Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Never been a better time to abolish the monarchy than now.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
But it still begs the question of why the slate has been dominated by women unless the people running the Hugos would argue that women are innately better at writing scifi, or if it's some form of restorative justice, just how long they want to keep it up.
I am a little confused by this sentence. Who do you mean by "the people running the Hugos?" As far as I'm aware the Hugos have always been a popularity contest. Nominees and winners decided by a vote of members of the World Science Fiction Convention. Would you accept a symmetrical argument? That years where men dominated the slate must have been due to the voters judgement that men were better at writing science fiction?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
How do you feel about the Catholic church? I'm confident Catholicism has resulted in more child sex abuse than any "Drag Kids" event. I think quite likely more than Hollywood! Or maybe the Boy Scouts would be a better comparison.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
No, but do you call those other groups groomers? Do you characterize their actions as grooming when it has resulted in (at least alleged) tens of thousands of kids being sexually abused?
My point is that the "groomer" label seems to be reserved, in political discourse, almost solely for LGBT people and it's use seems quite disconnected from the actual frequency of child sexual abuse.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Feel like that article was almost a bait-and-switch. I agree with the premise, that meta-discussions are often used as a way to derail object-level discussions but the "Not All X" examples, as you note, are not very good examples.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
I think you can cheat at chess if you have some outside entity feeding you moves. Especially in an online match I can imagine using some tool that analyzes the state of the board and tells you what to play. In an in-person match it seems harder. Unless you're, like, wearing an ear piece or actually manipulate your opponents pieces.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
You might be interested in reading about adversarial attacks on AI of various kinds. Vox has an article from 2019 detailing some of them. They range from the benign (fool an AI into classifying a banana as a toaster) to the deadly (make a Tesla drive into oncoming traffic). One thing I find fascinating about such attacks is that the attacks seem like they would almost never fool a human. In the banana->toaster example the attack is accomplished by adding a small colored patch to the image that in no way obscures the banana in the image. Similarly some other attacks function by adding visual noise that I find almost imperceptible. Really emphasizes how what we use to classify an object in an image and what an AI uses to classify an object in an image need not overlap, even when we agree about what is or isn't in the image.
Some new developments in Trump v. United States which is apparently the caption for the case in the Southern District of Florida where Trump sought (and received) the appointment of a special master to review certain documents the government seized during the execution of its warrant at Mar-a-Lago. According to Judge Cannon's order granting the request the special master is supposed to be reviewing the documents for three categories of information:
-
Personal items and documents.
-
Material subject to claims of attorney-client privilege.
-
Material subject to executive privilege.
The special master whom Judge Cannon appointed is District Court Judge Raymond Dearie who was one of Trump's suggested candidates. Based on some more recent filings Dearie has scheduled a status conference for today and circulated a proposed schedule for document review. I want to focus on Trump's reply to Dearie's proposed schedule. Most of the response focuses on the duration of the review. Dearie thinks it can be done by Oct 7th but Trump's team wants to use the full time contemplated by Cannon's order, ending at the end of November. I'm not going to talk about the scheduling dispute though, rather I think the most interesting part is the third to last paragraph of Trump's filing. It reads, in its entirety:
Similarly, the Draft Plan requires that the Plaintiff disclose specific information regarding declassification to the Court and to the Government. We respectfully submit that the time and place for affidavits or declarations would be in connection with a Rule 41 motion that specifically alleges declassification as a component of its argument for return of property. Otherwise, the Special Master process will have forced the Plaintiff to fully and specifically disclose a defense to the merits of any subsequent indictment without such a requirement being evident in the District Court's order.
This is an interesting paragraph. First, the implication that an inventory of what exactly was declassified would be appropriate in a situation where declassification was a reason to return implies that this is not such an action. Whatever Trump's basis that the classified docs should be returned, it is apparently not because they have been declassified. It's also understandable why Trump doesn't want to specify what he did or didn't declassify. If he says anything other than "I declassified all the documents" he's basically admitting to a crime. "Yes I did take classified documents with me when I left and I did refuse to return those documents to the government in response to a subpoena even though my representative lied and said we did." On the other hand, it's easy to see why Dearie wants the information. If the documents are declassified there's maybe an argument they should be returned as personal property but if they are still classified it's hard to see any angle but (3) applying.
This is where I run out of much to analyze but I'm wondering, how binding are any determinations Dearie makes about classification in other proceedings? My understanding is that if Trump came out and made claims about particular documents in this case he could then be estopped from asserting contrary claims about the same documents in another case, but I'm not sure how that works when the judge (or special master) makes the decision rather than the party.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
More developments in DeSantis' political stunt of sending some migrants to Martha's Vineyard.
If you didn't already know the migrants were not even in Florida when they got on the flight. The migrants started in San Antonio, Texas. The Bexar County Sheriff (which covers San Antonio) has announced a criminal investigation into the matter. They do not currently have the names of any suspects or particular statutes in mind that may have been violated but they have started an investigation. I'm not an expert on Texas law but it seems to me their law on unlawful restraint may be applicable. The law provides:
(1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person. Restraint is "without consent" if it is accomplished by:
(A) force, intimidation, or deception;
...
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.
Did DeSantis' agents move a person from one place to another by deception such that the persons so moved did not consent? Seems like it to me! If any of the people so moved were children under the age of 17 the offense is a state jail felony otherwise it is a Class A misdemeanor.
On the civil front some of those same migrants have filed a class action lawsuit against DeSantis (maybe flying them to the island full of rich lawyers was unwise.) There are 12 listed causes of action in the complaint (starting on page 23 in the pdf). These range from violations of constitutional rights (since this was ostensibly done under color of law, using state government funds) to regular torts like false imprisonment, fraud, and infliction of emotional distress (intentional and negligent).
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
The simple version is that wherever the constitution uses the phrase "people" or "person" (which is most places) it applies to all people physically in the territory of the United States of America. This goes all the way back to 1896 and Wong Win v. United States.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
I mean, I think they have a belief that a crime was committed, just not an awareness of exactly what statute it violated.
Imagine the police find a dead body. They probably form a belief that a crime has been committed but exactly what statute will be applicable can depend on as-yet-unknown factors (like the perpetrators state of mind). I do not think the police in such a case are "fully into 'I'll find you the crime' territory."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but Desantis's campaign coordinator said they were all given brochures of Massachusetts and info on Martha's Vineyard. Seems like if that's true then your points are completely moot. Hard to argue that you tricked somebody if you gave them a pamphlet of their destination in advance.
What if the pamphlet contained information that was false?
From the complaint:
On information and belief, the brochure was manufactured by Defendants. The brochure echoed the type of false representation that had been given orally, including statements such as: “During the first 90 days after a refugee’s arrival in Massachusetts, resettlement agencies provide basic needs support including...assistance with housing...furnishings, food, and other basic necessities...clothing, and transportation to job interviews and job training...assistance in applying for Social Security cards...registering children for school....” The brochure had a separate section entitled “Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA),” which stated: “Provides up to 8 months of cash assistance for income-eligible refugees without dependent children, who reside in Massachusetts.” It had other sections that described “targeted services for . . . employment.”
On information and belief, this brochure was not prepared by the Massachusetts Office for Refugees and Immigrants, or any other Massachusetts agency or immigration services organization.
On information and belief, Defendants manufactured the official-looking brochure— lifting language from the Massachusetts Refugee Resettlement Program, a governmental program with highly specific eligibility requirements for which no members of the putative class are eligible—in order to buttress their false oral representations to Plaintiffs in furtherance of the conspiracy described throughout this complaint.
The complaint also alleges that the migrants were told they were going to Boston and only learned they were going to Martha's Vineyard after boarding the plane:
Before the flight, class members were told they were heading to Boston, Massachusetts or Washington, D.C. But right before landing, they were informed they were in fact going to Martha’s Vineyard, an isolated Massachusetts island just south of Cape Cod, reachable only by plane or boat.
So DeSantis' agents lied to the migrants about where they were going and what would be available to them when they got to their destination. The migrants relied on these false representations for their "consent" to go.
"Not only that, they all signed consent forms to go. And then the vendor that is doing this for Florida provided them with a packet that had a map of Martha's Vineyard," said DeSantis.
"It had the numbers for different services on Martha's Vineyard. And then it had numbers for the overall agencies in Massachusetts that handle things involving immigration and refugees. So it was clearly voluntary."
The fact of signing a consent inform is irrelevant if the reason you signed is because someone deceived you about what you were consenting to. Similarly the fact that the packet had a map or certain phone numbers does not establish that their consent to being transported was not based on lies.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
The Massachusetts program doesn't apply to all asylum seekers though, only those that have been granted refugee status by the Department of Homeland Security. If I give you information about a real government program, which I know does not apply to you, but I present the information to you as if it does, for the purpose of inducing you to take some action, is that fraud? It sounds like it to me!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Whose rights?
How about the constitutional rights of people on US soil to not be arbitrarily seized and transported by agents of the state? The asylum seekers themselves have rights, which are the ones that were violated.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Fraudulently induced to take a free plane ride to a rich city. Which, can still be a tort. Defrauding someone to travel somewhere is still a tort even if the place you're defrauded to go is really nice.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
What if I told you the brochures were only received after they had already boarded the flight?
Specifically, while on the plane, right before landing in Martha’s Vineyard, Defendants provided the individual Plaintiffs each with a shiny, red folder that included other official-looking materials, including: a brochure entitled “Massachusetts Refugee Benefits” and instructions for how to change an address with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a federal agency which oversees immigration, including USCIS Form AR-11, “Alien’s Change of Address Card.”
Here's what the order of events wasn't: DeSantis' agents gave the group of people physical documents about where they would be going and what services would be available when they got there and made sure this group of people understood what was in such documents.
Here's what did happen: DeSantis' agents made verbal promises to people about where they would be going (potentially giving different people different locations) and about what would be available when they got there. Then, after the people were on a plane and at their destination, gave them inaccurate information about where they were and what services would be available.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
What do you think is required for you to be "seized" within the meaning of the fourth amendment? From the complaint:
Particularly after the individual Plaintiffs had boarded the airplanes and were in mid-air, Plaintiffs were not free to leave, and were induced into that condition through false promises and misrepresentations. This constitutes a governmental termination of Plaintiffs’ freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
For a non-resident alien concerning a search that happened outside the country, not denying the fourth amendment generally applies to non-citizens in the US.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Been a hell of a day in Trump world for legal developments.
Yesterday we discussed some aspects of the case in progress in the Southern District of Florida where Trump is seeking to get some of the documents back from the government that were seized in the Mar-a-Lago raid. While proceedings have been in progress there the United States filed an interlocutory appeal to the 11th Circuit. They specifically wanted a stay of the portion of Judge Cannon's order that enjoined them from using the 100-ish documents with classification markings in any criminal investigation. Today the 11th Circuit granted the stay requested by the United States. Frankly I think the logic in the Court's order goes farther and would probably stay all of Judge Cannon's ruling but the United States only asked for those documents with classification markings and so that's what they got. Trump could appeal this to the Supreme Court or (possibly?) the full 11th Circuit but I doubt either would grant relief.
In other news, New York Attorney General Letitia James has filed a 200-some page civil complaint detailing extensive fraud perpetrated by Trump, his family members, businesses, and agents. Over 100 pages of the complaint (pages 33 to 154 in the pdf) are dedicated to detailing in substantial detail how they committed fraud in the course of representing the value of various assets they owned. Another 40 or so pages details how they used these fraudulent valuations to secure loans and insurance for the properties in question. The relief requested is quite extensive. It includes an approximately $250million disgorgement penalty, a ban on certain Trump organization officers from serving in a financial director capacity for any New York company and a ban on the Trumps themselves serving as a director or officer for any New York corporation.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
I don't think the answer to that question is known yet. The NYAG investigation is different and has been going on for years. Apparently some of the documents the government retrieved had Formerly Restricted Data markings which means:
information which has been removed from the Restricted Data category after the DOE and the DOD have jointly determined that the information relates primarily to the military utilization of atomic weapons and can be adequately safeguarded as National Security Information in the United States. Such data may not be given to any other nation except under specially approved agreements and with the authorization of DOE. FRD is identified and handled as Restricted Data when sent outside the United States.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
I mean, just to take the most straightforward fraud he committed, he deliberately lied about the size of his triplex apartment, inflating its square footage by 3x. Trump claimed it was over 30k square feet (and valued it accordingly) when it was only 11k square feet. Between 2011 and 2012 the reported value of the apartment increased from $80M to $180M due to the fraudulent square footage reports. Then, after Forbes wrote an article about Trump lying about the apartment's size, the valuation dropped to accord with its actual square footage. Between 2016 and 2017 Trump's reported valuation of the apartment dropped from $327M to $116M. Is it being "aggressive" on a valuation to lie about the square footage of the asset being valued by 3x?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
I think it's, frankly, kind of dumb. There are plenty of trans people whom I know of who have families (in the sense of a spouse, children, and relatives). The idea that trans people, or people who support trans rights, are opposed to the idea of "family" seems straightforwardly false. Indeed, a large concern among trans people (I'm given to believe) is how their family will react to their coming out. Not quite the concerns of someone opposed to the idea of a family! Similarly I know of plenty of trans people who conceive themselves as "woman" or "man", as "husband" or "wife" and have no issue with cis people identifying similarly.
On the religious front, there are christian denominations that are welcoming to trans people. Almost certainly there are trans people who identify as much with "Christian" or "Catholic" as you would. I'm confident this holds for national identity as well, though I don't have citations to hand.
I think it's a pretty standard speech blaming minorities in a society for its perceived decay regardless of the actual facts.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
It depends on what action the mayor would actually take. Writing a letter about how a business isn't welcome in the town? Probably fine. Denying them a permit or otherwise taking some adverse action under color of law? Probably a 1st amendment violation if the basis is their speech.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
Maybe I'm confused but I don't find any support in the article for doing away with the convention of having a scientific genus-species naming schema for distinct species. Rather, the article points out a couple of species that are unfortunately named and suggests changing the names of those species specifically as well as perhaps refraining from naming future species after celebrities or other famous people.
I think there were a lot of factors. Most of the rest of this comment is going to discuss first-wave feminism because I think the conditions there are more legible.
On the economic side, before we can have women doing (outside the home, waged) work the economy needs to have a demand for women's labor and women need to have the capacity and desire to engage in that labor. Other comments have noted the increased mechanization of labor as a factor in the increase of demand for women's work. Decreasing the capacity gap between men and women makes them more interchangeable as workers. On the capacity side, the rise of labor saving devices in the home and public schooling gave women the capacity do engage in this work. The primary tasks that women spent most of their time doing were substantially reduced, freeing them up to use the time on other tasks. This gives us an explanation for how women could start participating more in work outside the home. Why did they want to? For this I think we have to turn to social factors.
On the social side, I suspect women wanted an income for the same reasons anyone wants one. Existing in our society requires money. The more money you have the more in control you are of your own life. Women probably wanted to engage in waged work to be more independent, autonomous, and in control of their own lives. There is no shortage of contemporary stories of women ending up in awful relationships due to lacking much by way of alternatives.
Another factor here, I suspect, is status. Our communities, both local and global, award status almost entirely on individuals who do work outside the home (then and now). If you are scientist you can get international recognition in the form of the Nobel Prize or various other science prizes. If you're a rich philanthropist your name can be a watchword for the arts, sciences, and all kind of international causes. By contrast if you're a home maker what kind of recognition or acclaim can you acquire? Sure people talk a lot about the importance of being a good wife and keeping a good home but where is the broader recognition of individuals? It's entirely absent. Women (and only women) are supposed to be satisfied with the status of merely being a good housewife to her husband while it's fine for him to seek international acclaim by one avenue or another.
More options
Context Copy link