HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

totalZero

no profile record

Submissions

[untitled]

2 points·by totalZero·8 months ago·0 comments

House Passes Resolution Declaring "Christ Is King"

okhouse.gov
5 points·by totalZero·9 months ago·5 comments

comments

totalZero
·8 months ago·discuss
I spoke at the December 2024 Norman Public Schools meeting. Their yearly budget exceeds $200 million. The next day, NPS sent police to the place of my residence to ban me from a board meeting venue and a high school where I volunteered at a debate tournament. This is a misdemeanor per Oklahoma Open Meeting Act §314, and violates the First Amendment. It was protected speech. Police arrived when I was showering. I stepped out in a towel. They did not initially permit me back inside to get dressed. I went anyway. Police talked about whether I would return with a firearm. They had false information about my actions the day before. I said that banning me from the meeting venue violates the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act.

Ryan Walters is investigated by Attorney General Gentner Drummond at the OSDE. I spoke to them about Revelation 9 describing a star of David descending at Alma oilfield, Abadan north of the Persian Gulf.

Drummond runs for Governor and investigates the state school board. He did not respond when I reported school board crime to him. I downloaded a complaint form from his website, filled it out with specific references to statute, and delivered it to Drummond’s offices in a suit and tie with evidence: a USPS certified letter from NPS. I was not allowed indoors; a patrolman came to the door to collect the criminal complaint and the evidence; I handed them to him. He said he would take them to the appropriate place.

I never heard back from Gentner regarding NPS using police to commit crime under color of law. A man with a $20 name stomps the yard when Ryan Walters is gone and claims to enforce the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act.

Drummond did not police Norman PD and weeks later, I was attacked on Good Friday while praying by myself in a room with a locked door. The attacker called 911 and when Norman PD arrived, I was peeing in a bathroom. Police did not observe me commit any crimes, yet they kicked in the bathroom door. I saw a weapon drawn. They handcuffed me and did not charge me with a crime or question me. They did not take me to a police facility at all. Norman PD, about whom I had filed a criminal complaint to Drummond, took me in custody to a mental hospital where I was injected repeatedly and held against my will for weeks without shoes and without being taken before a judge. That is a violation of habeas corpus.

Gentner is a wickedness in a state crossed by a dark railroad to unlikely reality: for all his un-Christian hardheartedness toward Catholic immigrant kids, Ryan Walters respected a lawfulness in rendering law “flexible enough” as Alfred P. Murrah might say, not simply ignoring legal responsibility as the Attorney General has. Law is not justice. Good judgment establishes justice contrary to law, in accordance with the law, in truth and by the natural power of fact.

When I regained my senses after being knocked out by the first injection, I went to an employee in the mental hospital and could barely move my face. I was given a crayon.

Over the course of weeks, I was not taken before a judge. I was injected without receiving documentation detailing the substances injected. They said I was court-ordered but they never took me before a judge or showed me a court order. I saw multiple patients in the mental hospital have seizures and be treated by other patients and a janitor. I was not medically evaluated for about two weeks, and my first comments to a doctor lasted seconds before he accused me of having grandiosity when I told him about me being on television. He did not medically evaluate me at any point at the mental hospital. He stayed in the back, away from patients. I called 911 repeatedly and said that I was being held against my will yet not being medically evaluated by a doctor nor taken before a judge. You might determine my precise words based on recordings.

A state AG did not enforce law where a school district and police force willfully broke state and federal law.

Arya Azma
totalZero
·9 months ago·discuss
Holy Week might have been an occasion, but the sentiment is not so much about the Senate version that was introduced as it is about Oklahoma deliberating the wrong things the wrong way for the wrong reasons.
totalZero
·9 months ago·discuss
See below for excerpts of law in the United States.

The Supreme Court of the United States has opined that a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to three men who were Baptists is a basis for American jurisprudence. Use of the letter describing a "separation of church and state" is case law in the United States. That phrase is not written in the Constitution. Oklahoman legislators who style themselves as Christians in society could try to set up honeyed cases that hook the loops of existing jurisprudence in court cases that explore the logical and moral constraint propagation of American courts. As a body of two bodies, they don't seek such a path to freeing America from the extant tyranny of Thomas Jefferson's Danbury letter over the mind of man. Instead of fighting consequential cases like McGirt by using the state legislature to bulwark the statehood of Oklahoma, the legally ineffective legislature rebels against the law in the United States as applied by the incorporation of the First Amendment. Lawyers in Oklahoma are generally inept and frequently accustomed to courts that are bad for trust in government. Oklahoma has become pricey makeup densely applied to deep boils upon an erstwhile sonship of liberty. Other states give their peoples better government. Thomas Jefferson wrote about Jesus in a way that was malformed in reason and incoherent in its essential nature in a letter to William Short dated August 4, 1820, but the Supreme Court does not appear to have applied that letter explicitly in its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state lets the federal government inhibit its lawful ability to enforce laws against child sexual abuse, and the legos in the legislature insult God by being unholy and setting aside Matthew 5:17 as a guideline for how the Son of God was as a Jew with the Jews: a fulfiller of law and prophecy. O, redness! How you desecrate your food!

The legislature of Oklahoma does not adequately consider law as its primary area of professional responsibility. Breaking the law in the United States by passing an intellectually underformed resolution about elves or Jesus or turkey is not a religious honor toward God. It is better to destroy the bad religions, and set ablaze the good one, too, in the public forum that is the Oklahoma legislature, than to burn incense for God and Mammon equally. If the legislature were to break the law in a better way, one that sets the state up to win battles in the Supreme Court, perhaps they could honor God by breaking the law in a way that establishes precedent: litigation of contested action. Oklahoma is a fat cat state. The cat sits around and waits for financial inflows based on petroleum, mineral resources, government injection of monies from tax revenue, and inflow of business competency from non-Oklahoma-based companies. We have Hobby Lobby, too, and that is not a bad thing. The problem is that the legislature principally serves nobody and then high-fives itself for wisps of bicameral nothing. That is their practice in general and in truth.

Mardel is nice, too.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947):

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 98 U. S. 164.
totalZero
·4 years ago·discuss
> Whatever ChatGPT (or similar) can generate, humans need to do better.

You overestimate me.
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
I would try to gently put them on the back foot when they offer a wage.

When you receive the offer, you should comment on the differential between expected and offered wage, even if you intend to accept. For example, you might say with a gently puzzled tone, "this is lower than what I would ideally be earning, based on my experience and capabilities. Can you explain how you came to this number?"

You may be able to push back on them a little bit. You will be able to tell if there's room to negotiate, based on the response to you. Don't overdo it, as simply commenting on the differential and seeing how they respond is a way of gently squeezing them. If it seems the number is negotiable, ask if they can compromise with (for example) $33. The art is in doing this in a confident and friendly way, so that the position doesn't collapse.

Whatever number you set as the price you want, don't waver on it after it escapes your lips. Let them consider the number unless it's clear there will be no budging. If possible, do some research on other roles or other engineers you know in the business, so that you can justify your ask. It's not your standard of living that sets the price, it's your alternative job and their alternative hire.
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
Klim makes good gear. I have only heard positive things about the company prior to seeing this article.
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
Can't speak for tkinom, but if you were friends with a thousand or two of those dollars, then you feel a punch in the gut. It's not so much "low" as it is "sad."
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
The EV is the payoff times the probability. If there were only a 10% chance of paying (for example) treble damages without admitting guilt, then a company would take that bet repeatedly and the wins would more than pay for the losses.
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
> if you have a short squeeze and the supply is limited because of people holding their shares, the stock would basically go to infinity.

Whoa whoa whoa. This is a slippery slope argument.

If everybody is holding their shares as in your scenario, then the only way to buy shares would be to get them from a short seller. Market-makers typically have an obligation to maintain continuous and two-sided quotations, but there are exceptions to this rule in mitigating technical or legal circumstances (solvency risk seems like it would be a valid exception).

If nobody is selling and everyone is buying, the price ought to go higher. That is what happens in unadulterated markets. But the price won't go to "infinity." Rather, it will go to the level at which long holders decide the payoff for selling is irresistible. They will begin to sell. A new price will be set.

It is true that some hedge funds (including Melvin) would potentially have been ruined if the natural buyers had been permitted to bid for the stock. However, exchanges don't halt securities just because a hedge fund is about to go under. That is a fundamentally unfair practice. Hedge funds have failed in the past, too; not every market participant is Too Big To Fail. Their PB would be left to cover the short position, and would be responsible for whatever loss remains after the hedge fund goes broke.
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
> I have been seeing people on WSB claim that the stock price shown on the ticker is "manipulated by the hedgies" and asking when the real stock price is going to finally appear. This is pretty similar to Q people asking when it will be revealed that 45 is still the president.

I don't think it's fair to draw an equivalence between the two theories.

It's pretty easy for a large market participant to impact the bid/offer when there isn't much liquidity, especially if the natural buyers are restricted from trading. The price moves because of supply and demand.

The WSB perspective is perhaps a bit uninformed, but it's not particularly bizarre (unlike the QAnon garbage). They're just asking "when will the price reflect our pent-up demand rather than artificial supply?"

Unfortunately, the reality is that prices get set during these moments of absolute craziness. That's why you sometimes see hedge funds reload after hours after an earnings miss on one of their long positions. They want to absorb the supply so the stock doesn't crash lower.

Look at GME today. The price moved a couple of percent even though nobody has the slightest reason to believe that GME stock is worth this particular price. Some say it should be higher due to flows around positioning, and others say it should be lower because of fundamentals.
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss


  > We are talking about the general practice and not specifically Yellen.

  > Are they all forms of bribery?
Reagan and Clinton didn't become cabinet officials after cashing in on speeches, and both the article and this thread center on Yellen. Don't attempt to move the goal posts.

  > If you are going to accuse people of corruption, you need to have
  > evidence that is stronger than the existence of a motive, which is
  > basically all you have currently.
This is not how it works.

Read (b)(1) here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/208

Then, read (d) here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.502

Yellen disclosed the sources of her honoraria and acknowledged a financial interest (here: https://extapps2.oge.gov/201/Presiden.nsf/PAS+Index/18A4D129...). She received written permission based on the determination "that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity" of her work. The question isn't whether she has committed a crime (she has not), nor whether she has motive to unfairly benefit Citadel (she does). Rather, the question is whether that financial interest is substantial enough to likely affect her work (a discretionary call already made by a government official), and whether the process itself is fair to other market participants (I contend that it is not).
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
We are talking about Yellen here because unlike Bill Clinton or whomever, she's the one in a position of power and she's the one "summoning regulators to discuss" Melvin (a hedge fund backed by Citadel) and Robinhood (whose number one PFOF client is Citadel).

The regulations currently protect market-makers like Citadel from having to adhere to many of the rules that other market participants have to follow. This includes the locate requirement of Reg SHO, as well as the buy-in procedure for failure to deliver. How are we supposed to trust Yellen to regulate one of her own biggest customers (maybe the biggest)?

It's an absolute joke to pay Yellen six figures to give a speech, and that's why people are thinking, "wait a sec, this is bribery right?" Are you suggesting that Yellen should get paid because she is "smart, accomplished, respected, and well known"? The impropriety of these lavish payments comes from the fact that she's a cabinet secretary expected to keep these very firms in line.

FINRA doesn't let vendors give their individual clients gifts of more than a hundred dollars per year. Yet the current TREASURY SECRETARY raked in $7mm in the past two years for giving bad speeches and somehow we're supposed to just be cool with that? Give me a break. She shouldn't be involved with this.
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
She earned seven million dollars from over 50 speeches in the past two years.

Citadel's fees are among the highest. See for yourself:

https://extapps2.oge.gov/201/Presiden.nsf/PAS+Index/C22B882B...

> she might as well resign being treasury secretary

If she can't disentangle herself from the interests of her benefactors, then yeah. Maybe she should resign.
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
It baffles me that you believe she should make six figures to give a single speech simply because that's the only way for her to avoid being broke in her mid 70s.
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
You're asking for something extraordinary. The only direct evidence you could possibly have would be video or testimony of Ken Griffin or Janet Yellen admitting that the high fees are related to a quid-pro-quo that goes beyond speaking. But circumstantial evidence is still evidence, and a preponderance of it should play a role in your judgment.

Some people work at Citadel for years after graduating from top colleges without making $700k in total income, yet Citadel shelled out that amount over the course of two years for a bunch of speeches from an altogether boring economist.

Janet Yellen is a laughably bad speaker. See for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YAEHJvNscs

Now she's the Treasury Secretary and she has power and authority to manage a situation that directly affects Citadel. They make money off Robinhood. They back Melvin. And they benefit from a regulatory environment that is all too forgiving to market-makers.
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
Agreed. Also, "seeking a waiver" from lawyers who work for you isn't exactly a high bar to clear.
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
If you participate in a business that can impact your decisions as a regulator or policy maker, that's a conflict of interest. The problem isn't the price of the speeches. It's the fact that she got paid that money by someone who has a huge interest in a financial system that she's charged to oversee.

> delivering a speech that she may have delivered in other venues does not strike me as necessarily of conflict

This argument totally ignores the fact that the conflict of interest arises from the transaction, not from the content of her speech.
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
Not the same WSB.

https://www.wsb.com/about/
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
The problem isn't bribes to former politicians, but rather bribes to future ones.

Also, Yellen isn't a former president, she is a former fed chair. It's not even remotely the same line of work.
totalZero
·5 years ago·discuss
> Bjarne Stroustroup or Linus Torvalds are also paid 6-figure speaking fees

Can you give some examples?