SatanicNotMessianic @ SatanicNotMessianic @lemmy.ml

Posts

4

Comments

930

Joined

2 yr. ago

I understand your point, but specifically regarding journalists, I think they generally take a more cautious approach due to free speech rights.

I could see an argument that such an interpretation would make it impossible for the press to report on many of the major conflicts around the world in an independent fashion. We want them to report on Hamas and the IRA and the PLO and Boko Haram and so on. Not only does that allow citizens to see the full story of the conflict, but we would run a very real risk of this interpretation being used against any group the US doesn’t want to have interviewed. Earth (and Animal) Liberation Front come to mind, along with the Panthers and groups throughout central and south America.

The point is that in most cases journalists have to pay for access. They may pay the bartender for an intro to the local rebel leader. They may pay for protection or as an admission fee. They may even pay the interviewee for their time, although this is sometimes considered against ethical guidelines if it could be viewed as creating a conflict of interest.

It seems like it could be used as a type of prior restraint.

This is the key paragraph, at least for me:

"When a defendant invokes such a defense in court," Smith's office argued, "he waives attorney-client privilege for all communications concerning that defense, and the government is entitled to additional discovery and may conduct further investigation, both of which may require further litigation and briefing."

So if he’s going to blame his lawyers, the government can compel all of their communications in order to investigate whether he actually conspired with the lawyers to get the advice that his illegal act was actually legal. If he did (as seems likely), then he incriminates himself and his lawyers on additional conspiracy charges. If he didn’t, then he will have to own the decision.

This is something they’re going to fight tooth and nail against, so I’m curious as to what their next step is going to be.

I cast a Jill Stein protest vote in 2012 because Obama had a lock on my state, and I felt like Obama and the Dems in general had strayed too far to the right. Obviously, Obama won my state and the presidency, which is what I actually wanted. I just felt like we could move the Dems to the left by showing them they were leaving votes on the table. That does not work. I can get into why, but the basics are that third parties only act as spoilers.

In any case, Jill Stein is a terrible candidate on paper. All she does is mouth the dream set of policies a lot of us would love, but has no program to achieve them, she has no experience picking staff or running a large organization, she has all the charisma of a rotten banana, and she refused to throw down against anti-vax because it’d alienate half her base.

I’m for a serious Green Party in the US - one that is actually oriented towards governing. The Greens internationally are a real party, not the party equivalent of Vermin Supreme.

Honestly, most of the US agrees with the Greens on a lot of issues, and they could make enough of a big tent that a seriously (constructed and funded) Green Party could probably take multiple seats in the House, at the very least. They could caucus with the Dems, but try to pull things left. They’d work like the Squad, or Bernie and Warren. Between the coasts and the big cities, they could probably swing ten or more seats.

But instead we get Jill, yet again. Honestly, I’d like to see an investigation of her Trump-like election challenging fundraising.

So, assuming the ability to recall emails that contain evidence of an intent to defraud or a crime does not exonerate people (eg, saying you don’t remember robbing the bank isn’t going to get you out of the video evidence of you doing so), what’s the procedure here?

Since this is a civil trial, can the court infer the intent to deceive based on the evidence presented? I know that taking the 5th in civil trials can be inferred as evasive and negative in some states for civil but not criminal trials, but I don’t know how that applies here.

I believe the article makes the position of the conservative government quite clear.

Carbon capture isn’t a real thing. It’s a unicorn technology that is used, over and over, to justify the continued development of fossil fuel resources. It’s a “don’t worry, we will figure out a solution before it’s a real problem.” It’s literally the same argument we hear from the CEOs of Exxon and BP. So how are we going about that? Are we strongly capping production until the tech is validated and ready to be deployed at scale? Are we taxing fossil fuel companies at 100% of profits to accelerate development of the technologies?

This is just a step above Trump announcing that his clean coal initiative would allow the US to keep up coal production as long as it gets washed first.

We had all kinds of explanations for the polls in 2016, too. This is not over but it’s not going to be a walk in the park.

This far out, polls are not guesses about election results, but rather estimates of sentiments. That’s how they’re read.

The position being taken here is that the national sentiment is against Joe Biden. You can think he could still power through. You can think that the undecided will break his way. You could think that people realize losing Roe will be the least of their concerns if Trump gets in.

But these are legitimate measures of public sentiment. Biden has a national poll-of-polls approval rating of 39%. That’s Carter and Bush I territory.

I will always vote Democrat but I had hoped he would be one and done. This is feeling like 2016 all over again.

Hay, could you take a look through my comment history and see if I’m someone you’d want to talk to? I apologize for the snarky bits and the one liners.

You mentioned doing a discord to watch on that Bjork mushroom movie, which unfortunately is only in theaters right now.

Anyway, take a look at the kinds of things I write and hit me up if you want to talk.

I started with MMOs back in the MUD days, both on dial up BBSs and (eventually) on university servers. I will always remember the sysop who walked me through signing up for his BBS MUD while I was giving responses like “y” and “go north” because I thought he was just an infocom game and not an actual person. Twelve year old me was so embarrassed that I never went back. If you’re out there, sysop, or if you’re just someone who has tried their best to support online communities despite the best intentions of absolute idiots, I salute you.

I played EverQuest since it came out, stupidly choosing a ranger and studying fletching all very badly because I didn’t know about gaming the game mechanics and had read too many fantasy novels. I played a lot, mostly by myself, and didn’t get too far. I also tried EQ2 when it came out, and when Diablo 2 released I decided to experiment with gaming the trading market.

I was an early WoW adopter. I played through the level caps two or three times. I joined a more serious raiding guild when I hit 60 (instead of my old rpg guild) and cornered the market on cotton a couple of weeks in a row here and there. I eventually fell out of it - end game content turned into feeling like a job, where you had to study and rehearse in order to get past bosses, your loot dropping was like a 1 in 20 chance, and if you screwed up a single person could cause a group wipe. Honestly, it just got boring compared to being a level 8 warlock wandering around.

What is keeping me from trying new ones is that there’s a massive disadvantage in starting an MMO that’s already been going on for years and years. You can fire up Skyrim for the very first time this afternoon, and have the exact same experience (honestly, a much improved one) as if you fired it up on launch day. I can launch Baldur or Disco or Stray and just not have to worry about getting ganked other than what was already intended by the devs. There was a time in EverQuest where another player challenged me to 1v1 and finally talked me into trying it, then proceeded to beat the living shit out of me but then bandage me right before I died. He kept on doing it until I disconnected. As funny as that was in retrospect, it’s also a problem with MMOs in general.

I would love for there to be a new WoW - something that restored the magic of the game when you could solo or group up and both explore the world and feel progress. I’m still waiting.

Sue.

Google en passant.

En passant is a French term meaning “by peasant” and it dates to the French Revolution. It means that pawns can capture sideways if they really want to. It’s because they normally capture at an angle of 45 degrees, but if they move to the front of the horizontal square it’s really only a matter of being like 60 degrees or so, depending on where they were on the originating square.

“This deal keeps getting worse all the time.”

I’ve been quitting streaming providers left and right. I lost count of how many services I had, but it was probably up to $150 per month or more. Because I like the ability to just watch whatever I want, I’d sign up for a service to get a particular show or movie, then just not cancel. I’d forget I had a service, then find some movie in a search, and suddenly remember I had showtime or shudder.

Once they started banning family sharing of accounts and increasing prices, I was done. I could have gone on for years like that - I love movies and I binge television shows, but one of my main uses is watching in remote sessions with isolated family members.

Lawyerly types of folks have been pointing out that the Trumpses have been making statements on the stand that open them up to criminal charges, so I’m not going to wager on her making a good case of it.

I think she is exactly as smart as the rest of her family, but manages to keep her mouth shut slightly more often.

Honestly, I would like the Saudi money and the West Bank money investigated for her and Jared.

Telling the truth would also send her to jail unless she can reach a plea bargain, and I think that particular ship has sailed.

Am I mixing up two stories or has the presumption of her guilt changed at least a couple of times? I feel like I remember the story breaking and she being suspected of poisoning, then seeing that she wasn’t a suspect, and now this. I can’t remember if there were multiple poisoning incidents or if this one was just a roller coaster.

It’s a bypass. You’ve got to build bypasses.

There is a difference in the rules surrounding inference between civil and criminal trials, but the differences vary between jurisdictions.

Luke warm is for Star Wars fans.

Thumpers from Dune but with bombs in them.

Cluster munitions but with small Bluetooth speakers that can cover a city.

Unattended rock concerts in football stadiums that are then targeted by sub-launched missiles.

Suicide bombers with a dead man’s switch that just run in a circle yelling “Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!”

I feel like we’ve found the theme for this particular arc of history.