It’s relatively common for lawyers to say something like “we would never do X, but even if we did X, that would not have been illegal”. In this case X is deporting Abrego García against a court order. You will note that the DOJ also claimed to be unable to bring him back, yet, somehow, magically, after they are threatened with sanctions they were able to bring him back. Weird how that happens.

So it is obvious to anyone that the DOJ is lying. It should be obvious to the SCOTUS that the DOJ is lying, but, and this is in a case unrelated to Abrego García, Gorsuch and Roberts get all testy when you say that the Solicitor General, who is lying, happens to be lying. As I said, rule of law isn’t doing well right now.

They also lied and said they didn’t defy a court order. Did you miss that part?

Well. They didn’t though. In court they say that they don’t, they wouldn’t, and would never dream of defying court orders.

It’s just, you know, the Trump DOJ lies to the court. And, some judges are okay with the legal system lying about stuff. It’s a weird position to take, to say, “sure, you planted some evidence, but he was guilty anyway, so it doesn’t really matter.” Most judges, classically, have been in favor of something called the rule of law. Tump doesn’t like the rule of law, the Trump DOJ doesn’t like the rule of law, and now Trump is putting judges on the federal circuit who don’t like the rule of law. It’s not entirely clear that even the SCOTUS cares that much about rule of law right now. As they say “stare decisis is for suckers” or “we don’t care how the law worked yesterday day, we don’t care how the law works tomorrow, this is what we want to happen right now, we put it to a vote, and it’s totally what is going to happen.”

No. It’s not the pot calling the kettle black, it’s Hitler complaint about how immoral and violent Gandhi is.

Ah, yes. Only my company can possibly do this task, and your decision not to trust my company to perform this task means you won’t have anybody at all do it ever. 🙄

And the first time I used nmap on my college network, a professor called up the help desk to report that he had been port scanned.

Then my freind at the help desk told me not to run nmap again and to wait until after dark to pull all the reel to reel tapes out of the dumpster….

Just to make this more explicit, I lived near a mall growing up. The mall actively fought against getting a bus stop put in near by. Why? Because if there is a bus stop near the mall, then, gasp, THOSE PEOPLE might come to the mall. And by those people, I think we all know I’m talking about.

deleted by creator

Mostly start up time for me. It just takes the programs longer to launch.

I think the line between needing corporate approval for your music, and needing government approval for your music is a blurry one, and it is difficult to judge what actually happens from the outside. The people who grant the corporate approval play golf, do drugs, and get hookers with people in government, so the government could have politely asked the capitalists to ban the act. Let’s not undersell the deep alignment between corporate and government power.

Same as Facebook and Google. Sell all the data they collect on you to whoever will buy it. It’s advertising start to finish, top to bottom.

And, whatever isn’t advertising is part of the surveillance state. Palantir and Peter Theil get to look over your colonoscopy results while they decide whether or not your social credit score has fallen low enough to revoke your citizenship.

Well, unfortunately Trump and Republicans ARE the US right now, meaning they get to decide what the US goverment does, because they control the US goverment. Unfortunately the US isn’t just the US when it does what you support. As much as we both know wish this wasn’t happening.

No. There is no mechanism to allow this. The union is perpetual, and cannot be brought to an end. A state can no more leave than US than a city or a house.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

The donations that people have made over the years, giving them the largest endowment in world history?

It’s kinda like asking “how is Elon Musk going to pay for that?” I don’t know, how about with some of his money.

I think this is a fundamentally different way of thinking that we have. The way to win at betting is to have a better distribution than the other guy. You don’t need to have high confidence about any particular outcome, you just need to recognize when the distribution of odds differ from the true odds. Strong favorites in a low information environment indicate a chance to make good money. Sure, any given low information environment, like a papal conclave, may occur infrequently, and you could lose money on any one event, as is the nature of betting, but if you can recognize when the market is likely to be wrong you can extract money from it. Really, that is the only way to extract money from it.

deleted by creator

In situations like this it may make sense to just bet on all the underdogs. The market is highly overconfident in its information, you think the market’s information is crap, so you just bet against the market by taking the underdogs.