JillyB @ JillyB @beehaw.org

Posts

3

Comments

333

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm a Wikipedia addict but I'm not complaining

in the USA atleast, crime is increasing

Source? I'm pretty sure there was an uptick during the pandemic but then it went down again.

the pardons were meant to help thousands overcome obstacles to renting a home or finding a job.

I thought pardons don't erase a conviction. They just erase the sentence. Wouldn't the conviction still show up in a background search?

I got this book recently. I've read like 20 pages before dropping it for now. It's weird

Some people have medical or religious dietary restrictions. I think the employer would have to accommodate those. Ethical restrictions is a grey area.

Fire doesn't char rock. It leaves soot. Soot can be cleaned off

I almost exclusively use the app called Transit. It uses OSM data and shows live tracking for buses and trains (at least it does in my city). It's good for figuring other options like walking, cycling, bike share.

the Biden impeachment... zero evidence, no specific crime identified.

Biden has not been impeached. There is an upcoming inquiry which is tasked with investigating Biden's potential business dealings with foreign nations. The purpose is to gather evidence and identify crime if appropriate. Hot take: if there is evidence of a crime, he should be impeached. I think the inquiry is largely political but if they do find evidence of a crime, it should be publicly known.

Overall, I don't think we should be fighting fire with fire. Then we're just sinking to their level. If my political opponent is doing illegal things, let them stand trial. Trump has a ton of indictments meant to bring about justice. I just think the legal process is too slow for the left to feel satisfied right now. Give it time.

The take is nuts. The amendment clearly applies to all state and federal politicians, judges, and beurocracts. It seems silly that it wouldn't apply to the highest position as well, even if a literal interpretation wouldn't include the president. The court agreed with that interpretation.

During the civil war, the president was Lincoln. Obviously he's not involved in insurrection. As a result, the amendment didn't clearly include the president. After the civil war, the government officials of the Confederacy was a matter of public record. So you obviously didn't require them all to stand trial before barring them from office. The amendment was written to keep confederate officials from regaining power. It was general enough to include any insurrection. Now we're in territory the amendment wasn't directly written for so it makes sense to interpret it with the original intent in mind. The standard for insurrection isn't clearly defined so the courts are exercising their ability to interpret it. If they didn't have this ability, any gun control legislation would require an amendment.

In all of the indictments Trump has received relating to the election, he hasn't been indicted for insurrection. Which tells me the prosecutors don't feel they can prove it in a criminal court. I believe even Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law should trump political ideals.

I mentioned in another comment but I think conviction should be the bar. During reconstruction, we bypassed due process on this because it obviously applied to anybody holding office in one of the seceding states. Now that we're in territory the amendment wasn't directly written for, it's appropriate to review the interpretation.

One of the arguments of the defense was that the specific wording of the amendment meant it didn't apply to the President. If we go with the specific wording of the amendment, we get pretty far from the intended effect of the amendment. The court agreed that the amendment applied to the president despite some discrepancies, but disagreed on whether due process would be violated by limiting the ballot.

Reposting my comment from another thread. Remember to bee nice:

Personally, I don't think Trump should be on any ballot because he has a history of undermining democracy. It's self-defeating for a democracy to allow non-democratic actors to participate.

That said, I also agree with the dissenting opinion. Without a conviction of insurrection, a court shouldn't be able to limit democratic participation. That would be denying a person due process. I suspect the supreme court will see it that way too.

If you disagree with me, just imagine how this precedent could be used by the right against a left-leaning candidate. If democracy is limited without a conviction of insurrection, you'll see this applied to candidates on very shaky grounds.

Heaven or Hell. Let's rock!

I always heard "Hyrule fight club" referred to as "big dick club"

Just started Blindsight. I'm really enjoying some sci-fi with religious undertones. Hyperion is in the mail for my next one.

I'm now imagining rgb trains. Mechanical turn styles, high refresh rate info screens, giant AIO coolers.

The more I think about it, Warframe is a bad use case. What would give the NFT power would be the game recognizing it which is still a central authority. DE would be better served by implementing an API that the market could use to make trades.

I think the best use case for NFTs doesn't really exist yet. The "NFTs don't solve any problem" argument is limiting your imagination to problems that have already been solved. I think at some point a type of game or software will emerge with no central authority. Maybe a FOSS project with lots of popular forks or a connected network of games from different developers. In this environment, ownership of a digital asset may be something that's good to transfer between instances or trade between users without having to get all the developers to agree on who gets to control the market.

It's a little more than that. It's a way of trustlessly proving ownership. Certainly, a company like Valve will be against NFTs because they benefit from having complete control over things like the CS skin market. But I also play Warframe. The main market is an unofficial third party web site which let's you copy text into chat to organize a sale. It's clunky. I think the Warframe trading situation would benefit from items being associated with an NFT so the third party service could actually make the trades rather than simply facilitate. DE benefits from trading being a bit awkward so people buy plat instead of trade for it, so that'll never happen.

Overall, I suspect NFTs will be the most likely of the crypto ideas to actually find some real use cases. Not needing a central authority to verify ownership is too useful of an idea.

This is a very popular opinion

I kind of disagree but kind of don't. I think most of modern urbanists don't want cars banned, they just don't want it to be the only practical way to get around.

Also, I'm a big gearhead. I like driving and working on cars. But I don't like commuting in traffic, paying to keep a car out of necessity, finding parking, breakdowns. I feel so liberated and free when driving on a mountain road with the top down. I feel similarly free when I get drunk and walk home, get groceries on my bike, or read a book on the bus. I don't think public transit is right for everyone. But I think having it as a good option alongside driving, walking, and cycling is just good city planning.

They're not good but they get you drunk. After a while, I couldn't even drink them without getting nauseous.