abraxas @ abraxas @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

780

Joined

2 yr. ago

Weird. I SWORE I linked this. Maybe it was a different reply.

As for the exact terminology, I got the crime he pleaded guilty of from the propaganda press junket from the DOJ on the matter.

The recommended penalty for unauthorized disclosure is something more like a $5000 fine. The maximum allowable penalty for the offense is 5 years in prison.

"Wanting to do the right thing" is apparently an aggrivating circumstance.

He got the maximum sentence under §7213

I mean, they could have disappeared him or thrown in a bunch of bullshit charges. But for what he did, he got as bad as it gets. The DOJ page even said they sentenced him so harshly to send a warning to people who consider repeating his behavior.

Whistleblowers are always punished harshly on purpose.

Five years is literally the worst sentence you can get for the crime he pled guilty to. From how it's worded, the most recommended penalty for that crime appears to be a $5000 fine and maybe a little jail time.

They "threw the book at him" by all definitions of the word.

I think it's closer to that way now. There was incentive to banks in the past to process it differently.

That said, my bank's "pay bills" function still takes your cash out before sending the check, despite the check NOT being a cashier's check when not linked to an e-account. They just refund you in 90 days (or so) if it isn't cashed.

"used to". Xfinity includes a public access point on my router that I'm not able to turn off. They used to lie about it and deny it until too many people caught on.

Every person and business that has any wifi or server on the internet "might help pedophiles hurting children". Amazon S3? Could hypothetically be used in CP (actually almost definitely is used for CP by somebody).

Your email address? Could be used by somebody malicious for CP. Which means if you think it's that important to stop pedophiles hurting children, you should shut it down.

And in fact, Lemmy is decentralized and can absolutely be used (let's be honest, somebody probably already is somewhere) to distribute CP. We should be openly opposing Lemmy now, right?

...boiling down to the real problem. There are so many uses for Tor that have nothing to do with CP and so few Tor users that deal in CP. Privacy is a valuable thing and we should not be murdering privacy for all people in hope it might stop 1 or 2% of child predators.

Again, different countries might have banks work differently. When a debit is being applied (money removed from the account) it has a lifetime. First it is pending, and then it "clears".

It clears when the bank approves that the money transfer is definitely happening, and that is the moment it is removed from your account. Importantly, the debit clearing from your account on a purchase does not mean the other party has fully received the money.

It used to be that a lot of charges would sit pending overnight and then all pending charges apply in the morning. Yes, even small purchases like a pack of gum bought at the corner store. All they did (and I think Wells Fargo in particular got caught and there were lawsuits about this) was decide the order of clearing pending charges with the intent of maximizing overdraft fees.

And how does that work? Let's say I have $1000 in my account but forgot my $900 rent is coming out. ALong with some other transactions, they could clear like:

They could $0.99 gum, $150 car payment, $150 groceries, $900 rent. Overdraft fees = 1

Or

$900 rent, $150 car payment, $150 groceries, $0.99 gum. Same transactions processed at the same moment. Overdraft fees = 3! When that stuff happened to me back around '04, overdraft fees were $35 per overdraft. So that example was a $70 difference. In reality, between billpay and small purchases, the difference might be $500+.

My true story was that I had a dick of a landlord. My Bank's autopay was running slow and despite the bank check already being in the mail and deducted from my account, my landlord insisted I pay immediately, and I was dumb enough to cave. So I cut him a check and asked him to hold it a day or two til the actual check was delivered; he cashed the same day. Double-rent for a 24 year older meant my account went into the red. I had 10 pending transactions (from gas to bill pays) for the next morning. All 10 (despite being already delivered and should've cleared first) waited to clear until the double-paid rent cleared. I was charged $350 in overdraft fees, almost as much as my $500 rent was (cheap back then lol). And despite agreeing the check getting to him late was their fault, my bank refused to refund more than $100 in overdraft fees because that's what their algorithm valued my business at. I got the first rent payment back, fortunately. But was still out $250.

If I recall, the canned defense for this in lawsuits is "we just coincidentally process all transactions large to small instead of old to new because it makes sense to the bank to do so". If I recall, some states (maybe fed?) ended up having to pass laws regulating overdraft fees a bit. It didn't go far, but from what I hear it stopped that particular behavior.

Isn't that the definition of a race condition, though? In this case, the builds are racing and your success is tied to the builds happening to happen at the right times.

Or do you mean "builds 1 and 2 kick off at the same time, but build 1 fails unless build 2 is done. If you run it twice, build 2 does "no change" and you're fine"?

Then that's legit.

AKA - the test suites at half the companies I've worked. Except they use a loop with retries as well

Here's some context for you.

For most of my life, banks ran an algorithm on overdrafting accounts so that charges would clear in whatever order triggered overdraft protection the most times. It was an open secret, then it came out and companies tried to insist they could do whatever they wanted.

Lots of real world cases of a single unexpected charge coming in and clearing a full day earlier than expected so a bunch of small charges (a pack of chewing gum) would each trigger the fee. $100 total charges, $500+ in overdraft fees.

Sorry I started with "here we go again". In retrospect, it's not fair to treat a person who makes an argument like they are the argument itself.

It's very common that I hear the "invented a right" complaint for Roe. There are a lot of valid criticisms for how jurisprudence works in America, but none of those valid criticisms started with Roe. Arguably they didn't even fully start with Griswold, but the specific one in Roe did. People also often bring up Justice Ginsburg's distaste for Roe. What they don't understand (or conveniently forget) is that she was overridden in her 14th Amendment assertions by Justices that could be described as "Pro-life", who came up with perhaps the most anti-choice interpretation of the Constitution as it was seen at that time. The "shaky ground" people talk about wasn't Roe, but that Roe intentionally left a ton of room for states to add so-called "reasonable restrictions" on abortion, the kinds of restrictions the federal government would really struggle to justify limiting. If Oklahoma has a 3rd Trimester ban, get the abortion earlier or drive to a state without said ban. So long as they didn't ban leaving the state to get an abortion, there's not much for the federal government to write a law on.

As I mentioned elsewhere, Justice Thomas wanted to overturn Ogberfell and Griswold in the discussion of Dobbs. There's a LOT of voices wanting to backpedal on porn. Oklahoma is just small enough to make one of those happen.

The real problem is that the wording (from the article) seems to have been vetted to survive SCOTUS. It's almost like they've done more work and spent more time and money than just the one rep who brought it up.

The court invented a right that they wanted to be there and declared it had been there all along

...here we go again. I feel like people bring this up without understanding it all the time. The Fundamental Right to Privacy used in Roe comes from Griswold, and is (and was) an absolutely defensible interpretation of the Constitution. Much of our jurisprudence comes from Common Law and Reading Between the Lines (which is different from inventing a right from scratch). If you have a right to do A and a right to do B, there is absolutely an argument that you have a right to do A#.

More importantly, DOBBS AGREED. They just said "There is a right to privacy, but fetuses are special. Bubye Roe".

Roe v wade should have been replaced with a law, drafted by legislators, by like 1976

...which SCOTUS could easily decide is Federal overreach. A lot of people have argued with me (convincingly) that the best foundations of such a law are still not unassailable. The argument that the Constitution allows the federal government to protect abortion is just weaker than the argument that the Constitution inherently protects abortion.

50 years of Democrats dropped the ball on this and now innocent women are paying the price

Roe was decided by a largely pro-life conservative Judiciary, and the Right to Privacy was the weaker of two protections behind a clear 14th Amendment protection. Passing a law protecting abortion in 1976 is like passing a law protecting the right to Pray in your own home, or a law that forbids prosecutors from executing suspects during the arraignment. This is one of those things we really cannot justify blaming the Democrats for.

a bill some whacko proposed that has no chance of passing

A lot of the craziest shit in the lawbooks were things some whacko proposed "that has no chance of passing".

and would be struck down in 5 minutes on first amendment grounds of it did

Current SCOTUS precedent is that the First Amendment does not protect porn if it contains "obscenity". Specifically, any porn can be banned if it:

1. Makes people uneasy
2. Includes offensive sexual conduct - as decided by state law (?!?)
3. "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"

It's called the Miller Test

Notice the wording used in the proposed law. It's already been pre-considered to have a solid chance of surviving a SCOTUS appeal. And the current SCOTUS wouldn't dream of overriding Conservative jurisprudence.

pearl clutchers act like it’s the end of the world

Unfortunately, this is the type of anti-reactionary discussion that led to us being genuinely surprised when Roe v Wade got overturned. Clarence Thomas used the opportunity to signal that he would like to overturn Obergefell and Griswold as well. And he 100% has Barrett on his side and almost certainly has Kavanaugh. That means all he has to do is elbow Gorsuch and suck off Roberts and porn (and sex toys) could be illegal in some states, working towards a federal ban.

Here's guessing he gets all 3700 constituents to contribute $20/wk to him.

That would add up to $5M/yr. Prosperity Gospel for ya

...I said almost the same thing about the random state abortion bans before Dobbs happened.

Boy did I have mud on my face for that one.

Agreed. But it fucks with ambulences. Protestors are usually good about getting out of the way for real emergencies, but when road block-offs are things like "giant blocks of cement", there's no choice.

Exactly this. If your disruption can be LASER FOCUSED at your target, I think there's an argument for it. I'm not on board with PETA-level animal activism, but I can understand and respect why they'd throw a gallon of red paint on someone's fur coat. And if BLM protestors throw white paint all over police cars to protest how the law enforcement is "white-washed", I would get it too.

But I'm pro-BLM. I used to donate to BLM-related causes. I got that money from my minority-owned job, and the black VP who had an interesting history of anti-racism gave a little rant about "those idiots chaining themselves to cement on the highway" when a BLM protest involved blocking off 93N..

I'm sorry, but I think in many cases a road block does "just make you look bad". There was growing support for BLM in Massachusetts and it got popped like a ballon when those dumb kids blocked 93N.

Nobody was talking about how the cops dealing with the situation were one of the most racist police organizations outside of the Deep South. They were busy talking about how those dumb kids could be killed and the traffic they caused affected ambulences and some patient almost died.

off supply lines to financial districts or big corporations and put economic pressure on them

Again, using BLM as an example... Don't you want to have those corporations SUPPORTING the BLM movement? I mean, unless your protest is laser-focused on anti-capitalism, hurting businesses for no good reason just alienates the 99% of the population that isn't Tankie.

That same topic about "educating people how to protest" is "pick ONE thing you want to change, or your protest doesn't have a meaningful message". If you're protesting for the environment or protesting for women's or gay or trans or minority rights, you shouldn't be protesting against businesses. You should be recruiting them. I wanna walk into the office (after no traffic jam) and see someone having anonymously put up "Gay rights are human rights" posters everywhere. I want my place of employment to offer to match donations for these causes. Etc.