Montana Supreme Court allows abortion ballot proposal to proceed
Ranvier @ Ranvier @sopuli.xyz Posts 9Comments 928Joined 2 yr. ago
Ranvier @ Ranvier @sopuli.xyz
Posts
9
Comments
928
Joined
2 yr. ago
It would delay things further unfortunately, but this is so egregiously wrong and in such a long list of mistakes and/or illegitimate moves meant to provide cover for Trump, I don't think there's any recourse but for Jack Smith to move to have her taken off the case. Even more when you consider her involvement prior to these charges when she got improperly involved with the search warrant bussiness before a higher court told her off and dismissed the whole thing. Shame she's the one assigned to the strongest and least legally controversial criminal case against him.
Theoretically yes, but that's not what happened. Also not sure if average in op's case is referring to mean or median, the word average could refer to either. But mean and median are close in this case. Median wage growth statistics are readily available, here's median:
https://www.atlantafed.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker
And if you dig into data more, you'll find real wage growth was strongest in the lowest income bracket, not the highest.
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2022/
That's not to say that a couple years of higher wage growth in low income brackets will erase the US's enormous problem with income inequality. And the top 10% have still been doing better than upper middle class with recent wage growth.
I heard some states have proposed laws pre emptively banning over the counter birth control, but I don't think any of them actually passed yet.
But to answer your question it likely depend on two things if a state were to ban it, supreme court rulings in these two cases currently being heard: Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, and who is elected president next year.
Currently FDA officials are using interstate commerce powers to protect the shipping of abortion drugs across state lines, and theoretically they could continue to do that for birth control drugs (if the Supreme Court doesn't rule against them and Trump doesn't get elected and appoint new fda leadership hostile to women's health).
"Coerce" is I think is what at issue in the case. I still think saying this ruling would give the US government "the power to define misinformation" is misleading. No one, even those arguing it was "coercion," is arguing the government was using any legal powers to enforce their recommendations. The evidence shows in most cases they were being ignored if anything. And the appeals court was relying on some very faulty factual findings at the trial court level, much of which was pointed out in the supreme court hearing today. The previous rulings used many out of context quotes or even just portions of sentences to create something that wasn't there. They also overstepped by insituting a very broad gag order across all government communications that has been very damaging. I'll be surprised if the Supreme Court doesn't rule in favor of the government here, especially based on their comments today, and don't worry, the government still won't have any legal powers to enforce their definitions of misinformation if the Supreme Court rules in their favor.
I think the much greater threat to free speech comes in the form of the other Supreme Court cases heard last month (net choice v Paxton and moody v net choice), that would use the force of law to prevent social media companies from having any editorial discretion in what is posted on their sites. Despite what the Republicans pushing those laws claim, they are not in favor of free speech. The effext of those laws is, to quote the ACLU, "Under the guise of “prohibiting censorship,” these laws seek to replace the private entities’ editorial voice with preferences dictated by the government." That's the one that's not only clearly coercive but comes with the force of law, and I would be very worried from a free speech perspective if the supreme court upheld those laws.
This isn't anything with the force of law though, so saying it would "give government the power to decide what constitutes misinformation" is misleading. Government communicating important information about public health and national security issues is part of their job. The current ruling if let to stand essentially places a gag order on the US government from communicating important information to any private organization.
This is just agencies sending information to social media networks to help them make decisions. It's still up to the social media networks to decide. If you dig into the case, you'll see the government was even totally ignored in two thirds of cases. Luckily it appears the supreme court is likely to overturn the prior order based on their comments today, and allow the US government to communicate again.
If in the future there was an attempt to make an actual law to give the government a power to regulate misinformation, it would have to be extremely narrow and well defined or else would be quickly overturned on first amendment grounds.
The TikTok bill is also a separate issue. And again, I think the statement "give us control or be banned" would be misleading. That implies it's trying to force a US government takeover of TikTok, which is not at all the case, it's trying to force a sale to domestic private ownership (not under the control of the US government). Though I personally disagree with that bill and find it problematic. I'm not sure we should be following China's example here and forcing international companies to divest assets to domestic ones. I think a more nuanced and more effective position would be following the eu's lead, and regulating how all big tech companies are dealing with data.
To add to this, most gpu reviews will now have two sets of benchmarks, one with ray tracing and one without. You can see the gap in raytracing performance at each price point narrowing considerably over the years as amd catches up. It also narrows further at higher resolutions (since the price equivalent amd options tend to have higher raw performance and more memory which becomes increasingly important at higher resolutions). Right now all else being equal at most price points you'll see amd with a lead in non raytracing performance, and Nvidia with a lead in ray tracing performance. In addition to considering target resolution, which card is winning out can also be very variable per game, so if you have a particular game in mind, would see if there is a benchmark for that game so you would know what to expect with different cards and see what makes the most sense with your targeted performance, budget, and priorities.
And to clarify for OP, when I say raytracing performance, I mean the fps with raytracing turned on. Visually it will appear the same in each particular game no matter what gpu you're using, since it's the game that implements the ray tracing. The one exception I know of in terms of actual quality right now is "ray reconstruction", a part of dlss, that will only work on Nvidia chips, and that they claim improves the noise between individual rays better than traditional de noisiers through use of AI. Theoretically there should be other ways to reduce noise at a performance cost too, so in the end it does come down to performance and game by game implementation again. Not a lot of games with this right now, I think cyber punk, portal 1, and control.
Especially since I use vr sometimes, I tend to favor the raw power at the price point more to get the best resolutions and frame rates. If you're favoring just a great picture at lower resolutions like 1080p there starts to be diminishing returns (is 180 fps really a better experience than 120 fps?) in favoring non ray tracing performance, maybe making a less raw performance Nvidia card even more of a consideration if you feel the non raytracing performance is good enough. And then if money is no object of course, Nvidia has the best performing gpu overall in all aspects at the extreme high price end (4090), with no equivalent amd option at that level.
Also dlss vs fsr needs to be considered. Fsr being not as far along as dlss. This would be more important at the lower end though (except in the case of ray reconstruction), higher end gpus likely won't need to rely on these technologies to achieve good fps with current games. Hopefully fsr continues to improve and become a more widespread option. Amd is also working on fluid motion frames at the driver level, which may allow a similar effect to fsr 3 even if not implemented specifically by the game.
"Bromance?" What kind of headline is that? Not an appropriate word at all. They're not hanging out knocking back some brews. This is geo politics, and Trump has sold out intelligence sources and methods to the Russians and likely other countries, and has worked to undermine American interests in favor of Russia and Putin. How about sycophant, minion, lackey, henchman, or potentially compromised by?
I'm with you, I was mostly joking. This whole question just hinges on definitions of "straight line" and "flat plane" anyways.
Removed
Can you un-smart a smart tv?
Jump
They're not even really available anymore. There are some but they're more meant to be directly sold to businesses, and often lack features in addition to costing much more. Easiest thing to do is get a smart TV and just don't let it connect to the internet.
Unfortunately (fortunately?) the space they're traveling through is curved. It was a good attempt though neutrinos.
Yes my understanding is in addition to passing a law, one other possibility would be declaring his electoral votes invalid and not certifying them on the grounds he committed insurrection. But I guess we'd see what the supreme court says about that if it actually happened.
Have you considered answering this other question that would take three years and six figures of funding to complete? Maybe just add that to the paper quick with the next revision.
Or
Have you considered mentioning this barely relevant subject in the discussion, in particular this aspect, which has a recent paper you can cite? Totally not mine by the way, I am very anonymous. But this should definitely be mentioned.
Not trying to refute that the holocaust was primarily about the genocide of Jewish people (which is true), but just adding some additional details about lgbt persecution around that time many might not be aware of.
The nazi laws used to persecute lgbt individuals were only repealed in part in 1969 in west Germany and 1968 in east Germany. Many lgbt individuals imprisoned by the nazis were left there after World War 2 and not freed like other groups. They continued to be imprisoned well after World War 2 (about 50,000 in west Germany between 1945 and 1969). The laws weren't fully repealed until 1994, and judgements not annulled until 2002. Until more recently they were not acknowledged among the victims. Jewish individuals or political prisoners that were also discovered to be lgbt were even made ineligible for survivor benefits. Victims only began to be offered some sort of compensation in 2017. I'm also not trying to insinuate that Germany was the only country with these kinds of attitudes, which were and are still very widespread in the world of course.
New Jersey is coming for New York's land!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._New_York
If you wondered why only the center portion of Ellis Island is in New York, this is why.
In seriousness unlike New Jersey (or at least new jersey before it become extremely urbanized) a good portion of Israel's land is desert that's not very useful for farming or grazing. Not an excuse though, especially when the west bank and Gaza have less percentage of arable land than Israel as is for a denser population. Your point stands.
No, it's narrower than that. It only applies to attacks directly on Nato countries. It doesn't even apply to all of a country's territories, only within the geographic range specified in the treaty. So for instance didn't apply to the Falkland War, despite a territory under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom coming under attack. It's not just any time a country's troops or interests are under attack. US troops have been attacked many times in Iraq, Syria, and other locations, and Article 5 wasn't invoked. The only time it was ever invoked by any country was the US after 9/11, which was pretty clearly on US territory. If it applied how you say, it could be used by any country to draw all of the rest into an offensive war, which is clearly against the spirit and words of the article.
It would not. It's a defensive treaty.
Ukraine isn't a part of France or under the jurisdiction of France, so the attack wouldn't be on France's territory, and Ukraine isn't a member of NATO itself.
Sometimes pretty literally:
Biden has also had a stutter his whole life. It's not new.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/05/politics/joe-biden-stutter/index.html
The supreme court said no to the universal plan. The reasoning they cited was that congress did not intend for him to have the power to do that. Dubious reasoning or not, trying the same blanket loan forgiveness again is not going to work. And they were literally before the supreme court, do you honestly think they made "one argument?" There are hundreds of pages of arguments spanning multiple filings, not to mention the oral arguments. Get to reading:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/biden-v-nebraska-2/
And yes it is misinformation to pretend this was the one and only thing the Biden admin has done or attempted to do for student loans and ignore everything else that has been done. It's misinformation to say there's been "one executive order," demonstrably very false.
What the Biden admin is doing right now is exactly what you're suggesting, seeing what kinds of forgiveness they might be able to get squeaked past the courts since the broad powers in the heroes act have been cut off by the court. The rules aren't finalized so it's not clear exactly how broad that new plan will be or what the criteria is. If they re-attempted the same thing with the same terms there's no way it would stand with the court. If you just want hollow regulations passed that will never actually be implemented to pay lip service before a court strikes them down again, fine. I'd prefer things that will actually get through and have a chance to help people.
And try and save at least a drop of vitriol for the Republicans who were the ones who stopped the plan in the first place.
That's good, hopefully these terrible laws will get overturned in even more states this election cycle. Also, assuming it gets on the ballot it could improve turnout for Jon Tester too. Really need him re elected for Democrats to have a shot at holding on to the senate and have any chance at passing a national law (and block Republicans from trying to pass a national ban too of course).