Pips @ Pips @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

43

Comments

297

Joined

2 yr. ago

Everyone I've spoken to about it has noted that it's become a very different place. I'll still use it for reviews and getting tips for serious things like privacy and some basic DIY. But a lot of that advice will be obsolete in a couple years and very few people are replenishing it. Who's going to give a shit about the best home theater setups of 2023 in two years?

It is the easiest thing in the world to not actively be driving while video calling in to a court hearing, regardless of what the hearing is for. He could even physically be in the car sitting in the passenger seat with it parked and be fine, but why take the risk? Especially when the consequence is jail.

The US didn't sign on to the treaty that creates the ICC's jurisdiction. In most countries, you still need to at least pretend to have jurisdiction to bring criminal charges. Unlike people, states can only be sued to the degree they consent to be sued. It's what sovereign immunity is based on and it's a very double-edged sword.

Also, outside of a few warlords, the ICC is pretty bad at enforcing international law because they have no way to do so. The ICC is inefficient and slow. Someone has to actually bring the defendant to them to stand trial, then countries negotiate over who doesn't have to deal with jailing the person if they're convicted.

It's also arguably super imperialist, given that it was designed by a bunch of Western powers and has mostly been used to enforce international law against individuals from Africa. The two Russians who are being "prosecuted," Putin and Lvova-Belova, can't be detained because the ICC has no power to enforce their warrants. Granted, these people are often evil, but it's not like the West doesn't have its fair share of evil people.

All that to say, while this looks good, it's mostly just PR. We also arguably don't want the ICC prosecuting Americans. We should instead make our domestic system better.

Source: Used to work on analyzing ICC cases and I've read thousands of filings from various cases. It's a well-intentioned but highly flawed system that is basically only designed to prosecute international crimes in Africa and doesn't really focus on anything else.

Don't do the thing you're being accused of while appearing before a judge is common sense though. It is so incredibly easy to not physically be in a car for this hearing.

It's a fairly routine argument by the defense (we're being singled out/the regulations are unclear). And regarding federal enforcement, there's a lot of hamstringing by Congress.

All that to say, this is arguably a good sign of the FTC properly enforcing, not a reason for pessimism.

I'm not sure how that's indicative of the FTC not being serious? You're quoting a defense argument, of course they're going to argue the agency is wrong.

Yeah, but it's in Akademgorodok when it should be in Mousecow.

Fun fact: most libertarians don't want to be left alone. They don't want to be regulated. They still want a society with rules, they just want those rules to be whatever they decide works for them, without regard to whether those rules would fuck over someone else.

Some so-called libertarians actually do want to live apart from society but at that point they're just antisocial. Because being libertarian means you need to be part of a group, which is antithetical to the ethos of being left alone.

Both of these cohorts are no fun at parties.

It's medical ethics, not the Hippocratic Oath. Most doctors swear to an ethical standard. Besides, "first, do no harm" is a bit unhelpful if you're a surgeon.

Otherwise you're right, the risks of pregnancy outweigh the side effects of birth control, which is why birth control for women doesn't have as high a standard for mitigating other consequences.

Through lots of lying, most likely.

It's the network's rule:

Kennedy has already hit CNN’s 15% polling threshold in two out of four qualifying polls. But the network also announced that participants must “appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency prior to the eligibility deadline.”

I think as a bare minimum requirement, being able to appear on the ballots of enough states to actually have a chance of winning makes perfect sense as a rule. With all the things to shit on the parties for, why make up a strawman?

Well you literally can't enforce it. Take surgery, for example. In surgery, you must first do some harm so that you can do significantly more good.

I was very similar, heavy Reddit user that quit over thr 3PA shitshow last year. Not sure if you've noticed the same effect, but my attention span has gone way up.

José Andrés is one of the most loved people in DC regardless of politics. Fucking with his people is very bad, to put it mildly.

Quick correction, you cannot have just Y or YY. The only full monosomy you can have and survive is Turner syndrome (just one X). Not having any X chromosome is 100% fatal, the X chromosome is necessary for development regardless of sex. Additionally, while you can have XYY (Jacobs syndrome), you cannot have YY for the same reason you can't have monosomy Y.

We haven't figured out how?

Ruler of the planet Omicron-Persei 8!

Every instance gets to decide on its own, there's no set of rules governing the whole thing. That's why I stated this is my opinion, not some hard and fast rule.

The crew operator or subcontractor may file for bankruptcy. Maersk isn't going anywhere.

It happens all the time, a lot of things get handled this way because the infrastructure still needs to be fixed in a reasonable timeline.