vortic @ Vorticity @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

541

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

"Eat the rich" gets flagged too, per another post I just saw.

I like to think this is the case. I'd prefer to think it was the customer who screwed this up rather than the contractor.

So, four... FOUR supreme court justices think it is okay for the US government to fail to pay it's debts to an AIDS prevention organization for work they had ALREADY DONE!

What the fuck happened to this country?

As a side note, how long before Trump starts calling SCOTUS illigitimate if they keep ruling against him?

This actually gives me anxiety. I imagine getting stuck that way.

You have to be credulous and in a news bubble that tells you he's only doing good things. Either that or you need to be completely disconnected from the news; I think many are.

He's got plenty of cronies who can cause chaos while he golfs.

I wonder, how many countries rely on the recommendations of the FDA to determine which vaccine strains to put in their vaccines for the year. Does Canada?

That's interesting. The vast majority, about 83%, of their shareholders are large institutional shareholders like Vanguard and JP Morgan Chase. Would those be who voted in this?

He also probably thinks that he is going to get a cushy job for his sacrifice. Hopefully Trump refuses to pay in the end, like normal, and this guy speaks out after getting screwed.

What part of the plate has lead? The plate itself or the paint?

I can't imagine this is a legal way to get rid of federal employees. Hell, I doubt this is a legal way to get rid of ANY employees.

Yeah, I don't get this. Some of the answers these people gave, when they gave answers, we're abhorrent. I don't understand why Republicans were unwilling to push for better nominees.

Yeah, I'll be 58 when my boy is 19... Gotta get in shape!

I suspect this is the goal here. Cut goverents services, figure out which parts squeak, then hire contractors to do that work at massive profits while either receiving kickbacks or just winning through insider trading.

Ultimately, it probably will lead to higher goverents costs.

NYT wasn't brave enough to even give a link to the ad in their article.

This is not intended to minimize the fact that Israel is stealing Palastinian land. It is wrong for them to do so, wrong for them to run an apartheid regime,and very o viously wrong for them to commit genocide. This is just intended to give perspective to the size of the land they're illegally taking this time.

1000 hectares is about 0.17% of the west bank.

It has nothing to do with the jusldge's feelings.whats the point in issuing a Temporary Restraining Order 21 days after the fact when it is moot 30 days after? A TRO on day 1 would have made sense. A TRO on day 21 does nothing but add to the chaos. They are still going forward with other legal arguments but the TRO served no purpose at this point.

The judge needs a motion in front of them to consider. Waiting 21 days to ask for a temporary restraining order in an action that would take effect after 30 days shows a lack of urgency on the part of the plaintiffs and the burden was on the plaintiffs to show urgency in the case.

This is like a little kid watching their brother eat their candy for five minutes, then complaining to their parents when the candy is almost gone.

Don't get me wrong, Trump's actions here were illegal, but the plaintiffs needed to bring their motion for a TRO fast enough that it wasn't nearly moot by the time they did.

I think the point is, the plaintiffs are telling the judge "this is of the utmost urgency" 21 days after the fact. The judge feels that, if the plaintiffs really felt that it was that urgent they should have acted with urgency themselves. So the judge is giving their request the same level of urgency that they did themselves.

If they had made a similar motion the day after the firing took place, their motion might have been granted, but this seems like a case of "too little too late".

Do you want the entire article in the headline or something? Go read the article and the journal article that it cites. They expand upon all of those terms.

Also, I'm genuinely curious, what do you mean when you say that there is "No such thing AS "AI""?