IANAL, but pretty curious of SCOTUS. I just read a lot of the opinions. (I hate that the pdf does not have a table of contents).
I've used the mental model of math and theorems to reason about it. In this model, all laws have to be consistent with base axioms from the constitution (and common law maybe?)
I have come to realize that it is not a great analogy. The model breaks down when you realize that the law is not about "truth" (objectively true statements), but about "goodness" - what is right or wrong. That's the subjective component. Reading opinions help guide through the logic and what is thought of as good. Dissents are useful to glee into different perspectives. Some dissents are high tower rants though. Learn to discern the two.
Take a look at Marbury v. Madison[0] for the background on how SCOTUS gained the power of judicial review, i.e. power to strike down laws as unconstitutional. Judicial review is not granted in the constitution.
I watched the live chat to get the news about these opinions.
Good on the reporters that cover the opinions and post updates. Without much editorialization I may add.
As an aside, I find it very exciting that audio of oral arguments are broadcast and opinions are read without cameras in the room It's a retro feeling.
Thinking out loud: using follow/unfollow you transmit a signal with no information. using the timing between the signal you are encoding symbols. I think this is called Pulse Position Modulation[0]
First step is to characterize the delta in the timestamps. That will give you an idea of what time-between-follows (TBF) should be to ensure reliable detection.
You could probably make a client for this. Build comms on top of twitter protocol.
Haven't used twitter in over 10 years, but this kinda makes me want to again.
Side note: reminds me of why gmail scans drafts. Criminals used a signal account and create drafts to communicate back and forth. This prevented detection because intel agencies scan email traffic, not drafts.
EDIT: why stop with twitter. what makes this powerful is that it leverages a feature every platform has. Youtube, Twitch, you name it. Let's go my dude.
* "Amusing ourselves to death": visual media is fundamentally different from writing and that impacts society. As a medium it supports certain messages better than other, ex. emotion.
* "Technopoly": defines the difference between tool-using and technocratic societies and impacts it has on society.
* "The End of Education": what is the purpose of an education system.
> The absolute largest change I would expect would be to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents illegally entered into the US and have never had a visa of entry permit of any type whatsoever.
That's the vibe I get.
However, I don't see a definition of jurisdiction in the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that would make this workable. How do you see this being resolved?
The precursor to this case is Trump v. CASA[0], which arose from injunctions blocking the executive order banning birthright citizenship. The case made it to the supreme court on the emergency docket. The court did not address the merits of the case (i.e. is the ban on birthright citizenship constitutional), rather they heard an argument against universal injunctions and the authority of a judge to block executive order. The court judged against universal injunctions. Basically the EO stands.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs forced a certified class and sought a class-wide injunction. This case is called Trump v. Barbara. SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case on the question of the constitutionality of a ban on birthright citizenship.
EDIT: The Trump v. CASA opinion handed a win to the executive to issues orders without universal injunctions blocking the order immediately. My hot take is that this was part of the original strategy. Not sure how the court will land on the current question at hand.
Lumping AI together with social media is confusing for me. One is a tool for the user, the other is not.
If social media is a tool for anything, it is for the company to generate ad revenue. Sure there is value someone can extract (keeping in touch family). But I can also extract value from junk mail (using it as scrap paper for notes and lists.)
AI is still a tool. I think? I have not seen any direct way that monetizes it through ads, yet. I expect AI with a revenue model will look way worse.
AI is turning people dumb. I see it all the time with code slop. It's the old "give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish". Maybe a tool-using approach to AI is "should me how to do this", rather than "do this for me". "Show me an example of some code" is more useful to me than unleashing it on my project.
Also, social media is obviously a sort of digital narcotic. Probably should be scheduled.
I suspect that's how it started and then put it out there and gained momentum. Possibly as a joke.
As a note on satire, is there a term for satire which is perpetuated for long enough that is take seriously at some point by someone?
I have been referring to this pattern as "the pizzagate phenomenon". Basically, making a joke repeatedly until it reaches an audience that's not in on the joke. It is not quite a "self-fulfilling prophecy.
Studied EE and went into software after college. Started out system programming and now I work on high level backend services and frontend SDKs.
I've been drown more to engines and power generation. Specifically, control systems that are able to maintain stable operation despite changing conditions.
Few pieces of software I've worked on operate as "control systems". Most have been business logic.
Lately, I've been viewing "keeping the lights on", more important that "keeping engagement up".
Maybe I'll try to get into embedded/FPGA programming. Last time I applied I got passed up due to lack of experience.
I find it distrubing that some of the most widely used arguments against Monsanto can be myths. It makes me really question the information I get whether supportive/critical. That aside they are pretty evil.
References to "domicile" come from common law (in Trump v Barb).
I may be mistaken.