gattsuru
9d ago
Yes, not only do state criminal courts handle federal constitutional questions, it's actual necessary for a plaintiff or defendant to bring constitutional complaints to the trial-level court or they risk surrendering the question on appeal (with a few exceptions not relevant here).
gattsuru
24d ago
32GB was possible on Sandy Bridge processors (technically 2011), but mid-range Westmere and Nehalim processors only supported 16GB(ish) for most of the consumer market, and even the high-end Bloomfield capped at 24GB. I'm not saying you didn't do it -- I've got a couple Xeon systems from that era floating around that could have -- but it was absolutely not a standard use case.
A more normal midrange system would be closer to 4GB, with 8GB as the splurge. You'd probably end up spending over 400 USD in RAM alone, plus needing to spec up your motherboard to support it (thanks, Intel for the fucky memory controller decision).
gattsuru
24d ago
There is something distinctly humorous about the CUNY machete lady being at the Columbia protest, at least, but a lot of what we do see is a mix of local students and professional activists.
gattsuru
16d ago
I'm not sure whether it's better to respond with a furry fandom joke, a Baldur's Gate joke, or with a Vintage Story joke.
gattsuru
22d ago
Yeah, that's absolutely fair, and 'constructive possession' is in many ways just the tip of the iceberg, as bad as the shoestring machine is. Stuff like autokeycard, the various recent regulatory changes, Abramski, so on, very much show the limits of textual formalism as a control protecting the actually disfavored, even to the point of blocking defendants from raising the text.
gattsuru
24d ago
This is already the norm for legally-sanctioned protests, though, right? As I mentioned in other replies, it is common for police to prevent counter protestors from intruding on the space of protestors and vice versa.
That's actually a fun question! The rules for how police can separate protestors and counterprotestors are complex. And this clearly flops many important prongs of that test.
The video looks like it is taken at a courtyard, one of a dozen around the University. They aren’t holding captive the main amphitheater at Columbia or something, where yeah there would be a concern regarding the reasonable use of university amenities.
This thread is south of this video, which was from Yale, about access to a building. And I buy people being blocked from just a few public fora about as much as I buy someone being a 'little bit pregnant'.
Ironically, you could even argue that the courtyard is seeing greater facility during this protest, given the population density from the looks of it.
It was great, for the one side able to use it, isn't the most compelling argument for neutral access to public fora.
gattsuru
24d ago
That’s a moderate argument in favor of unsanctioned protest, if somewhat marred by one of its (first!) prongs turning into whether people like the protest goals or not.
But I don’t need an argument in favor of unsanctioned protest: my metrics there are far simpler. My problem here is not the presence of a protest, but your advocacy of a norm where whatever protest group that takes a public forum first gets to exclude people who disagree with their message.
There might be some edge cases where that’s an unfortunate compromise we have to take, but under vague concerns about ‘confrontation’ are little more than carte blanche
gattsuru
25d ago
Are we gonna get body-cam footage and be able to come to an independent judgment on the conduct of the government in the course of the raid?
No.
The Department of Justice confirmed to me and @JohnBoozman last night that the ATF agents involved in the execution of a search warrant of the home of Bryan Malinowski weren’t wearing body cameras. We will continue to press the Department to explain how this violation of its own policy could’ve happened and to disclose the full circumstances of this tragedy. Mr. Malinowski’s family and the public have a right to a full accounting of the facts.
gattsuru
3d ago
I'm not convinced that they were tools that are broken rather than blunted, but even if they are splintered beyond repair, how and when and what happened is worth knowing. Regardless of what matters in the long run, these tools are almost certainly not the only tools vulnerable to the same things.
gattsuru
5d ago
The spreadsheet did not appear to have all data, even in hidden form: Nordean argues that several messages were missing, in addition to those hidden, and the government's later claimed that Miller had deleted them. While some were never disclosed (either claimed as classified, 'FBI sensitive', or irrelevant), several of the deleted messages were made available later and had no plausible justification for nondisclosure. Beyond that, several pieces of Miller's live testimony contradicted the messages in the hidden part of the spreadsheet, most notably related to access to attorney-client privileged materials.
gattsuru
9d ago
Yeah. I think the more recent immigration bills also had to deal with the aftermath of the Gang of Eight attempt in 2013, which even contemporaneously was seen as Rubio getting punked by some embarrassingly useless compromises-in-name-only
gattsuru
23d ago
MindGeek claims to have the tech fully ready to go for a UK-standards version (and that's the subtext behind PornHub, a MindGeek subsidiary, not complying with the American age verification versions), and MindGeek says that it's actually in use in Germany since 2015. It's definitely the political economy of things.
gattsuru
29d ago
it took urban liberal Jewish/* lawyers to deploy it in practice?
I think urban liberal would have stood stronger on its own.
gattsuru
1d ago
gattsuru
2d ago
Was literally pointing a gun at Rittenhouse, whose friend claimed he said "His only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him" (later retracted, tots honest), and who was illegally carrying a concealed weapon after his carry permit had either expired or been revoked.
Yep.
gattsuru
6d ago
I legitimately do not understand why judge's eyes gloss over or even they get angry when it's suggested these people shouldn't be assumed to be the most credible people to ever exist. It's almost comical how much defense counsel has to tip-toe around it until they find essentially a smoking gun.
What's particularly funny is how even defense lawyers get into it. Cfe when themotte's own notice that an FBI agent perjured herself at length during a criminal trial; he was genuinely curious how the FBI agent would weasel out of it (spoiler: easily!), and even entertained the possibility "whether the prosecutors will bother" to bring perjury charges (spoiler: no).
gattsuru
24d ago
Visa and MasterCard see pornography as high risk because they get a lot of chargebacks, so they charge adult services producers a much higher rate for payment processing.
I think this would be plausible for a wide-spectrum ban on porn, if still uncertain since these companies have little trouble working with businesses that have increased chargeback risks otherwise and just slamming on fees.
I don't think it's remotely plausible for the common levels of specificity involved, here. There may well be higher (or lower) rates of chargeback for incest porn, or hypnosis or forced TF kink, or dragon dongs with too much red dye, but I'm incredibly skeptical that a) card companies have the data to actually know that, b) that these rates are so much higher that they can't be resolved by fees, and c) that there's no more immediate and less-financially-direct motivation.
gattsuru
2d ago
Paul Prediger, nee Gauge Grosskruetz, aka bye-ceps, has also filed a civil suit. But yes, I genuinely expected feds to go after him, and it hasn't happened, and that surprised me and does show some limits.
gattsuru
11d ago
I'd expect it's more likely that the UK just gets flooded with more CE crap, while the bottom end of the domestic or near-business market lifts its skirt up over the floodwaters, same as the rest of the EU user privacy data stuff. Sorry if that's cynical, but the last time I went to the UK a coworker got zapped because none of the three-prong power adapters he'd locally-purchased actually had connections between the input and output ground plugs.
Some of these restrictions, even some of the good ones, aren't that readily implemented. SecureBoot is only a recommendation, which is good, given that even a lot of mid-range microprocessors don't support it, nevermind the microcontroller world where it's gfl. I've got two projects I'm running now (STM32F103Cx- and Nuvoton NUC980) that don't support it at all, and these aren't exactly ancient PICs. Same, maybe even worse, for the recommendation for memory access controls. Mandating a default-off mode for any debug interface is understandable from a Serious IT Perspective, but it also makes a lot of stuff e-waste in a wide variety of circumstances, and makes a lot of useful prosumer and enthusiast concepts unavailable.
More broadly, this reads a bit like it was written by a mid-studies electrical engineering student, for better or worse. There's a lot of good recommendations, but trying to make a clear distinction between IoT and 'constrained' devices as a simple binary... it's bad enough trying to split microcontrollers from microprocessors, but from a quick read this reg would put harder restrictions on an ESP32 lighting controller than solar-powered NVR system.
On net, it's probably not bad to have a document people can look at, even if they end up shrugging on actual implementations at points, but it's frustrating.
Civil suits can be very Zif's Law-prone, where a small number of actors can put an outsized number of lawsuits forward, unless the statute is very limited (and the various enforcement arms actually stick to that rather than redefining it). Laufer from Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, for example, filed "557 suits in sixteen different states, plus the District of Columbia", and while she's at the higher end of ADA testers, individual people with thousands of tester lawsuits exist.
But that depends on a number of very specific attributes: ADA tester targets have a lot of capital, they're often represented by insurance companies that are willing to give cash, the (court and administrative interpretation of) relevant statutory language in many circuits allows both standing and damages to be found without normal concrete harm, a very compliant regulatory system that writes increasingly broad material to base a lawsuit on, so on. Hence why SB8 lawsuits are very thin on the ground, and with HB1557 only allowing declaratory and injunctive relief it'll be the domain of morons tilting at windmills. The gun private right of action laws tend to be much more mixed -- lots of cash out there both to support lawsuits going in and reward them coming out, but standard of harm is a mess, and the PLCAA is only dying rather than dead.
In theory, it should be possible to write statutory language that limits testing trolls while still allowing even small lawsuits over actual harm, but a) a there's a pretty sizable portion of the support for the ADA that thinks the lawsuit heavy enforcement is a benefit, and b) it's not clear that actually would work, anyway.
I just doubt that these particular requirements are that onerous.
Eh... they vary a lot, both on context and use case. Requiring secure storage for persistent storage of security parameters (5.4-1) makes sense and has trivial cost for applications like a network storage device, but it'd break a lot of assumptions on FRAM-heavy low-power devices, and that rule notably isn't conditional or a mere recommendation -- perhaps they didn't think about FRAM, or other persistent memory, but I wouldn't bet against UK compliance checks taking that as an excuse. Making security-focused unique IDs tamper-resistant (5.4-2) isn't too bad on a device with a real MAC (though not costless; there are benefits to software-changeable settings here), but for the more ultra-small or ultra-disposable equipment that's largely going to mandate more and more of program flash be devoted to encryption keys (unless you want to decrypt something on discrete flash every time you're doing an update check). Mandating a network update happen over a trusted relationship (5.3-10) and be timely (5.3-6) and be automatic (5.3-4) isn't too bad for a situation like deploying a bunch of wifi access points or phones, as much as I hate 99% of implementations work, but it's an absolute mess for wide deployment public LoRaWAN devices, and a mess for things like CAN- or LIN-networked embedded devices.
Others vary heavily on interpretation. Mandating that "For constrained devices that cannot have their software updated, the product should be isolable and the hardware replaceable" (5.3-15) could mean almost nothing, or it could require vendors to commit to support any optional part of a product until they retire an entire series. And these all definitely kill EPROM devices that it covers -- I'd expect this ends up with a ton of explicit or implicit exceptions, mostly around the "On devices with several microcontrollers (e.g. one for communication and one for the application) some of them might not be updateable", but it's not really obvious from the text.
That gets worse if they start dialing Mandatory-Conditional or Recommended rules into plain Mandatory ones down the road, and a lot of the text suggests that they're planning it:
As consumer IoT products become increasingly secure, it is envisioned that future revisions of the present document will mandate provisions that are currently recommendations in the present document.
In particular, SecureBoot (5.7-1), hardware memory access controls (5.6-8), and guaranteeing cryptographic updates for the life cycle of the product (5.5-3) mean throwing out a lot of existing microcontrollers, microprocessors, and often related code. It's clearly intended for big GHz+ microprocessors, but there's a lot of new (mmu'd!) chips that don't have this capabilities. SecureBoot there's some arguable conclusions for some of the bigger devices, like throwing a ATECC608 after a PIC, but a) I'm not sure if that actually complies with the recommendation, and b) no, god, no. Hardware memory access controls... maybe ESP32 memory protect would cover it (though they're software-settable, though the software settings are code-private?). Wherever these hit, a lot of chips aren't going to pass it, and businesses focused around them are going to have to toss inventory and code -- there's just too much of this stuff that isn't portable.
A number are probably gonna have to start now on the off chance that it happens in a couple years.
gattsuru
12d ago
It's... had a lot of governance Issues for a long time, and there's the normal coastal politics (did you know NixCon had Anduril sponsorships, the sridhar ban). I don't grok the entire point of the Nix project, but from what I've seen via shlevy on twitter, the NixOS governance has been kinda the center of a turf war since ~2021 (with the first community team rfc, not enacted).
A lot of recent heat seems to be downstream of Eelco, the original dev, officially stepping down and handing control over to the Foundation Board. He's not been active much for a while, but the community was largely willing to overlook a lot of moderation and management decisions running very much by the seat of everyone's pants, under the auspices that he'd be kinda overlooking things. In theory, there's supposed to be constitutional convention and a foundation board meeting and a whole bunch of stuff about distribution of power and oversight, but in practice, there's not really much clear way for anything to happen beyond the Foundation writing whatever policies it thinks will be popular in California -- see the sponsorship policy snafu, and specifically how the forum auto-locked the discussion and moderators forbid opening new threads on it (and the thread OP was tempbanned for being a putz).
But the recent snafu is about more generally around the ethos that:
There's a code of conduct in place, people want it expanded significantly, and that people are allowed to question it are evidence that it should have been expanded years ago, if not evidence of governance failures or destructive to the reputation of the community; sprinkle in some mentions of sealioning and concern trolling, and you're done.
You, uh, missed a spot. Or, for one without a header, whether one can stop to piss in Albany without risking a felony. And it's not like these things are the only examples -- if I hadn't hit trans stuff separately, I'd be pointing out the entire circuit where the ADA now covers gender identity disorders, despite the explicit text of the ADA excluding that by name!
Pregnant Worker's Fairness Act It should also be noted that the EEOC still has to follow the APA when it comes to procedural matters in promulgation (like notice and comment), so this lack of authority doesn't exactly make it easy for them to run wild.
By which you mean they issued a NPR, and then changed basically zip in response to significant public comment.
Saying outright that the law didn't apply to abortion would have created a situation where the EEOC guidance was directly at-odds with any reasonable canon of legislative interpretation; I don't think any textualist could argue with a straight face that abortions aren't pregnancy-related.
The statute, for whatever it matters, does not cover all pregnancy-related matters: it covers "pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." It's... actually not that hard to notice the difference between a medical procedure and a medical condition.
Maybe that difference shouldn’t on net matter, or the doctrine of constitutional avoidance should rule. There's perfectly good fairness or policy reasons that it should, and perhaps in a world where the text was about pregnancy-related anythings and conservatives had eaten the administrative agencies, I'd be making arguments that they're betrayed trust in an important compromise.
And yet we're here.
But that's all irrelevant because it's unlikely that this rule (or lack thereof) would ever result in litigation... I've personally never had an employer ask about the nature of any medical procedure I've taken time off to get, or had them ask me which doctor I was going to, and if a doctor's excuse is required, I doubt many employers are going to do internet research to determine if this is a doctor who exclusively performs abortions.
Yet rather than the answer to "It's no big deal" being "fine, then let me win" instead, we find that everyone insists it is both necessary and obvious, no matter how much they have to play with statute's language to get the job done.
Indeed, even were there some central case that were vital or some symbolic victory that should be a big deal to the progressive movement and a trivial one to conservatives, the religious freedom concerns that the EEOC itself claims never happen still can't get a "fine, then let me win". While "The Commission also received tens of thousands of comments asserting that giving certain accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, such as providing leave for abortion, infertility treatments, or contraception, would infringe upon the employer's religious freedom", the final rule gloss over any serious management or standard of those concerns, leaving such questions open to "defenses using a case-by-case analysis" and motioning to a statutory defense that only protects religious organization's ability to hire people of that religion.
((Spoiler: there's few cases only because everyone paying attention knows defending against a suit is high-risk and staggeringly expensive, and there's absolutely no guarantee that the vague religious freedom exceptions might apply until very late in appeals, so the EEOC can get 99.9% of the impact just by noisily threatening enforcement and then shrugging that their political opponents leave the entire topic like a landmine.))
FFLs When the entire point of specific statutory language is to expand a definition, you can't complain too loudly when that definition gets expanded. If you had sole rulemaking authority with regards to this, how would you expand the definition to conform with the new law without simply restating the old definition? I'm sure you can think of a dozen ways that this could be done, but that's beside the point.
Not only could I, eighteen thousand people did, as Halbrook points out in his link, but you're right to say that, too, is besides the point. The ATF and APA do not care about the little people. But it does make this rhetorical question more than a little obnoxious.
But there's a third category of people we've talked about before who the government really doesn't like — people who want to sell guns part-time or as a hobby. You mentioned in a previous post how the ATF no longer will issue FFLs for hobbyists. You can disagree with that stance all you want, but it seems to me that Congress agrees with that and that was the specific intent behind the change in language.
But Congress did not write a law saying that you can not sell firearms as a hobbyist; it wrote that you needed an FFL to sell firearms to "predominantly earn a profit", and the ATF decided that included firearms sales that included a profit at all, or even if they didn't have a profit but might be motivated by the money. Congress has not even modified the statutory requirements for provisioning an FFL in decades! And I'll point again to the ATF happily ignoring the strict text of the statute whenever it decides that it knows best.
When you write that the government really doesn't like them, that's true in the sense that 'the government' means progressives, operating under a presumption that compromise means progressive interests get a large portion of what they demand, and conservative interests get fucked, and not in the fun way.
The problem as I see it doesn't stem so much from the law itself or ATF's interpretation of it but that there is a group of people for whom any further restrictions on gun sales is bad and needs to be stopped.
I can separately argue that the law was badly intended, but I don't think there's anything insightful to point out that people want to ban guns entirely and make being an FFL as difficult as possible and impossible for many. Yes, duh, I predicted that literally before Biden was sworn in as President, I can't pretend to be surprised today. Props to you for at least admitting that the whole point is make onerous rules that drive hobbyists and part-timers from the field, but it isn't exactly some deep cover.
No, the problem as I'm trying to highlight is that there is a group of people who claimed at length that this was -- as held in the name -- a Bipartisan compromise that would include both further restrictions and clarifications protecting gunnies, and this didn't happen at all. The statute still explicitly recognizes private sales, but the ATF doesn't actually recognize any way to clearly comply with it in this rule-making.
In many ways, they would have been better served by flipping anyone who offered claimed concessions the bird. It matters, that for many, that is increasingly clear.
FACE Act It's telling that this law has only become controversial in recent years, after the Biden Administration used it aggressively in the wake of Dobbs. For the first 30 or so years of its existence, the fact that it was never used in cases of church vandalism was never an issue.
It... actually was a pretty big controversy back in the 2008-2012 timeframe, as activists had begun disrupting church services, while both feds and state officials left the matter to civil litigation. The ADF actually brought suit with some limited success in that case, though both the org and the individuals were basically judgement proof.
At least not enough of an issue for 2 Republican presidents to invoke it in 12 years, one of whom was devoutly religious and the other of whom was devoutly into culture warring.
At the same 2008-2012 timeframe, the DoJ was highlighting increased use from the pre-Obama framework where it was largely perceived as targeting bad actors on the scale of arson or bombings. If you want to rest your argument on the masterful control of the DoJ Trump demonstrated, I hope you have fun, but I'm gonna have a hard time taking it seriously.
But it doesn't compare to the Houck case, at least if you actually look at the procedural posture. The information in the Nota case was filed the day before the plea was entered. This itself was several months after the incident. What this suggests was that this was already a done deal by the time it was even on the court's docket; for all we know, the prosecutor could have threatened to throw the book at Nota before offering a misdemeanor charge and a sentencing recommendation as a lifeline.
The information that we can't see or find or read, even presuming it actually exists, does not actually do a good job of protecting trust, especially given the extent this glosses over a wide variety of other stuff in the reporting (Nota spraypainting an employee's face and threw a rock at them, and also spray-painted a police car). The lack of SWAT, I am sure, has a similarly plausible and similarly unprovable charitable explanation.
Indeed, yes, the guy who didn't destroy property or spraypaint anyone in the face could have gotten a plea bargain. Of course, Houck was found not-guilty, while Nota was caught spraypaint-handed. Interestingly, we do happen to have another example I linked where the people were actually guilty of a FACE Act violation against abortion clinics, and one of the protestors plead guilty, turned government witness, and got 10 months in prison for her plea deal.
Yes, I'm sure there's some post-hoc way that This One Is Different. There might even be ways to argue it that doesn't look hilariously biased (Davis conspired to block a hallway! something something sentencing guidelines! two counts, because Nota didn't do two illegal things at once!), though I'm not optimistic. But the readiness that people defending these disparities can discover that it is impossible to evaluate the merits or compare in any statistically meaningful way are starting to echo.
gattsuru
10d ago
Although it seems baked into the post is the unsaid premise that the problem is the laws were crafted poorly/maliciously.
Oh, my apologies; I don't really mean to take a position on that. It's quite possible that even the most consequential and hidden stuff, like the coverage for gender identity stuff in the ACA, was totally well-intended to the most circumscribed bounds (though I'm not optimistic). It's possible that Obama genuine did at the time not want to fund health insurance for DACA, and there are almost certainly cases where the law was far more explicit and clearly written and reversed anyway. Halbrook's examples of ATF adventurism probably fall there, and I'm a long fan of pointing to problems like whether FOPA means you can stop to piss in Albany, or where a certain high-profile someone revised multiple statutory requirements to destroy records and not record or transfer them at a government facility to instead permit keeping them.
Similarly, one can readily imagine a world where every law was written in the most backhanded way by some evil grand vizier, yet it wouldn't matter because they were enforced by some even-handed personification of justice. We're just not in that world.
But, IMHO, the problem is all the enforcement agencies have been captured by neoliberals. And so there simply is no law that they won't interpret in the manner that most suits their objectives.
Yeah, there's definitely that.
But while that's definitely a bigger problem, and maybe even a coup-complete one, I think it's worth noting the separate issue and incentive where enacting a law or portion of a law to prevent something instead turned into ammunition to enact the desired change. And even if that's a rare matter, even if biased enforcement agencies are replaced or abolished, it's going to be something that will remain as a failure mode.
That's nice and all, but there's quite a lot of us, and certainly more than enough to keep a number of content providers afloat. (Sometimes in surprising ways: the original writer of the Burned Furs manifesto has made a small part-time career in monsterfucker porn.) Fek is at 9k USD a month still, and while I actually appreciate the mechanical stuff he did with Spellbound (cw: technically has one girl, but gaaaaaaay) enough that I kinda want to see it cloned in a not-porn game, given the repeated hiatuses after burnout if anyone was going to get reasonably-motivated chargebacks, he'd be the first hit.
More options
Context Copy link