Rov_Scam
1d ago
There's evidently an issue where the home club expects a lot of away fans to show up for this particular game, and they don't want them dominating the home side of the stadium. I can understand why they don't want their stadium full of away fans, but it seems to me that warranting that you are a supporter of the team is one thing, but requiring proof before you enter is another. This isn't reasonable. I'm a long time fan of the Steelers, at least to the extent that I don't care about other teams, but I don't have any photos of me in Steelers gear. I own a ballcap I rarely wear, and a t-shirt that I do where but it's an obvious bootleg with the Grateful Dead skull and roses logo modified into a Steelers logo. I don't attend Steelers games or "events", unless you count watching games in a bar, and at that, it's not like people take pictures of my while I'm there. The only such photos I can think of are ones taken after the Penguins won the Stanley Cup, and that was in 2017. Hell, I went to Charlotte to watch Pitt in the ACC championship a few years ago (twice, actually), and I don't have any pictures from either trip. I don't know why they would expect their fans to have these pictures. It essentially means that buying the ticket isn't enough, and that there's an expectation that you buy their merchandise as well.
Rov_Scam
1d ago
Here's the relevant terms and conditions:
Home Match Tickets are for the use of supporters of the Club only. By applying for the Home Match Ticket and/ or using the same you hereby warrant and represent that you are a supporter of the Club and/or that you are not a supporter of the Visiting Club.
Rov_Scam
1d ago
It's pretty rare for Brits to call football soccer. Rarer still for them to be concerned about the availability of team gear in the states.
Rov_Scam
1d ago
There were. The one that got me was the French colonies. I'm guessing that they wouldn't count India, and that most educated people wouldn't guess India, but only because most people don't know about the colony at Pondicherry.
Rov_Scam
1d ago
Consider telling them that you're an American tourist and therefore cannot provide the requested photograph, but if the team is willing to send your family complimentary apparel and other merchandise you will gladly wear it and root for them. I have Photoshop and like to think that I'm fairly good at it, though who knows if it will be enough to fool anyone looking for it. DM me if interested. That being said, I think being straight with them would be better, up to the point that it might be worth making an international phone call to get it sorted out.
Rov_Scam
2d ago
This article feels like the Chinese equivalent of trying to evaluate the dating marketplace based on "First Dates from Hell" segments on Morning Zoo radio shows.
Rov_Scam
2d ago
I know who Mr. Beast is, in that I recognize the name, but I've never seen any of his content. And content should probably be in scare quotes, since I'm pretty sure that it's all unwatchable filler that goes nowhere.
Rov_Scam
2d ago
Because it's really hard to predict how the software is going to be used, and it's not something that can be reasoned out. If that were the case, software companies with full UI teams wouldn't still be responding to user suggestions 50 years into the industry's history. Watch some of Tantacrul's videos on music notation software. He's a software developer by trade and a composer by hobby, so he has tried pretty much every major program on the market, and his video on MuseScore a few years ago resulted in him becoming the head of the development team. Music notation software is particularly ripe for this kind of criticism because it's all notoriously difficult to use and people such as myself who occasionally dabble in music have tried pretty much all of the available programs in a desperate attempt to find something that isn't going to piss us off. Highlights from the comments:
Sibelius
I've been using Sibelius Version 1.4 for the past twenty years—really good, though I recently upgraded to pencil and paper!
Finale
I love how like 15% of this video is just figuring out how to change the font from Times New Roman.
Dorico
They can’t complain about the program if they can’t install it.
Muse Score
It looks like an insurance actuary's app. It looks like it's designed to be used by hundreds of gray-cubicle-bound 9-5 composers.
Watch the videos. They're long, but highly entertaining. And keep in mind that he's only scratching the surface with respect to the problems he describes, and they're all either deliberate design choices or the result of being bound by the limitations of the existing codebase. I don't think you can just get an LLM to figure this stuff out.
Rov_Scam
3d ago
Those kind of things were always actionable under common law tort theories, and most of the discourse around them doesn't even go that far. The problem is that regardless of legality, they're scummy things to do, and they've only seen a lot of media attention in an era where it's easier to do them. It's not like you could do this stuff in the 50s without consequence, it's just that actually being able to do it wasn't really an option.
Rov_Scam
3d ago
They're there because RIDC built an industrial park there and is specifically courting them. It's as simply as that. As for how it's shaped the neighborhood, I'd guess that it's contributed to the push for more of these luxury apartments that keep popping up, but that's about it. The CMU lab has been there since 1994 but the push for more tech along the river didn't start until well after Lawrenceville became trendy. Incidentally, I was in Lawrenceville for dinner last night and it didn't seem like tech culture was having much of an influence on the overall vibe compared with a few years ago, though that may change with time and be the impetus that pushed it from the "gentrifying" category into the "upper middle class" category. Traffic was bad in Lawrenceville long before it became touristy. The issue is that it's an unbroken commercial stretch that's two miles long with 16 traffic lights, narrow roads, street parking, no turning lanes, and a lot of pedestrians. The only place I can think of that's comparable is the South Side, and that isn't known for great traffic flow, either.
Rov_Scam
3d ago
For a while I assumed that the big AI companies would permit porn generation eventually. They might want to act high and mighty now, but a time would come when they needed to show revenue, public perception be damned. Unfortunately, I'm naive enough that my conception of pornography did not extend to the type that could be legally problematic. Back in January, a bipartisan group of 35 attorneys general published a letter to Elon Musk asking for assurances that the company was taking steps to protect against NCII and CSAM, though it's unclear if he ever responded. Last week, a class action suit was filed in the Northern District of California, alleging that xAI is responsible for producing nonconsensual nude images of three underage named plaintiffs. Yesterday, the Baltimore city attorney filed a lawsuit alleging violation of various city ordinances involving consumer protection.
It appears to me that these issues could probably be solvable. Disallowing generative editing of user-uploaded images seems like a no-brainer. The CSAM issue is a tougher nut to crack, but it seems like the NCII issue is what was getting everyone's attention, so if that goes away then I doubt that the existing safeguards against the latter would be found deficient. But the cat's out of the bag at this point; Elon fucked up and now he's under the scrutiny of people who have the power to make life miserable for him. I imagine the class action suit will settle, but it will take years, and Elon is hard-headed enough that he might decide to make a statement out of it. The plaintiff's attorney seems to have selected the worst possible place to file, as I don't imagine you're going to find a more tech industry-friendly jury pool anywhere outside of Northern California. The Baltimore case is on less solid ground, and the potential exposure is likely lower (I can't imagine it being more than a few thousand dollars per proven victim), so it may make more sense to fight that one, although all that will accomplish is proving that he didn't violate a specific Baltimore consumer protection ordinance.
Rov_Scam
3d ago
Rick Beato was on Lex Fridman's podcast recently and they were talking about how when YouTube first came out and nobody really knew what to use it for one of the thoughts was that it would allow people to distribute their own short films to the public. YouTube is now a mature platform and YouTuber is a job description, yet there is very little resembling traditional film making. I just don't think there's much of a market for it. From Super 8, to camcorders, to everyone having a decent video camera on their phone and access to free editing software, the process has become increasingly democratized over the past hundred years, yet making amateur movies is still a fringe pursuit, and at that it's mostly people who are pursuing careers in the industry.
Rov_Scam
4d ago
It's just an archaism that got handed down through the generations so much that it became a convention. Similar to "attorney at law".
Rov_Scam
4d ago
Do you have some evidence that one (or all) of them is the child of a foreign sovereign?
Rov_Scam
4d ago
First, I want to apologize for not responding to your comments from the other thread despite your requests. I was too busy overall and my Motte time was mostly dedicated to finishing up the next Pittsburgh installment, and by the time that was completed I kind of forgot. Second, I want to assure you that the comment about people acting in bad faith wasn't directed at you personally. I had in mind specifically a bill from the early years of the Obama administration that went nowhere and read:
(b) Definition.—Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is—
“(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
“(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
“(3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).”.
It's no surprise that these people, and nearly everyone else I've heard flogging for a more restrictive definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", take a dim view of immigration generally and support as many restrictions as possible. With that out of the way, I can move on to address your main argument about using Schooner Exchange as a framework. First, I think we can both agree that the purpose of a constitutional provision, as opposed to a law, regulation, enforcement policy, etc., is to take certain issues outside the realm of politics. In other words, we recognize that certain things should be beyond the temporary whims of the legislature, executive, or government agency, and only be changeable if there is broad consensus to do so.
That being said, let's look at the context of the 14th Amendment. There is broad consensus that the immediate purpose of the amendment was to guarantee citizenship to former slaves. The language itself, however, doesn't limit the scope of the clause to former slave, and this wasn't some oversight, since other parts of the amendment explicitly mention slavery, and the near-contemporaneous 13th and 15th Amendments also explicitly refer to slavery, so we can assume that the clause takes on a general scope. The framers would have understood that general scope to be in reference to the common law. I know you dismissed the common law, but it's important here. You don't have to go digging into old English court cases because as it was understood in America would have been in reference to Blackstone's Commentaries, which were written shortly before the Revolution. There may be court cases that are on point but they aren't terribly important here. For instance, you probably see plenty of personal injury lawyers advertising on television. The vast majority of there cases will involve negligence, which is a common law cause of action that (mostly) isn't codified. Each state has its own variations based on court rulings, but if you want to know what our "general understanding" of negligence is, you look at the Restatement of Torts. the Commentaries are basically a restatement of common law.
The reason Schooner Exchange is important here is because it is basically a restatement of 19th century American understanding of the common law insofar as it pertains to jurisdiction. In other words, this is the context through which the framers of the 14th Amendment would have understood it. Notable, the Schooner Exchange opinion does not mention slavery. Why? Because slavery was not recognized under the common law. British courts did issue rulings pertaining to slavery, and the whole area is a little fuzzy, but there was never any formal recognition of slavery as a status, and Blackstone himself officially disclaimed the idea that slavery could exist at common law. Slavery did exist in the colonies, but it was a creature of statute, formally recognized by colonial legislatures. What the 14th Amendment did was abolish statutory definitions of citizenship and reinstate the common law definition. And at common law, anyone born in United States territory, whether of citizen or alien parentage, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, subject to a few well-recognized exceptions.
"Illegal aliens" was not one of those exceptions. I use scare quotes because the concept did not exist in 1868. It would be more than a decade before congress passed any laws barring entry to any class of foreigners, and the common law makes no distinction between legal and illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are a creature of statute, and we can't modify the constitution simply by passing legislation to limit its scope. We can't deny citizenship to the children of illegal aliens any more than we can legislatively create a category of "illegal citizens" and deny citizenship to their children as well. To understand why we can't do this we only have to look at the history of the amendment itself: There was a legislatively created category of people who the court had previously decided weren't citizens, and we passed an amendment prohibiting us from doing that anymore. Taking your proposed framework at face value would mean that we could have denied citizenship to freed slaves by reading antebellum slave statutes and Supreme Court rulings as evidence that they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US at the time of their birth. Of course, such a reading would have completely obviated the amendment's purpose!
I want to make a final point about Indians that I didn't include as part of my main argument because, as you agree, Indians are weird. First, Schooner Exchange says nothing about Indians, because Indians don't exist at common law, but there is a broad body of evidence suggesting that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not view them as subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and this isn't particularly controversial. The US had been dealing with Indian issues for decades prior to 1868 and would continue dealing with them for decades thereafter. The important distinction here, though, is that Indian tribes were treated as somewhat sovereign entities but not entirely sovereign entities, and were subject to some degree of control by the United States government. You can bring up the Major Crimes Act, but you also have to consider how limited it was: Certain major Indian on Indian crimes can be tried in Federal Court. Indian tribes still have a degree of sovereignty, including their own court systems, and I doubt anyone arguing that illegal aliens or their children are not subject to US jurisdiction would be arguing that they are entitled to some special judicial treatment as a result. As long as illegal aliens have existed we have not treated them any differently wrt the court system than anyone else (subject to the well-recognized exceptions), and I don't hear anyone arguing that we should.
Rov_Scam
5d ago
The dumbest COVID conspiracy that I widely heard IRL was that Tom Wolf imposed the restrictions because he hated the bar and restaurant industry and wanted to kill it entirely. These same people said he needed to be voted out during the next election and were disappointed when I told them that he was already on his second term, confirming that they had no idea about state politics whatsoever.
I think that the "and" in the 14th Amendment, by imposing two conditions, makes it clear that one can be subject to US jurisdiction but outside of the United States. If the clause only referenced jurisdiction it would be a different matter. There are already people who aren't in the US by any definition of the term, but are nonetheless recognized as being subject to US jurisdiction. For instance, a man in Guatemala who enters into a business contract with a man in Texas might be subject to US jurisdiction even if he's never been to the US in his life.
More options
Context Copy link