gattsuru
2d ago
Isopropyl alcohol's worth a shot first, before trying to use primer. Beyond that, depends a lot on the plastic and coating; most bicycle helmets are ABS that I'd expect it would bind fine, perhaps benefiting from a bit of heat. Higher-end ones that are using carbonfiber, or scratch-resistant polycarbonate, I'd expect you'd want the primer.
The higher ends of gorilla tape can handle those cases if you don't want to deal with (or can't get, thank you California) the primers, but I haven't gotten any experience with how weatherproof it gets.
gattsuru
2d ago
VHB is ridiculously strong when used on properly prepared surfaces; I've bent 1/8th inch aluminum plate trying to remove two stuck together with three 8-inch strips of the stuff without solvents. The trick is figuring out what 'properly prepared' means -- 90% of the time just dunking in simple green and rinsing with water works, but heavily polished or painted and almost all rubberized materials can benefit a lot from primer, and I'd expect helmets will fall into this domain.
Most other double-sided tape is either garbage (carpet tape) or won't last very long under exposure (basically every foam mounting tape).
Rivets are a great option in most situations you can make them fit, but alignment can be a pain without kliecos. I don't recommend staples. Epoxy is a mess, but it's really strong and there exist mixtures that will secure to most everything, at the cost of never coming off period. For obvious reasons I'd keep all three but especially the staples away from helmet pieces.
The other constraint to keep in mind is what you're sticking in place; it doesn't help to just have adhesive and the PCB strip well-secured and the LEDs flopping in the wind. Those sleeves have an advantage here, though even the floppy ones might have too large a minimum bend radius. Expect to mix-and-match.
gattsuru
2d ago
Tbf, the official statement recognizes ChatGPT as generative AI, and just tries to distinguish its use for review or concatenation, as distinct from creating material, or specifically that "We have also not utilized an LLM in any other aspect of our program or convention."
Tbf to Amadan, the use of 'generative AI' as a description of use case rather than of design is a pretty common one from anti-AI artist and writers.
gattsuru
2d ago
This gets complicated:
There is data out there, but it's pretty much trash quality. PornHub Insights (cw: no explicit images, but still a pornhub link) has some numbers, but they're filled with selection effect (who uses PH) after selection effect (who uses PH in non-incognito mode while pegging as a woman to google analytics?).
But there's clearly a sizable raw number, given the existence (and indeed prevalance) of fem-gaze-focused M/M in fandom and especially fanfiction spaces.
But a lot of women like the idea of gay or bi men, but don't actually want a bi guy in a relationship, either. I have absolutely met fujoshi that get the ick from guys who bottom, there's absolutely an expectation that bisexuals will be driven to cheat or are secretly gay and looking for a beard, concerns about disease or not-condoned infidelity, so on.
But that doesn't prevent them from liking it as an idea, or a comic, or whatever, and there's indeed a pretty wide variety of artists and especially writers that focus on that demographic.
And there are people for whom it's clearly a pretty strong kink.
-
Vanilla survival. You're placed into a random location, under serious and often annoying constraints, such that Things Will Suck if you don't change them. That's not just the normal combat-progression stuff, although the difference between stone tools and enchanted diamond ones are pretty vast too. Traveling too far taking too long? Build a highway through hell or tame a horse or breed a mule, or get a hangglider ('elytra') and be able to cover in seconds what could previously take ten minutes. Creepers blow up your front door (again)? Build a guard post, or tame an ocelot to scare them off. Sick of running out of food? Build a scenic farm and start raising animals.
-
Creatives. Yes, the graphics are dated and it's nothing like equivalent to a true modeling software, but you can build a lot with it. More importantly, if you're struggling to make something in Creative Mode, it's not likely to be because the controls are fighting you, unlike something like Blender.
-
Completionism. Collect some amount of every block, get to every dimension and beat the Ender Dragon, have a fully functional (and safe) village, get all the achievements, yada yada.
-
'Technical' minecraft play. You know those stories where someone get sucked into a world with bizarre rules and has to find ways to exploit them? Minecraft is one of those things, and even in the modern day a lot of it's still something to be discovered or shared for most kids, rather than Just Look At GameFAQs. In vanilla, this can range from iron or cactus farming to breaking bedrock to RS-latchs and sorting systems to self-driving mining machines. (I haven't seen the movie, but this is one of the reasons I don't think the thread-writer is really engaged with the game: the bucket nun-chunks thing from the trailers is absolutely the sort of things that minecraft players mentor each other with.)
-
In modded minecraft, the above, but more so. Mods like Create or Botania have dozens of major puzzles built into their basic play, and hundreds or thousands if you're trying to go after specific uses. Or you can go the full GregTech-focused modpack if you want. Some of these might have only a few hundred active players, or you can make challenges that literally no one has ever tried. (HexCasting with dolphin memory? Using Spectrum and NeepMeat as your sole item transportation mods in a factory-focused pack like MI:Foundation? GFL.)
-
Survival multiplayer, aka social play. These tend to be some of the most popular and funniest to watch, but a lot of people just enjoy goofing off (or dying horribly) with friends. HyPixel is the degenerate (ie, gotcha game) case, but the ideal case has a variety of people finding different things that they enjoy doing, and then having them work with each other on that.
-
Guided challenges. Popularized by JadedCats Agrarian Skies in the 1.6 era, modded games can include questbooks or other breadcrumbs with specific challenges to complete, usually starting with basic survival and going onto things like automating production of million meals or building a single piece of the forbidden clay. Blightfall is probably the most whole-heartedly designed approach down to a fully customized world, but Create: Above and Beyond, the Material Energy series, SevTech, Manufactio, Crash Landing, and Cottage Witch are all great options for different types of play. (GregTech:NewHorizons is the magnum opus in a... different sense.)
gattsuru
2d ago
Minecraft alpha first got mainstream attention in September 2010, so it'd more of a formative teenager experience for people born in the mid-to-late 1990s at earliest. There's older folk who got into it early, myself included, but in your age it'd be either competing with late college or early career stuff. And there's been regular resurgences -- 2013-2016 with real mainstreaming of both modded and multiplayer streamers for example -- so it's not really a single generational thing.
There’s a lot of people, including people who made their schtick about Violence Always Being Wrong, that have at least had to pointedly say that murder and slurs aren’t equivalent in the abstract, categorizing both as race war, while having nothing to say about this case specifically
gattsuru
6d ago
You already knew it would work before asking chatgpt, and knew what you wanted to do. How much value add did asking it actually provide? Did any of the problems that it predicted actually happen?
The specific series of events here was that I'd had some rough familiarity with ECM in general from the ctrlPew world, saw this video, tried to isolate the rough theory, and was curious whether it was possible to expand to cutting through thin metal with fine detail, asked the LLM those questions, sanity checked the numbers for any massive math or chemistry errors, then asked a chemist I knew regarding safety concerns. I had never tried it before, nor have I found any documentation of this specific approach beyond etching layouts that warned about leaving the process so long that inserts fell out (and shorted). After I ran it, I found a few other similar attempts, albeit still not entirely overlapping.
There were a few things it provided that I didn't think of or read from what I could find. Some of those would have been obvious to a human with machining background -- flow rate of fluid at higher cutting speeds are a common thing with air-blast or coolant flooding in traditional CNC, and the theory behind the pump assist here is related to that -- but others were not. I did not know a Faraday's Law could be applied to this case, and specifically having 'material removal rate' rather than any synonym helped me track it down to confirm rather than get a half-dozen links about inductance.
Conversely, you're right that there are things it definitely neglected to say. Getting any paint or adhesive to stick to nearly any common type of aluminum without a lot of prep and elbow grease is a massive issue that both is a common fault in other environments like aviation or building work, and also ignored by a lot of novices; the transfer paper for getting fine detail vinyl from backing to workpiece was a pain in the dick.
I think you already fucked up. masks are more of a thing for electro etching. Not really the correct concept for ECM, but slopgpt doesn't point it out.
ECM isn't really the right tool at all for this job; it's just a tool I had relatively available, and mask vs paint vs tools specialized for the work piece is part of that. Yes, a process like [PCM](https://youtube.com/watch?v=bR9EN3kUlfg] would near-certainly have better and faster results, especially at scale, but I don't exactly want to be messing with high-pressure ferric chloride, either. The question is whether minimizing surface area and using readily-produced masks could work at all in environments where creating a form or to-purpose tool was not practical (in this case, very bad detail work), for any function at all, rather than whether it was the right way to go about it. That's why it was a process with very little documentation available, and worth asking either an theory-focused expert or doing this sort of search.
There's a fair criticism along it failing to XY problem me, but in this case I was genuinely interested in the method as much as the end result.
What's unique about it? How is it different from "normal?" What specialize electrolytes? Is it really widely available? Is chatgpt assuming you can just sprinkle some table salt in the water? Does it reduce operational costs? Is electrolyte a major operational cost? How much does it cost?
Commercial ECM dielectric tends to be pretty pricey anywhere I could find willing to ship to a residential area, and worse, only available in fairly large quantities that vastly exceed my use case. It makes sense for commercial ECM machinery, since it can be filtered and reused and you need volume but don't replace it much, but a lot of what the literature points at it performing better at wasn't practical for small-scale operations without specialized tools. I haven't been able to find what typical costs for conventional ECM were, but for my use case it would have vastly exceeding the rest of the costs by an order of magnitude (which was a Harbor Freight pump, paint and vinyl, a few drop shipment blanks, and an old power supply that had been on the bench for a while), and probably cost more than getting it made by a local CNC mill company. Mixing my own to replicate commercial electrolytic might have been possible at a reasonable cost (literature suggests sodium hydroxide and sodium nitrate or potassium nitrate with a bunch of additives?), but in turn would probably have gotten me put on a list.
Table salt worked, though I did measure by mass, mixed for a long period under mild heat, and passed through a coffee paper filter to exclude large granules, and the LLM did not mention that. Dunno if it was necessary. I've also seen ethanol or polyethylene glycol recommended as additives (presumably by humans).
says that 4000 series aluminum is prone to cracking during welding, not during machining.
It probably depends on the specific material, but 4032 is pretty famously hard to machine, and it was the material I used here (no, I have no idea what thin plate 4032 was doing in a drop shipment). I'd tried high speed milling this stuff previously, but even with an 0-flute and tiny depth of cut it was extremely prone to gumming up the cutter in mere inches, and even when dialed in would split and crack at corners, especially sharp inside angles.
Voltage isn't the factor that matters when talking about excessive material removal.
I tried 12, 24, and 72 volt, and localized buildup was much worse at higher voltage. Voltage may not control removal, but it did seem to control how quickly material to remove popped up.
The silicon should be alloyed into the metal at a molecular level, not embedded as silicon grit or whatever.
I don't have the tools to analyze this one, but finish was Not Great Bob in 4032 or 4045, especially on large flat plates, and whatever it was that did precipitate was much harder and less prone to clearing without blasting the area with fluid than with 6061.
Totally false and retarded.
Yeah, that's one of the more serious errors; 4000-series might not be the most corrosion-resistant aluminum alloy, but the 5% or higher-silicon ones are pretty high up there.
Slopgpt just assumed this is a DIY process. What if we're talking about doing a commercial process with this setup?
I think that the correct answer would to question wtf we were doing. There are few, if any, arguments for running this approach at scale or commercially.
pH just appeared out of nowhere with no mention of it before at all.
At least some of the literature (eg here) suggests controlling pH and especially localized pH weirdness is a valuable thing for the normal ECM processes. Didn't seem to matter here, and it definitely isn't clear about why, so point.
Sounds wrong
The acrylic paint and acetone, or the vinyl pull? Unless it's had a couple weeks to cure acetone sloughed the paint right off. Vinyl was messier, with large surfaces of the cricut material falling off and tiny ones turning into a million flakes.
I don't believe acetone affects aluminum at all.
There are some alloys that you don't want to mix, with 2000-series being the worst, but yeah, 4000-series usually won't care. I did actually have problems with nail polish remover causing a gray mottled texture, but I think that was just contamination and it buffed out.
gattsuru
7d ago
Just try and give me a single example of LLM output that's remotely comparable to quality human work.
Hm... this was an attempt, and there's a few minor gaps that I spotted even with my weak knowledge of the field, and the output has demonstratably worked, but it would be interesting to see a skeptical eye analyzing it.
gattsuru
7d ago
I don't know of any previous account names for TAP except Ben__Garrison. Haven't done any serious use time analysis, but would be pretty surprised if TAP was TUOC just from the writing style.
I use the Vox crowd because TAP regularly linked the Yglesias/Hanania/deBoer set here, and if any of them were supposedly central examples of the sort of moderation and introspection TAP claims exists, Yglesias and KelseyTUOC would be it. And they're not, clearly. No one is.
(Also, if I start complaining about the ways Hanania or deBoer are two-faced liars, we're going to be here all week. I'm working on an effortpost trying to draw a thread between the ATF v. SSA en banc and the Maine District 90 stuff, and I find that a lot more interesting and meaningful than 'guy compares his debate opponents to people shitting on a plate', whether that's in the literal sense for TAP or the figurative sense for Hanania).
I think KelseyTUOC just made her name less psuedoanon when she joined Vox.
gattsuru
8d ago
I'd think claims made without evidence can be dismissed without them, too, but okay, then:
-
Trivially, no, the Democratic party did not have some notable period of introspection where new ideas were more accepted or old ones reviewed. The few who actually tried were beaten down far faster than even the most anti-Trump parts of the right ever were; most just made mouth noises, and didn't even do that consistently. TheAntipopulist will not be updating his priors when his specific examples of "leftist"s changing their position on something turns out to just be them "suggesting it is bad to increase the salience of immigration" (aka, trying to massage media focus).
-
Trivially, no, the Left did not own up to screwing up over Biden's age. Alex Thompson wrote a book about it... with Jake Tapper and the summary he presented was that "Every White House is capable of deception", not "maybe I shouldn't have called everyone who had eyes a conspiracy theorist". Jen Psaki has her own show, and it's not titled "You Fucked Up, You Trusted Me". KelseyTUOC proposed expelling from the Democratic party everyone involved in concealing Biden's decline... while highlighting Yglesias as a great example of the New Democrats, who happened to be one of those people doing exactly that. People owned up to Biden (and Harris) losing, and that only to the extent that they're literally this next week getting feted. No one's taking responsibility; they're shuffling blame.
-
Nor anything else. Everyone's happy to pretend that they were always right: Ezra Klein will tell us that he warned that Russiagate was a fraud, KelseyTUOC that she wasn't calling Kavanaugh a sexual assaulter, ProPublica's writers insist that they're happy to talk about a story with interested polite people, but there's a simple problem that none of these things are true. As an industry and as a political party, the admission of even the clearest error is harder than pulling viper's teeth or hen's teeth.
But he's not going to engage with me, he's not going to engage with you, he's sure as hell not going to admit he's wrong, and certainly he's not going to live up to his standards.
I'm not talking to him so much as about him, given that he's blocked me. But now that he's done that, it's worth noticing how often his points, to the extent he makes any rather than just waves his hands and demands we believe whatever he makes up without foundation, are laughable.
gattsuru
8d ago
When Dems lost 2024 they had a notable period of reflection where new ideas were more accepted.
The left broadly owned up to screwing up over Biden's age.
gattsuru
8d ago
And you've demonstrated that you just don't want to engage. But hey, I'm sure calling people cultists up and down will really change minds.
Just in an more interesting way than I hope you intend.
EDIT: and you've done a respond-and-block. Grats.
gattsuru
8d ago
Note that the specific types of legal challenges we're talking about are mostly a Biden-era thing. Bush and Clinton were before my time so there may have been something there that I'm unaware of, but during Obama's tenure there wasn't really any serious challenges in the vein of "hey can you enforce like any immigration restrictions at all?" The major Republican legal challenge that I remember was against DAPA, which functionally would have led to Obama not enforcing immigration laws on a certain category of people, but Obama lost and DAPA died.
Not quite. The case around DAPA focused on whether the memo followed the APA. SCOTUS left a preliminary injunction (due to a tie vote!) about the DAPA memo itself, but the case was never processed on its merits, and eventually mooted rather than actually requiring the administration follow the law, and that only because Trump won the election literally within months.
There were several other major cases, such as whether states could refuse to offer drivers licenses to illegal immigrants covered under DAPA/DACA/DREAM. Oh, and that little thing called DACA? Maybe you might have heard of it? Big thing that Trump couldn't end it.
During that time we were still in the era where Presidents followed the orders of courts without additional enforcement needed from plaintiffs alleging harms, so when the courts ruled against DAPA that was functionally the end of the conversation.
... the Obama administration issues thousands of work permits under DAPA after the Fifth Circuit injunction, and then said oops. A further hundred thousand reprieves were granted after the Obama administration swore before the court and in written submissions that they would not act on the memo while the court was ruling on the preliminary injunction to start with. During appeals the Obama administration held that it could offer whatever individualized discretion it wanted, so long as no one made those decisions because of the DAPA rule. Nor was this problem specific to DAPA. The Obama admin repeatedly refused to follow both statutory requirements and court orders mandating notice to a state for settling refugees, up to and including directing state charities to not tell state authorities.
When Congress couples “shall” with a detailed statutory scheme that leaves no gap for agency choice, the courts have consistently treated those duties as legally enforceable, and even gone so far as to vacate rules and enjoin the Executive when it violated them.
Show me an example, in this or a related context. Your entire argument rests on this, you're repeatedly drawn back to this complete bullshit well, and you can't even deflect well.
((I mean, the first one's somewhere between misleading an false; SCOTUS didn't rule in favor of the immigration restrictionist position in DAPA, it was a tie that always leads to the lower court action holding, and a simple google search on the citation would have shown that! If you mean to say that some courts might, well...))
Did you notice that you gave a three-point bulleted list, and two of them have case citations, and one of them doesn't, and the last one is the only bit that fucking matters? Do you notice that I provided an exact quote from a majority SCOTUS opinion holding that the thing you're asking for would be either an unreviewable political question or unconstitutional?
Note that I draw a pretty strict line between talking about public figures + political movements generally, and talking about people participating in the conversation right now.
Hm...
The conversation you linked where I posted that was a particular case where they functionally said "I think you're meaning to say , but you actually sound like , and with that in mind can you make points to clarify", where I replied with "well, I think you guys sound like , and with that in mind can you make points to clarify".
There is a contradiction, here. What, exactly, do you think the difference between "people participating in the conversation right now" are, and what "you guys sound like" is?
I wouldn't have started down that line of my own volition, but I found what they said had some usefulness so I gave them my own perspective.
Oh, well, if it's okay to be rude as long as someone else's behavior indicates some usefulness... that'd be a fun rule to run! Invite me.
gattsuru
8d ago
There was also, as a lower-stakes and economics-only version, the recent Biden admin call for an unrealized capital gains tax -- which quite a lot of supposedly The Good Ones were willing to bend over backwards to present misleading or outright false arguments for, and never engage with criticisms. To be fair, it wasn't successfully enacted; to be less charitable, that was not for any mainstream progressive pushback.
I'd argue that the speed Blue Tribers went from thinking electric cars were going to solve global warming to them becoming the tools of the devil that need be purged with fire is Not Encouraging. That Red Tribers have some latency does not demand that the Blues do so.
For a lower-stakes example, see Mercedes Lackey.
Sure, "shall" isn't the primary question at stake, but that doesn't mean the courts are treating it as something other than an obligation:
Saying something is an obligation doesn't mean anyone has the power or ability to actually enforce that obligation. Which is kinda the bit that's actually important here. The language of these sections overlaps heavily with the language in US v. Texas; some of them have had several challenges specific to them, all denied, whether for similar reasons or for other coincidentally developed ones.
The courts, plainly and clearly, are unwilling to do that; you have not presented a single case where the lack of immigration enforcement has received a TRO, PI, or even a friendly handshake from the last court to review it, despite literally decades of intentional and widespread non-enforcement preceding the statutes written with exactly the fix that you pretend to promote in this very thread. Even if you had actually tried, you'd instead find cases like Arizona v. Biden where this statutory language confused a trial-level judge only until the appeal hit
These are not some novel development that only came about after forty years of activists testing the edges of a field, but a problem that has dated back to the Clinton administration and before. This is not one failure of one statutory term for one section of one law in one fraction of a jurisdiction, but an entire field of federal law that has been routinely and reliably left unapplied by entire administrations, across the country.
So if this argument is that "shall" can mean something, congratulations, here's your prize. If it's that "shall" actually means anything we care about, in this conversation, pull the other one; it's got bells on.
Cut it out with this nonsense. I think this is a productive debate and am enjoying it from that sense, but statements like "Do you think it's a coincidence that you keep conveniently making this class of mistake?" are just obnoxious.
Do you want me to give a list of your behaviors in this thread and the last thread that are "just obnoxious"?
Respect is a two-way street. There may well be situations were I'd be willing to play by Crocker's Rules aimed at me while doubling over to avoid monocle-popping from someone that's made themselves more easily offended, but I wasn't willing to do it for Trace after he called me monstrous, and I liked him.
I'm certainly not going to bend over backwards in the interests of politeness to someone who's spent the last year trying to find new ways to announce anyone who doesn't agree with his political pronouncements is in a "cult" developing any theory solely post-hoc, while showily reframing any argument against you into the most crass and weak form.
The Lankford immigration bill didn't change venue as far as I understood it, so you'd sue in the district where you're harmed, the appeal to your regional circuit. There was nothing special about DC in the bill.
From your own link of the full text of the bill, the one that's in your write-up from the last time you tried this:
JUDICIAL REVIEW —Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, judicial review of any decision or action in this section shall be governed only by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which shall have sole and original jurisdiction to hear challenges, whether constitutional or otherwise, to the validity of this section or any written policy directive, written policy guideline, written procedure, or the implementation there-of, issued by or under the authority of the Secretary to implement this section.
This actually shows up three times, once in SEC. 235B. PROVISIONAL NONCUSTODIAL REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS., and a second time in SEC. 240D. PROTECTION MERITS REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS, and a third time in ‘SEC. 244B. BORDER EMERGENCY AUTHORITY. It's the only times 'original jurisdiction' shows up in the entire bill!
Someone told you this, a year ago. In the thread you're linking to, now!
You're right that the bill didn't change anything explicitly about standing, but I never argued that the bill should be the last word on the issue, simply that it was far better than the status quo for fixing a lot of other things.
You never argued that, either; you just asserted it, and then shrugged when people repeatedly pointed that there was no reason to suspect any such improvement, and many reasons to suspect that it would make things worse. Your post last year was nearly eleven months after US v. Texas's opinion had dropped, and yet here today you still repeatedly pointed to "shall" terminology that US v. Texas held does not and likely can not ever be legally binding.
In terms of US v Texas, standing demands injury, causation and redressability. The case held Texas had injury & causation but no judicially cognizable interest absent special statutory authorization.
Yes, yes, I can read. I can also read the multitude of examples in the dissents and concurrence for Texas highlighting both how capricious the application of this novel standard was, and the opinion's unwillingness to commit to any statutory language being able, either as a matter of constitutionality or practice, of having done so in the immigration context.
By contrast, in Nielsen v. Preap (2019) and Johnson v. Guzman-Chavez (2021), the Supreme Court enforced the INA’s “shall detain” for criminal-alien detention. Those were “shall” duties plus clear statutory schemes that provided judicial review
Oh, boy, I'm sure these are accurate and complete summaries of the cases at hand. Let me get a big drink of water and --
Respondents, two classes of aliens detained under §1226(c)(2), allege that because they were not immediately detained by immigration officials after their release from criminal custody, they are not aliens “described in paragraph (1),” even though all of them fall into at least one of the four categories covered by §§1226(c)(1)(A)–(D). Because the Government must rely on §1226(a) for their detention, respondents argue, they are entitled to bond hearings to determine if they should be released pending a decision on their status.
That is, Nielsen revolved around the question of whether a statute commanding that the government "shall take" custody of this class of criminal aliens only applied if those criminal aliens were detained immediately after release from jail. It had nothing to do with a requirement for the government to take custody of those criminal aliens and not doing so.
Respondents are aliens who were removed from the United States and later reentered without authorization. When DHS reinstated their prior removal orders, each respondent sought withholding-only relief to prevent DHS from executing those orders based on fear of re- turning to their home country as designated in the removal orders. While respondents’ withholding-only proceedings were pending, DHS detained respondents, and respondents sought release on bond, which was initially denied. The Government opposed their release, maintaining that because respondents were detained under §1231, not §1226, they were not entitled to bond hearings.
That is, Guzman-Chavez revolved around whether the government was allowed to do something that statute mandated that it "shall" do, not whether the government must actually do so.
Long-term neglect by prior administrations underscores why Congress must match “shall” with funding and remedies. When that has been done, “shall” has repeatedly proven enforceable.
So, now you've proven zero out of three attempts to show "shall" as enforceable in any approach at an immigration detainment or deportation context, despite the very laws in question being driven by long periods of administrative neglect of the law. Do you care to try a fourth time? Do you think it's a coincidence that you keep conveniently making this class of mistake? Do you think anyone reading you could possibly miss it?
Also, 2A rights are still largely intact? Some states can screw with you a bit or place some minor restrictions on firearms, but none have been able to ban them outright.
A definition of the Second Amendment that only limits complete bans on all firearms (and presumably only when completely banning them for all or almost all people; unless The_Nybblr's problems are enough to have you eat crow), is itself accepting a progressive frame that boils the Second Amendment down to nearly nothing.
Literally today, SCOTUS denied cert on a case prohibiting gun shows on all state land, while allowing virtually every other lawful commercial transaction. Many circuits have routinely declared that wide classes of guns, or many components of every gun, are not 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment. Dexter Taylor is still in prison, after having faced a judge who literally said "Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York". I can't tell you what the 2024 or 2023 numbers are for NYC carry permits -- the central matter in Bruen -- because the NYPD simply will "not provide the number of applications pending or licenses issued" without a lawsuit. But the last lawsuit found they were issuing fewer licenses than before Bruen. States were allowed to hold laws requiring new firearms possess technology that did not exist and might not even be possible; to ban guns that people had owned for years or decades with no compensation.
I've made this argument for literally years, and in many ways it is getting worse, not better, with SCOTUS willing to punt even on outright defiance of its decisions. If you're going to bring, as you're opening gambit, that your side has not completely destroyed the thing, and this should be considered "largely intact", you're exactly the sort of trust issue that makes it impossible to believe you're arguing in good faith.
gattsuru
11d ago
Did the bill you highlight as The Best Option In Decades involve anything that would have done so? Or did it demand every case get sent to the DC Circuit, which has both a long history of limiting immigration enforcement and unusually strict standing analysis and limits on what judges could be appointed that favor progressives?
But after even that, would it matter if they did? From the opinion I linked above:
But once it is posited that a plaintiff has personally suffered a “de facto” injury, i.e., an injury in fact, it is hard to see why the presence or absence of a statute authorizing suit has a bearing on the question whether the court has Article III jurisdiction as opposed to the question whether the plaintiff has a cause of action. In the end, however, none of this may matter because the majority suggests that such a statute might be unconstitutional. Ante, at 10, and n. 4.
Oh, well, that's just Alito's summary, surely he must be exaggerating th-
For an arrest mandate to be enforceable in federal court, we would need at least a “stronger indication” from Congress that judicial review of enforcement discretion is appropriate—for example, specific authorization for particular plaintiffs to sue and for federal courts to order more arrests or prosecutions by the Executive. Castle Rock, 545 U. S., at 761. We do not take a position on whether such a statute would suffice for Article III purposes; our only point is that no such statute is present in this case.4
4 As the Solicitor General noted, those kinds of statutes, by infringing on the Executive’s enforcement discretion, could also raise Article II issues. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 24–25
This already was a "shall" law. Indeed, the oral argument (and that Solicitor General question on constitutionality!) was driven by the extent that "shall" had already been sprinkled throughout the relatively recent additions to immigration laws, driven by long periods of neglect by Democratic administrations!
What possible reason could or should anyone expect new versions to behave any differently, or actually apply longer than needed for additional epicycles to develop? How green would someone need be to think it'd just be This One Statutory Construction Gimmick that would make it matter here?
gattsuru
11d ago
I know it's a big enough distinction in Minecraft that there's been a few modded implementations -- even as early in 1.7.10 there were a number of times where the 'best' armor in a modpack was famously ugly or out-of-theme. Nothing in vanilla yet, but the recent emphasis on armor trims might make it have more sense.
Starbound and Terraria implement it.
I think the Horizon X West series has it.
gattsuru
14d ago
There's also a problem where even when these compromises are written into law, that doesn't hold them very long, sometimes even without a new law. The expansion of LawDog's cake metaphor to all of public policy is going to come at some pretty ugly costs, sooner or later.
VHB specifically, I've volunteered for FIRST FRC a lot, and it's one of the go-to adhesives in that realm (and most teams get free spools of it), so I've gotten a lot of hands-on experience.
WS2812s, I ran a few different STEM outreach projects using them. They're great as a way to teach and show for loops in physical space, but the constraints are very easy to run into, even with Adafruit's documentation.
Circuit assembly work in general has just been a hobby. I think it's a really important skillset, but also one that's very badly underserved by mainstream college training courses.
More options
Context Copy link