caseysoftware

From the many responses on this thread, it appears that many either don't want a defintion of "pro-American" or "anti-American" or "an American Ideal" but these are core to your point.

How would you define each?

Even more fun, in the lead up to Greece joining the EU, they had to get their government pay under control so they were given monthly caps on what they could pay people. No problem, they created a 13th month.

* As detailed in Michael Lewis' Boomerang: https://amzn.to/4cXJnjE - He's the same guy who wrote The Big Short and Moneyball

But unfortunately, I may be wrong and bought into an urban legend/bit of propoganda:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...

I was fine with the mindset but never expected to get those questions in an interview, as it'd be illegal in the States.

- Americans are usually willing to skirt the rules and figure it out later. This comes with risk but is ideal when you're early stage, low stakes, and you couldn't follow the rules anyway.

- Europeans absolutely want to do it by the book and will be shocked if you suggest otherwise. Being process oriented is great for high stakes industries where lives and safety are on the line but destroys startups, likely slowing or even killing innovation.

There is no floor to the level of "petty" that can happen here: the UK - granted, not the EU - goes after individuals who don't pay their TV license and determine the who by triangulating unlicensed TVs via radio trucks and inspectors looking in your windows.

For infant mortality specifically, in the US we count every baby with a sign of life, regardless of the age. In many developed countries, they simply don't count too premature (under 22 weeks or 500 grams, iirc) and therefore don't consider them in the metrics. It makes for an apples to oranges comparison.

You're right on "preventable and treatable deaths" with heart disease and diabetes being the biggest contributors. The question for that comes down to "is that a result of systemic issues or individual choices?" because we can do lots about one of those.

By that reasoning, all PG-13 and R rated movies are "banned" just because your elementary school library doesn't carry them. Absurd, huh?

"10000s of people" can create new definitions of words as they choose, just don't be surprised when educated people think they're fools.

> "any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished."

Though this is a fascinating definition.. anytime, anywhere says "no thanks" to carrying a book outside of purely budgetary or physical space limits, it is now a "ban".

The more fascinating question would be discovering the boundary of what PEN, et al consider a "good ban" because I bet we could come up with a few.

In the name of literacy, we need to use words properly.

A quick check here in the States showed all of them available on Amazon for under $25 each.

I suspect this is important for two reasons..

First, because yes, it's magnitudes cheaper if you don't have to build and install the infrastructure.

Second, because now you're no longer dependent on your "local provider" which is likely to expect and deal in bribes, share info with local leaders, and generally be a potential risk to everything you want to do.

Are you speaking of Austin proper or Round Rock, West Lake, Cedar Park, or similar?

In the US, the public school system can barely teach basic reading and math. And the teachers don't appear to understand 2nd or 3rd order thinking themselves so therefore are unlikely to be able to teach it.

Teaching systems thinking may be an effective solution but it needs an effective delivery system to test it.

> The EAR definition of “export” extends beyond the transportation of physical goods outside the U.S.

> A “Deemed export” is the release of technology or source code to a foreign national in the U.S. The release is “deemed” to be an export to the last permanent residence status/citizenship of the foreign national. This can occur through demonstration, oral briefing, site visit, or through transmission of non-public data.

Ref: https://exportcontrol.lbl.gov/training/export-control-overvi...

> "I think just the fact that it was the first thing on offer that wasn't the thing they were already using."

Instead of just assuming things - aka making things up - you could check.

For the Declaration, Articles, and later the Constitution specifically, much of the Founder Father's reasoning and conclusions were well-documented in public via published letters, essays, and speeches at the time. No ouija board necessary.

I'm 100% onboard with transparency and auditablility are table stakes and any methodology that doesn't address those should be disqualified.

My question was: what's the argument in favor of using a proprietary electronic system?

There have been legit complaints about closed sourced voting systems for ~20 years and DEFCON has done a "Voting Village" for ~10 years demonstrating numerous issues, some of which were not addressed by the next elections. Transparency doesn't appear better either.

Is it speed to tally? Cost? Easier to screw with results?

Why not?

Started on one side of the engine framing, all the way across, inside through the body then around the round section holding the bottom gun turret, then along the front bottom edge, back into the body and around the top round section of the gun turret, back into the body into the bridge and across the ceiling ending there.

The LED string itself had adhesive backing, so I'd put it in place, remove a section of the adhesive cover, attach it, then do another section. It was probably 3-6" at a time, so not fast or easy. I had to take off a bunch of the ship panels - super easy - to get at some of the portions. My goal was that you couldn't see the LEDs directly from most viewing angles and was mostly successful

The LED string was ~$60 and it was a silly amount of work but I have it sitting over my left shoulder during conference calls and people ask about it constantly so it was fun.

Other pics: https://x.com/CaseySoftware/status/1757069749501018411

Edit: Just realized you can see the string here: https://x.com/CaseySoftware/status/1980269018511794422

And yes, for these sorts of sets, you put them on display. I added LEDs to mine:

https://x.com/CaseySoftware/status/1766667069003645362

Again, I encourage you to read Patrick's post, specifically the section titled "July 2021: The CTT coalition attempts non-partisan interdiction of Trump PAC fundraising" where it describes their direct involvement against a single, specific candidate's PAC.

You could make the claim "well, technically he wasn't a candidate at that time" but considering the PAC was a registered FEC entity raising money for campaign rallies, that argument is weak at best and absurd in reality.

But the DOJ wouldn't touch those charges though as they're civil (IRS under Treasury) and the criminal charges could be fatal to the org by themselves.

Though, regardless of the criminal outcome, if the facts in the indictment are proven, I'd wager the IRS' case is proven implicitly which could also be fatal.

In the post, Patrick demonstrates that the SPLC cofounded and led Change the Terms (CTT) then goes on to demonstrate CTT targeted a specific political candidate's fundraising. The first is fine, the second is illegal.

Check out the section titled "July 2021: The CTT coalition attempts non-partisan interdiction of Trump PAC fundraising" for specific quotes and even a picture of a mobile billboard they funded.

That is neither "ideologies" nor "party definitions"

"Private actors" is doing quite a bit of work here.

For individuals working in their personal capacity, you're mostly correct. The rules change for certain jobs.

BUT that's not the situation here. In this case, we have the SPLC - a registered 501(c)(3) - that appears to have worked to censor political adversaries. And the law specifically bars that, making it illegal.

> Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Ref: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

Unless Patrick is wrong. The end of his post asks for comment from the relevant organizations so they could easily address this one.