDW. It has been a horse and has quickly become my most prized possession of all things that I own. It takes anyone's toner and produces quality without question. It works with my various Linux, Macs, Windows, and Android devices without hesitation and minimal fuss to get setup.
So that's what I would recommend. Is a good bit of coin up front but in my opinion, it has paid for itself in cheaper long run TCO and sanity in that it just fucking works.
You're not wrong, but that doesn't mean YouTube's model is correct. The basic understanding we all need to have is pay people for their bread. Don't ever get more from someone that you aren't willing to pay back in some kind. 20% tip for waiting staff might suck for a person, but do not "NOT TIP". We tip till workers get fair wages or we don't go eat out, but don't go eat out and not tip. Same here. Don't head over to your creators on YouTube and deny them their fair share be it premium or ads.
YouTube takes a 45% cut on subscriptions. That's not fair share and they don't provide a means for creators to strike a balance. You can be angry at that. But don't ever be angry at that and not give some fair share to the creators. Additionally, with the whole Channel Membership, makes the whole YouTube Premium questionable. Why am I paying $14/mo for Premium and then $5/mo/channel I'm a member for? Why can YouTube not see that I've spent x% time here at so-and-so's channel and take x% of that Premium and send it to that creator (minus some off the top for infrastructure for themselves)?
This is ultimately what I dislike about YouTube Premium and what I like most about Patreon. In fact, the majority of what I once watched on YouTube has largely shifted there to Patreon. The things is, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask folks to be FAIR about what YouTube is giving, so you're right. But YouTube is a crap distribution platform that routinely robs creators of power over their media, exposure, and revenue and does so with impunity.
People shouldn't rob from YouTube to make a point. People should just leave to make a point. That's the fair thing to do. And if you do enjoy content from your favorite creators, always make sure you tell them so by putting money in their pocket. If we want fair wages for one, we need to remember we need to want fair wages for everyone. And more importantly, the folks running the show need to be more affable to listening to the folks tending to the fields. Be it employers need to listen to their waiters and pay them based on that or YouTube needs to listen to it's creators and address the various issues they bring up.
We're in an era where there's a whole lot of "I know better" in the workplace and really I think we just need more partnership between all involved. I think if we had more of that, we'd have a lot more of the other issues solved by proxy. That's ultimately what I have issues with YouTube, but just because I have issues doesn't mean I go stealing things from them. You are absolutely correct in that folks should play fair if they're heading to YouTube. We're all in this together folks, don't rob from each other even if you don't like the means by which they get the money.
Absolutely this. The reason AI defaults female into "female armor mode" is the same reason Excel has January February Maruary. Our spicy autocorrect overlords cannot extrapolate data in a direction that it's training has no knowledge of.
Disinformation.
There is a finite set of things and a means to obtain significant portions of those finite things.
Humans are complex.
Let me ask you, all that blood shed previously. Did it work? Are we winning right now? You mentioned the US Civil War, ask yourself, did the slaves actually get free? Did the blacks actually get rights? Did the people who started the war face justice?
Also, all that those moments in history where there was shedding of blood. You do understand, if we had that today, you and I are pretty much assured to not make it. You do understand that? If we went to bloodshed, a lot of the people on this forum are highly likely the be part of the dead. You know in the Declaration of Independence there's a line:
And reason why is because they knew, that overthrowing the government means most people die and the rich and power continue on. You do kind of notice how a lot of the folks who signed that document were also very rich and very powerful people and very not dead at the end of the Revolutionary war?
Which is why I'm curious about you quoting Thomas Jefferson in his letter to John Adam's son-in-law. For me a real quote is: