seadan83

The 14th amendment: "prohibits states from denying any person "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law""

The US constitution applies to all persons (people) inside of the USA regardless of citizenship. The amendment says PERSON, not CITIZEN.

Therefore it should not matter at all how that person got here, they are due the same rights and process as __anyone__ else on American soil. That is the 14th amendment of the constitution, further backed by multiple ultra-important and historical supreme court precedents that rights apply to ALL 'people' and not just 'citizens'.

> UK sent stuff to USSR

Yes, but that wasn't part of the "lend lease" program.

The quantity of materials sent from the UK to the USSR was significant. Just it was not part of the lend lease program. (Arguably this is something better, just direct aid without strings attached).

The quantities of what the UK gave to the USSR was a sacrifice of blood and treasure: "food and raw materials, roughly £30 billion in today’s money. This included 5,000 tanks and 7,000 aircraft, while public charitable donations provided approximately £5.3 million (roughly £490 million in today’s money) in medical stores...."

"Some of these supplies were purchased in the United States (US) by the UK for delivery directly to the USSR. Most British supplies were carried by sea to Northern Russia, docking at Archangel or Murmansk, by a series of Arctic convoys, which were subject to sustained German attacks from three dimensions from powerful German forces based in Northern Norway" [1]

> I heard that the USSR received $1 trillion worth of stuff in 2025 dollars from it WWII allies

Sounds plausible (I would hesitate to repeat it without seeing the data behind the numbers). I'm curious how the number breaks down as a relative amount.

[1] https://www.geostrategy.org.uk/britains-world/telling-the-tr...

> Well, First Amendment protects your rights to obscene speech too, so you just affirmed here the license terms are controlling, not First Amendment

Nonsense. Feel free to point out how my comments about just the first amendment is related to you equating that to licensing terms.

> which in all likelihood had most to do with business decisions as WSJ reports

I am not convinced. Please provide the WSJ report. Seems the FCC chair saying "easy way or hard way" was more salient.

To boot, Kimmel is back on the air. If there were substance to the abrupt firing for business reasons, or regulatory, Kimmel would not have been reinstated.

> just pointing out that the airwaves in question are much more restricted than general speech in the United States

I do agree. The restrictions are for obscene speech generally. It is significant when that is extended to political speech.

> United States and debates over what is allowed would not automatically escalate to a constitutional concern.

Indeed. Except in this case we have selective enforcement at the behest of the government for what the government does not like. It is exactly First Amendment territory.

The senate was a compromise to give small rural states unequal voting power compared to the more populist states.

The senate is explicitly created to give more power to minorities.

It is not orthogonal. The senate is EXACTLY the mechanism to ensure majoritarian rule is not at the expense of the minority.

The direct election vs not is not consequential. The consequential part is that states get two senators regardless of population.

Sure, but the context is America. It would have been helpful to make clear you are referring to other systems of slavery (for which i would still want to see data for).

Again, the resources I found in a quick search state about 5M slaves in Rome, and buying freedom was uncommon.

I think you're assuming that dichotomy. There was an observation that Trump supporters derided liberals for loving biden. The observation pointed out a false equivalence, "the other side is doing the same thing", we love Trump, so they must love their leader too.

Or, do you some sort of systematic evidence that evaluates the politics across all of bluesky in comparison to X? I don't think there is such evidence to know that bluesy is the polar opposite of Twitter.

Um, yes. Science is the best epistemology that humanity has discovered, best being as the most effective way to discover truth.

> I have yet to observe an activist practice objective thinking

It would be a sampling bias fallacy to draw conclusions based on your lack of observations.

Eg: "mountains, never seen them, they don't exist."

It is funny then for a geologist to be considered an activist when they say the mountains most certainly do exist.

Your first paragraph is unfounded. (Fwiw, The other two I found interesting. )

TACO tuesday?

It's worse than that. Demanding that the job creators and company growers be taxed or stay out. If a team is half H1Bs, it is not because there were Americans waiting for those jobs. These are irreplaceable people (if they could be replaced to not deal with H1B nightmares, companies would readily do so). So, the big irony is these people are job creators.

I think a bigger tax on small companies. I worked on one where the co-founder was an h1b. That company grew to employ about a thousand people. It's job creation.. that would not have happened when the company was young with this tax.

Meanwhile, big tech is sitting on piles of money. I think startups and scale ups will suffer a lot here.

Quick googling (could be wrong), thousands bought freedom, approx 4 million were enslaved. It would have been uncommon, ballpark 0.1% (which still seems high to me. The issue is a very large denominator)

Please explain the senate

> No, democracy is supposed to be two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner.

The senate is exactly the sheep. That the senate is now controlled by the sheep is also wild. The senate is what gives a person in Wyoming has 4x the voting power of someone in California. The senate was designed so that the less populous states (the sheep) don't get rolled. That the senate is majority minority is wild.

According to wikipedia for causes of vote in favor of brexit, one third said immigration.

The first amendment protects speech from government repercussion. So aside from the threat of government repercussion, yeah, I also totally don't see how this is a first amendment issue.

You're seemingly equating "obscenity" with "political criticism". I'll note that "political criticism" is offensive when you don't agree with it. The first amendment is exactly for that kind of offensive language.

Per "https://www.joerogan.com/" - Joe Rogan is "A standup comedian for over 30 years, Rogan’s seventh hour long comedy special Joe Rogan: Burn the Boats premiered live on Netflix on August 3, 2024. Rogan’s previous comedy specials include..."

Joe Rogan owns a comedy club in Austin as well. [1]

Joe Rogan is a pretty busy guy.. I would imagine his professional network amongst comedians was pretty large before he blew up as a podcaster. This is not only to say that Joe Rogan has multiple comedies, but is also very likely to be very influential amongst as well.

[1] https://www.comedyinyoureye.com/post/inside-the-comedy-club-...

Indeed, USSR casualties (including civilians) were off the charts. USSR, then China, then Germany and then Indonesia. [0] 'Russian blood' part is something of an understatement.

The lend lease part is not correct. Lend lease went mostly to UK (Google AI says about 60% of lend lease went to UK & the rest of lend lease was split between USSR & China. Take that with a grain of salt)

Not to be taken with a grant of salt, according to wikipedia: "Most tank units were Soviet-built models but about 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks (plus more than 5,000 British tanks) were used by the Red Army, eight percent of war-time production. " [1]

Also per wikipedia, USSR produced about 30k light tanks, 65k medium tanks (eg: t-34), and 13k heavy tanks. [2]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#/media...

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_producti...

> Yes they are. They are required to compete on a level playing field domestically and they still have to compete with marked up foreign goods.

Well, nu-uh! The "level" playing field concept is flawed here. Second, if everyone else becomes less competitive, that does not mean you are 'more competitive'. In a relative sense yes, but in an absolute sense no. A tariff is like a track meet where your competitors get whacked in the knees.

Now, I did say "tend" to be the wrong tool. If another country is actually flooding your market with cheap products (at a loss), in order to drive you out of business, tariffs make sense there. So, tariffs can be good against government subsidized industries. Tariffs countering other tariffs is simplistic, there are other countries in the world and global markets are large and well.. global.

Untrue because 'very often' should instead be stated as 'sometimes'?

Even if someone concedes "good point", it does not mean they frequently are debating in good faith. My view of the "very often in bad faith" is not being aware of a single position where he evolved. For example, not only saying "good point" but also "you're right."

Your retort, my comment, the comment I responded to all seem very predictable. Charlie Kirk's debates seem to be a Rorschach test.

Google AI says similar when asked "how often did Charlie Kirk debate in bad faith". The response lists lots of criticisms, but also that defenders point out that Kirk did at least engage in open debates (which is commendable even if not always done in good faith, it was some level of dialogue at least).

There are other sources that indicate there are quite a few of these bad faith examples (not just my words, not just my anecdata):

> "When we found out about his death, I wanted to know if I misjudged him, so I looked again on YouTube," she said. [1]

> "But I found the way he talks to people in a debate is not opening up any genuine discussion – especially when he debates with a woman. He tends to talk very fast and talk over them," she said. [1]

I've seen debates with Pastors, and others, where opinions do change - the tenor of those debates is all quite different. I don't see the same talking points constantly brought out even after someone thoroughly debunks one (from a previous debate).

[1] https://ca.news.yahoo.com/young-fans-critics-debate-charlie-...

Agree sad, but not because he was reaching across the intellectual divide. Kirk's debate responses/performances were very often bad faith. It seemed more performative than an actual debate - "owning the libs" and not an intellectual exercise. I really don't think there was a true willingness to listen to contrary viewpoints. For example, his positions did not evolve on most all positions, even when confronted with compelling arguments.

Gotta say, you sound hypercritical.

> "When it is successfully deployed against a target" is obviously doing incredible lifting here - how is it deployed, and how does The Guardian know whatever details it knows (and isn't sharing)?

This is not a research paper where the guardian needs to go into those details. Those details are known based on previous incidents/issues and general knowledge.[1]

> Kind of an odd take shoved into the middle of the article. Presumably this "Senior Research" [sic] had much more to say and this was the quote that The Guardian used. Regardless of for whom these exploits were "designed", obviously we know that power corrupts, and that this corrupting power can push liberal states into more totalitarian states (the article even cites Italy as an example of this).

Guardian articles are pretty short. They're not going to quote someone when all they are trying to get is that these are risky tools that invite abuse. So they interviewed an expert who could give a quote to that effect. Why is that shovelled in? This is very much "WHY" someone should care. It's a core tenant of journalism, don't just present what - but also some analysis for what it means.

> Again, unsourced and unexplained. What does "resisted" mean - is this describing the Biden executive order? Or prior executive procurement policies? Or laws? Clarity is very important here and is not forthcoming.

Yeah, are they going to link to 30 different articles and so forth? Here you go, a quick reference: [2]

> ...again, I want to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. This reads like it was a long interview and The Guardian probably cherry-picked parts of it.

Why does any of the quote sound cherry-picked? The context seems clear: other governments use this tool, if USG does too, then other governments know the capabilities. It's an intrinsic problem. Seems to be completely conveyed via the quotes, and that was presumably the reason to interview this additional person.

> The indication (well, insinuation really) is that the exploit takes control of the OS of the phone, not that it amounts to any new cryptographic vulnerability. So, how does that happen?

How this happens is WAY out of scope of the article. This is a general news article that is around 300 or so words. It's not a security bulletin or a tech focused article. Why do you expect these details? Can you give any other examples from say the LaTimes, BBC.co.uk, or any other similar news services?

> And it's important to point out (and I'll bet that Scott-Railton did, in parts of the interview that weren't used for the article), it's not only (perhaps not even primarily) a matter of personal safety from our devices, but an inevitable degradation of societal power structures into surveillance states that necessarily arises from this concentration of power.

This does seem implied. The quote "were designed for dictatorships, not democracies built on liberty and protection of individual rights" is really saying this, no? Like, it's saying exactly, this technology is a concern because it can be abused and is a tool for authoritarian countries and not democracies.

> The ongoing imperative is the construction and maintenance of an internet which does not recognize state authority and on which censorship and surveillance cannot be conducted via state fiat.

I agree with your premise here. In this case, the article that the USG is adopting these tools should be well alarming to you.

[1] https://citizenlab.ca/2025/06/first-forensic-confirmation-of...

[2] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/30/2023-06...

Experience helps to recognize intent sooner. That reduces cognitive load. Getting lost 5 levels deep seemingly never stops being a thing, not just you.

The "rules" for config are different. Code, test code, and config are different, their complexity scales in different ways of course.

By way of analogy for why the two configs are different, for example Two beaches are not the same because they both have very similar sand.

You really have two different configs.. You also have one set of configs. You didn't set up an application that also fetches some config that is already provided. It would be like having a test flag in both config and database, sane flag - two places.

Where config duplication goes bad is when repeatedly the same change is made across all N, local variations have to be reconciled each time and it is N sets of testing you need to do. Something like that in code is potentially more complex, more obviously a duplication of a module, just more likely to be a problem overall.

Indeed a trap. I'd say DRY is all about not duplicating logical components. Just because two pieces of code look similar, does not mean they need to be combined.

As an analogy, when writing a book, it's the difference of not repeating the opening plot of the story multiple times vs replacing every instance of the with a new symbol.

When demand is reduced, you lower prices. Rest of the world suddenly are buyers. Governments can throw subsidies at impacted sectors too to cover the price difference while supply chains adjust. With growing trade relations, economies of scale and transition costs become factors. The cost of trade with the new trade relationships become cheaper and so does the reluctance to change (for example with a 3 year production pipeline baked, you don't walk away easily).

Tariffs are protectionist, does not boost competitiveness. Tends to be the wrong tool, there are better.

Tax breaks, grants, physical infrastructure, creation of entire markets - those are better tools.

The issue with tariffs is non-competetive companies aren't required to become more competitive.

I mean consider it, a tariff is a tax on those buying a specific competitors goods. Even if tariffs were done surgically, still it seams like a tax benefit is a better tool

AFAIK the stats do show Europe passing the US in class mobility as of about 20 years ago. It is notable as Europe of course had low class mobility and the US just dominated class mobility.

AFAIK class mobility is measured by class at birth compared to adulthood (i believe as measured by net household wealth)

The pattern I see time & time again in software development: a small set of few and usually very talented senior developers build a software project and they build examples of how everything is done. Junior developers then extend those examples, eg: "add another column to this table." Juniors are just extending the existing patterns, seniors are the ones that create them.

This pattern I see play out time and time again. Senior builds the integration to various team services, then juniors tweak & mimic those to do more.

> let's say that a senior developer could produce N units of work per Y units of time.

So, it's more the case that senior developers are building full production assembly lines, that can then be replicated to do similar things relatively easily. The cost of the units of work are not at all equal.

How does this apply to AI? Good luck getting AI to do something novel, by definition it can't. OTOH, extending an existing pattern is trivial for a senior developer to do after they have built that pattern; juniors spend a lot of time at it cause they have to learn everything.

So, who is the AI going to replace? If the junior, then you have a senior developer using an AI to do something that is already trivial for them to do. No way AI is replacing the senior.. So who? Who is getting replaced by the AI and who is using it?