RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
Married to a tomboy, so I have that going for me, which is nice.
User ID: 3756
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
21hr ago
I don't know if they're astroturfed, but there is no shortage of written material by people trying to rationalize them getting screwed out of 6 months to 2 years+ (depending on location) of their lives.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
21hr ago
I have a heinous clavicle fracture from exactly what you'd expect
Is there something obvious that usually causes those? Football, rugby, lifting, trying to saddle a bison, manually stimulating a horse?
My goals are about the same as last year:
Do a spring hiking trip around 100ish miles (about a week)
Do a summer hiking trip around 200ish miles (around 2-3 weeks)
Read a bunch of books
Do a trail race in the fall
Right now I need to work on putting some weight back on, which, despite being in my 40s, is harder than it seems since I can't have lunch. My chicken and rice lunches were very good at adding some pounds.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
21hr ago
Congratulations on making it out!
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
5d ago
I am quite convinced that the deeper issue is in women having a totally irrational fear of being "trapped" because they aren't making their own money.
I have heard from several different elder millennial lady attorneys (obvious sample bias) that their Boomer mothers verbally beat into their heads that they had to have their own income and never be dependent on a man. As an outside observer, their marriages seem to be... fraught.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
5d ago
Picking and choosing to preserve just the taboos that overwhelmingly benefit women over men isn't a sustainable pattern in the long term.
Modern U.S. society will head straight for its grave rather than break from that pattern.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
5d ago
My prior is that people accused of wrongdoing will almost always deny the thing they're accused of.
There is a fun (not fun) variation of this as a public defender: people will freely admit the horrible thing they've done to any cop who will listen, and then once arrested, will swear on their mother's grave to their attorney that they're innocent and being railroaded, and that their attorney is a piece of shit working for the prosecutor when the defense attorney can't do anything about the prosecutor using all those voluntary and damning statements.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
5d ago
Model > bank branch manager > yoga teacher > therapist is an interesting progression. Usually it goes more like "model (or some other role making a living off being young, attractive, and female) > yoga teacher or massage therapist > realtor."
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
5d ago
If someone pops up on a dating app that hasn't been jaded to all hell, you've got a VERY small window of time to match with them and get them face-to-face and then try and convince them to get off the app entirely.
One of my favorite (in a dark humor kind of way) pairings is the "I was on an app for one time for 15 minutes and met the love of my life, so apps are great for dating" fresh-faced woman with the "1000-yard stare multi-year veteran of trying to date from apps" man.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
5d ago
Everyone is addicted to hearing "but what happened to characters after!!!"
Not just that, they're addicted to "BUT whut happ'n to the characters before?!" See the obsession with lore and prequels as well. I want a well-written self-contained story, which is anathema to Hollywood and many viewers, so it's another reason I've chosen to exit tv/movies/streaming/etc.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
15d ago
I think I've figured out how to use my phone less and not carry it everywhere: getting a phone I strongly dislike (instead of mildly dislike).
I got a new phone because my old phone (6yo Pixel 4) was getting unstable, the battery life was getting absurdly bad, and Verizon offered me a $0 Pixel 10 Pro with a 3-year price contract (I'm not changing carriers, so makes no difference to me).
I strongly dislike the new phone, primarily because it's larger and heavier. The original Pixel was the perfect size. The 4 was too big but overall tolerable. This one is even worse. It is uncomfortably large and heavy in a pocket and I feel like I need a purse to haul the stupid thing around. So far it's been easy to leave it at my desk (work or home) and not take it places.
With my old phone, I would usually not take it along when doing stuff with friends, so I had plenty of the "sitting quietly while everyone else is deeply absorbed in their phone and not talking to anyone" experience. I guess I'll get to have more of that.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
15d ago
The judge will often get some ideas that neither party had and ask to be briefed on the issue before he rules. But from what I can tell he doesn't necessarily buy his own arguments since he ultimately finds them lacking once they've been fleshed out.
This is one thing for a trial judge (whether state or federal district) to do, but it's another for an appellate court, especially a secondary one. By that point, there has been extensive litigation, and lower courts have made rulings based on the presentations of the parties.
The SC would probably prefer to rule in an anticipated issue now rather than have it come up later in another case, and it makes sense that they'd give the parties a heads up so they can prepare accordingly. I'd rather they get it right the first time than make bad rulings because procedure says they have to.
There is the danger of advisory opinions, but in general I agree. Citizens United came about after a first round of oral arguments, orders for more briefing, and then more oral arguments to end up with a broad ruling, and I think that's the much better way to go.
However, the Supremes do the "ruling on the narrowest possible procedural grounds" trick all the time in other (fully-briefed, not emergency docket) cases. Roberts is the king of such opinions. Gattsuru can probably provide a laundry list of times the Court (or circuit courts) have pulled that trick in firearm cases. That's exactly what they did in Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton v. Philadelphia. And then there are times I swear they grant cert on cases with terrible procedural posture just so they can more easily manipulate the outcome.
Here, where it's a ruling on a stay regarding a preliminary injunction, it strikes me as especially bad to change the arguments at the highest level. There hasn't been full briefing by the parties, no amicus briefs, and no oral arguments. It's on a short timeframe with a limited record. That should be the time to stick to the exact arguments presented and issue narrow rulings.
As a body, they aren't shy about making it clear that they can do whatever they want.
We're in 100% agreement on that part.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
15d ago
I suspect there's some Calvinball going on here regarding the party presentation bit. Getting to the Supremes and then having them change what the argument is about (by asking for supplemental briefing on an issue which tells everyone exactly what they want to hear) is putting a heavy thumb on the scale. Plus, I'm not even sure it was necessary.
The 7th Circuit opinion is here. Page 15:
We turn next to the meaning of § 12406(3)—“unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” The administration exhorts us to accept the Ninth Circuit’s reading of this subsection. In Newsom, the Ninth Circuit interpreted “unable” to mean that the federal government was “significantly impeded,” and “regular forces” to mean “federal officers.” 141 F.4th at 1052. The district court in this case, by contrast, concluded that the definition of “unable” is “not having sufficient power or ability; being incapable.” And it determined that “regular forces” means the soldiers and officers serving in the regular armed forces. We need not fully resolve these thorny and complex issues of statutory interpretation now, because we conclude that the administration has not met its burden under either standard.
Even applying great deference to the administration’s view of the facts, under the facts as found by the district court, there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws. Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities. At the same time, immigration arrests and deportations have proceeded apace in Illinois over the past year, and the administration has been proclaiming the success of its current efforts to enforce immigration laws in the Chicago area. The administration accordingly is also unlikely to succeed on this argument.
So the 7th Circuit already said interpreting "regular forces" as "federal officers" means the government loses at this stage (arguing about a stay of the preliminary injunction, not a decision on the merits). Why the Supremes wanted to redefine the argument and specify that "regular forces" means military would really only have one goal: making it nigh-impossible for the national guard to be federalized. There's no reason to go that far if the government already loses on the most generous interpretation of the standard.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
16d ago
It's the Drake meme.
upper panel: screwing around on their wives
lower panel: screwing the market and causing a global recession
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
16d ago
If there was a new problem in the 1950s
The scope of the roving increased greatly in the 50s. Automobile ownership was much higher in the 50s than in the 20s-30s.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
16d ago
As for other posters speculating about double jeopardy with multiplicative charging, I have never heard of that argument getting close to winning at any significant appeals court in any state. It simply is a profoundly silly argument. There won't be two juries and two judges hearing each charge. Its one jury and one judge hearing one trial. And if convicted the cumulative convictions out of a single act are served concurrently, so its not like if you shoot a guy and are convicted of all 10 murder counts alleged that you now are a 10x convicted murderer and serve 10 sentences.
The double jeopardy clause has protections that apply even within a single prosecution, namely the third one listed here:
"That guarantee has been said to consist of three separate constitutional protections. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969)
The "same offense" protection applies when dealing with greater- and lesser-included offenses.
“The greater offense is therefore by definition the "same" for purposes of double jeopardy as any lesser offense included in it.” Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 168-9 (1977)
The classic examples are things like Robbery/Theft, Possession with Intent to Sell/Possession, and Vehicle Theft/Theft.
If there is a conviction for the greater and lesser simultaneously, then the conviction on the lesser must be vacated. Running it concurrently does not suffice as
"[t]he separate conviction, apart from the concurrent sentence, has potential adverse collateral consequences that may not be ignored." Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865 (1985)
Even in my prosecution-friendly state, it's a reversible error if the court fails to give a jury instruction and verdict form on a lesser-included offense if requested by either side. Should the prosecution succeed in a conviction on both the greater and lesser, then the lesser conviction is vacated.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
16d ago
See also Scott's review of On the Road:
On The Road seems to be a picture of a high-trust society. Drivers assume hitchhikers are trustworthy and will take them anywhere. Women assume men are trustworthy and will accept any promise. Employers assume workers are trustworthy and don’t bother with background checks. It’s pretty neat.
But On The Road is, most importantly, a picture of a high-trust society collapsing. And it’s collapsing precisely because the book’s protagonists are going around defecting against everyone they meet at a hundred ten miles an hour.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
16d ago
Ended up finishing The Karamazov Brothers (Avsey translation, hence the word order in the title). Not much to add to every review of the book from the last 100 years, but after reading it and Demons, I have to say I'm quite impressed with his prophetic talents. Ol' Fyodor really saw the 20th century coming.
Now working on Shadow Ticket by Pynchon.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
16d ago
As a juror I can imagine going ya he is guilty of the worst one, but it feels like legal BS to double charge him with a lesser crime that is the same thing.
The double jeopardy clause causes some strange things with regards to lesser-included offenses, and often times a defense attorney will want that lesser-included charge on the indictment to argue that the jury should convict on it instead of the greater charge. Sometimes prosecutors will keep the lesser-included because they're afraid of the jury acquitting if the only option is the greater charge.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
16d ago
I can't even blame my dad, he did find love afterwards, eventually, but he didn't have the experience needed to help me navigate the world I found myself in.
Yeah, I don't mean it in a blame way, or even to suggest I would've listened to my dad had he provided advice. More of a Noticing a pattern kind of thing.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
16d ago
My solution: exit. For the past year, I've only read books written in the 20th century, and it's been such a breath of fresh air.
Exit has been my solution as well. Hollywood/Netflix/tv wants to serve nothing but slop? The NFL has all the aesthetics of a rap video? Guess I'll pass on all of it.
Mentioning this elsewhere, the usual response is "oh, so you're just reading dead white men instead,"
And the correct answer is yeschad. They were the good writers.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
16d ago
Tools that would have been useful to me in my twenties
This is gesturing towards a Sunday question I've been thinking about, which is how many Xers/millennials had Silent/Boomer same-sex parents that they thought were in any way useful in providing advice in the realm of sex/dating/marriage. It seems like a lot of guys I know (I know far less about women's opinions on this issue) had to reinvent the wheel during their 20s and even into their 30s on those topics, and there seems to be a strong overlap with a not-very-helpful-with-advice Silent/Boomer father.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
16d ago
He's generally so accurate in his takes on the WQ that I sometimes suspect he's CovfefeAnon from X.
RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
16d ago
Those lines of theory were percolating within academia for years before they breached out into the body politic.
An interesting example of this is Mrs. Bridge from 1959, where the author is basing much of the background of the novel on his upbringing in semi-affluent KCMO in the 1920s-30s. There are asides and comments from background characters espousing views that wouldn't explode nationwide until the mid-to-late 60s, or even the 70s, yet they were already circulating in non-academic circles by the 50s (assuming the author heard them in the 50s and had his characters say them even though they didn't really say such things in the 30s, but who knows, maybe he's being fully accurate and those ideas really were the talk of upper middle class white people in the 30s).
I was going to point out the many Striver Merit Badges you're overlooking in your analysis that are needed to approach the highest end legal jobs, but yes, by comparison, it's far more meritocratic than research science at universities.
More options
Context Copy link