nfh

Encouraging assassinations of the current elected president and VP should really earn him the chance to see the inside of a jail cell. Even for a few days while they question him. I think that would be good for everyone involved.

Even the most skilled money saver in the world, when their income is barely above their necessary life expenses, will fail to save much. Savings is a luxury only the rich can afford much of.

But you’re right, putting money into the hands of people living paycheck to paycheck, or barely able to save is great for the economy as well as those people personally. Even if they save 10% and spend 90%, it’s tremendously more beneficial than that money going to a wealthy multimillionaire who won’t even notice saving it. For everyone except the multimillionaire, who really isn’t negatively impacted.

Yeah don’t listen to Dave Ramsey. I remember hearing him speak on TV as a kid and something just felt off about him, but not quite as bad as Suze Orman.

I don’t think he’s a scammer, and some of the stuff he says is perfectly sensible and useful, but he (a boomer) also gives advice that isn’t how he got rich, to millennials and co, who will never ever get rich following it. Structurally that makes him pretty out of touch, and suggests anyone who listens to him should do so critically.

That’s putting aside that he’s also kind of just telling people to do capitalism harder, and everything that comes with that.

That’s true, bigots will always offer a road deeper into their beliefs, and you can’t stop them. But I think here the road out is a bit more visible than usual. It feels like a seed of doubt could be planted in some heads, which is something.

All because the school was afraid of some trans girl, who statistically speaking, probably wasn’t even one of their best players. The school’s transphobia did presumably hurt the trans student they targeted, but I’m guessing they hurt a lot more cis female athletes, on their own team especially. I hope any of those students who may have been transphobic see how it hurt them more than the trans student, and it gets them thinking…

Trump bucks are so 2023, they should start accepting Trump Steaks futures contracts and other derivatives

Dedicated hardware still has benefits, having your phone notifications separate from gaming, if your phone breaks having your console break would suck, and imo a touchscreen will never surpass physical buttons on controllers so you’d still want those.

I personally hope the future looks more like a steam deck than a gaming phone.

American here: their goal is clearly factual reporting, and I don’t see too often where they’ve missed the mark. Nobody’s free of bias, but they’re pretty good at balancing theirs out.

I don’t see this mentioned there, but that Apple has largely ignored enterprise works out as a strength; other companies wrote and open sourced pretty good tools. That can result in tools that better meet your needs, and generally will result in a lower TCO.

So every steam deck that visits the websites that track this counts? It’s probably not many, but it’s certainly likely there are a few counted.

Younger millennial here: I don’t remember a particular moment, but it was somewhere during the 2nd Bush administration. Between the horrible things that happened in Guantanamo Bay, the completely unjustified war on Iraq, and the harm I saw No Child Left Behind inflicting on my own community, the country’s flaws were very apparent to me.

When an obvious charlatan got elected in 2016, that devastated my hope that things would improve.

This has implications for the Tommy Westphall Universe as a whole.

Yeah Marbury v Madison found that congress can decide which cases SCOTUS reviews directly, vs where the authority of lower courts starts. But it’s not in conflict with the other principle from Marbury v Madison, that SCOTUS has the power to review whether laws are constitutional or not. If I understand correctly, at least.

Before Trump, the worst issue the growing authority of the court caused was a shift from Congress making major policy changes, to SCOTUS. Congress changing that could be a change for the better in the long run.

IANAL, but to my understanding, SCOTUS is defined by the constitution and given certain powers and protections, to interpret the constitution, mediate disputes between the political branches, and certain duties given to its chief Justice. Congress is given broad powers to set the laws, which includes details of how branches are run, like creating departments in the Executive, and setting the number of Justices on SCOTUS.

If I understand Jurisdiction Stripping correctly, it’s not preventing SCOTUS from eventually reviewing the case, but a law that says they don’t get the first review of legal challenges. It could slow the process, at the very least.

I still don’t understand the logic of this. Tens of millions of dollars a year is a lot of money, but so is the profits from running three casinos.

Wouldn’t running the casinos well be more profitable in the long term? And generally more sensible unless the goal is specifically to hurt the banks?

I get what you’re saying, it’s certainly a hard situation, and a rare one, but I think “truly nothing we can do” is an exceptionally rare situation.

But why is that person acting the way they are? People do things for reasons, even if they aren’t good ones. Maybe the only way they can safely interact with people is via video chat, and respecting the humanity of the others around them means that’s all they get. There are ways for them to get access to food, water, shelter, sunlight, even socialization, without physical access to others, and access to somebody to talk to who might be able to help them, even if the DSM doesn’t have a specific diagnosis that describes them.

I think any system that deals with people who have done what society has labelled crime should seek to minimize harm, and maximize opportunities to grow for those who wish to take them. I don’t think your “textbook” case for the death penalty achieves either of these aims.

I don’t disagree with your main point, the carceral system is itself fundamentally broken, and fixing one thing won’t suddenly make the system humane. The goal of a criminal justice system should be to reduce recidivism, to empower people through education to leave ready to have a more constructive and fulfilling life than when they arrived. We should respect the humanity of inmates, overturn wrongful convictions, eviscerate minimum sentencing guidelines, abolish stupid crimes that don’t even represent a threat to society like prostitution, and apply state and federal minimum wages to inmates, among so many other changes.

There’s so much inhumanity in the system, to your point. We can and should revisit convictions, and try to make amends if we got it wrong. And it should really never look anything like putting people in a cage for life.

But that’s kind of my point, the only humane method is not to kill people. Asking “but how do we do it” is like asking how to square a circle; there may be a couple of interesting things to learn along the way, but you won’t find any satisfying answers to the question.

Despite him having been the star of a different 2000s reality show, Trump truly is The Biggest Loser.

I say the death penalty is itself inhumane, focusing on the technical problem misses the point. Killing people you have a high degree of confidence committed murder means on a long enough time span, you’re virtually guaranteed to kill innocents. The process required to minimize these false positive killings makes the death penalty more expensive than life in prison, on average. As far as I can tell, there’s no upside to the death penalty, unless you’re firmly convinced that the criminal justice system needs to focus on retribution.

The only humane option I see is to let them live out their lives in a context where they won’t reoffend.