Ew.

Taken out of context, the phrase almost sounds like it could be used to argue for education, contraception, and healthcare access, not whatever grossness he's actually meaning in context.

I agree it should only be done responsibly, which is why I'm in favor of people have the information and tools to ensure it only happens when they're prepared and able to do so.

They'll go so far as to do anything except any of the things that make happy, productive people more likely to feel inclined or comfortable having children.

Parental leave so people can be there when their child is born? Affordable or accessible daycare? A world that accommodates any workplace flexibility? Basic affordable healthcare? A world with some degree of optimism for the state they're bringing their children into?

Nah, a once a year tax rebate covering a month or two of daycare should be more than enough.

That's great context for the "why" on those outbreaks, thanks!

Some people get crazy about it.
The US in general had some way worse listeria outbreaks than Europe did in the window where pasteurization laws were first becoming things anyone was considering, so we start from a much more "your milk will be made safe" place.

As a result, raw milk, while still uncommon, can be sold in stores or other "normal" retail settings in most of Europe, and it's probably what will be used for cheese manufacturing.
In the US, it's only available via stores that sell it exclusively via club membership, and you might get raided by the USDA if they suspect you're trying to skirt the rules about membership. (Some stores have done hourly membership that comes with a free gallon of milk). Milk must also be pasteurized before being used for cheese, which creates a market for black market cheeses that can't be made with pasteurized milk but aren't cost effective to import past the various taxes we put on luxury cheese.

As a result most Americans are either far more wary of raw milk, because our laws were written before modern milking practices reduced sanitary concerns to what we accept for meat, or they develop a persecution complex and ascribe it quasi-magical powers, ironically often getting it from places that don't follow the sanitary practices that render it likely benign.

On the one hand, I think that it's a stupid idea being pushed for ideological reasons meant to favor the Religious Right. On the other hand though, as a land owner, it does make a certain amount of sense to me that land owners should potentially get more votes than non-land owners. Not because we're better or more deserving than non-land owners or anything, but because we have more "skin in the game", we've got more at stake, we've got our estate's future to consider. Land owners deal with issues that might be decided by a bunch of voters who decide, "I don't have any land, why should my tax dollars go towards drainage management?" Being responsible for the well-being of the land we live on maybe should give you additional votes for acerage that can't manage itself.

Still though, it does go against the idea of one person, one vote and opens the door for all sorts of other multipliers to muddy the voting process. Will parents then get extra votes because they've got more people in their house? Do other groups stand to gain extra votes for whatever reason? It has all sorts of potential for getting abused if any exception is made for anyone, so ultimately probably shouldn't be a thing.

I hate Vance and want Trump & him to crash and burn hard this election, BUT... I'm not sure I totally hate this idea.

On the one hand, I think that it's a stupid idea being pushed for ideological reasons meant to favor the rich. On the other hand though, as a billionaire, it does make a certain amount of sense to me that the wealthy should potentially get more votes than the poors. Not because we're better or more deserving than the poors or anything, but because we have more "skin in the game", we've got more at stake, we've got our vast fortunes to consider. The wealthy deal with funding issues that might be decided by a bunch of voters who decide, "I don't have any money, why shouldn't your tax dollars go towards public works?" Being responsible for the livelihood of the economy maybe should give you additional votes for businesses who can't vote themselves.

Still though, it does go against the idea of one person, one vote and opens the door for all sorts of other multipliers to muddy the voting process. Will doctors then get extra votes because they've done more for the country? Do other groups stand to gain extra votes for whatever reason? It has all sorts of potential for getting abused if any exception is made for anyone, so ultimately probably shouldn't be a thing.

I hate Vance and want Trump & him to crash and burn hard this election, BUT... I'm not sure I totally hate this idea.

Everyone, as a class, has some burden that some other grouping of people doesn't. That doesn't give you more of a say in the direction of the country.

With parenthood, your ability to raise and model your children is the privilege you get for having more skin in the game. Same with being a landowner, rich, healthy or anything else.

If anyone should get extra votes, which they shouldn't, it's the people who have fallen through the cracks in the system. Let the politicians bend over backwards pandering to the homeless vote, the drug addict bloc, or the chronically medically disabled demographic. They've all got even more on the line than parents, and the system has pretty clearly written them off and ignored them pretty hard already.

Someone near him has recorded it on their phone if he has, and is just walking around numbly aware that they have the Nixon tapes sitting in their pocket.

They're using tap to pay, and having the stark reminder that they just bought a sandwich with something that could change the election be on the news for 30 minutes because no one expects him not to drop a hard N in casual conversation so it's not as noteworthy as a woman politician laughing in public.

That's how I try to be as well, but when you get flight delays or a connecting flight that got changed to one with a miniscule layover, you sometimes just can't afford to be patient.

Which sucks, because you know 95% of the people standing up don't have a real time limit, and so you stand there staring at the back of the person who just wants to be the first to go wait an hour for their flight while you brace yourself for flat out running across the airport.

From a theft perspective, being able to hijack someones steam account is likely to be more lucrative than most. There's a window where they might be able to resell the account to someone who doesn't know how easily valve can verify true ownership and fix it.

You've still got a lot of botnets and cryptocurrency miners flying around. Ransomware is the big one that targets people with important data that a gaming device is immune to.

I'm horrified to agree that that's actually a valid argument.

Judicial review of the established presidential power to direct the military to kill, ahem, "designate as a clear and immediate threat", specific individuals in an emergency to protect the country would legitimately undermine the presidents power to defend the integrity of the nation.

Goddamn was that a stupid fucking ruling.

So, to answer seriously: if it's an explicit presidential power he gets total personal immunity, although the office can still be restricted. If it's an official act, he's presumed to have personal immunity unless the prosecutor can argue that there's no way that not having immunity could get in the way of doing the job of president, and they're not allowed to use motivation to make the case.

The president isn't given the explicit power to reform the courts.
He's given explicit power to command the armed forces, but the rules of the armed forces are decided by Congress.

So it's a question arguing how "the president can't kill members of the judiciary" doesn't hinder the power of the executive branch without referencing why the president is killing them.

It should be noted that a large swath of that act has been overturned by the supreme court in the decades since the 40s.

It's where we get the distinction between "advocating for revolution" and "telling people to revolt, now".

One is protected because "violent revolution" in an abstract sense is a protected political policy position.
The law was originally used to target unionists and socialists who said we needed to tear the system down and rebuild it, by force if necessary.

What isn't protected is an imminent call to action or direct incitement to lawlessness.

Advocating for the ability to do something that violates the current law is the only way to advocate for changing a law.

No, the president doesn't have that power.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10655

https://norml.org/news/2021/11/11/crs-report-president-lacks-constitutional-authority-to-end-cannabis-prohibition-by-executive-order/?noamp=mobile

The president does not have the authority to unilaterally change drug classifications, only to nominate a DEA director who will engage in the defined process for changing the schedule of the the substance.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-submits-proposed-regulation-reschedule-marijuana

Which is what's happened.

The president doesn't have the power to change the law.

They do. The article you posted above actually discusses how the money can be transferred to a political party, with the caveat that there's a cap on how much can then be spent on a different candidate.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/042716/what-happens-campaign-funds-after-elections.asp

https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P60007168/#total-spent

The other committees referenced are all Sanders related it should be noticed. There is likely some confusion relating to sanders transferring money to the DNC to cover his costs associated with his post-drop-out campaign activity to try to rally support behind the Democratic candidate.

There is, unfortunately they're viewed by on of the political parties as being evil liberal propaganda machines, and they very much want to privatize them or just sell all of their content off and shutter them.

On the one hand: "you can't have her she's ours!". On the other, she's out in 26 regardless, and she's pretty good so maybe we can share with the rest of the country.

There's a big difference between "buying stuff you don't need", and "not having legal review a contract", or "accepting terms that include no liability".
Buying stuff you don't need is in the authority of a VP seeing as their job is to make choices. Bypassing legal review and accounting diligence controls typically isn't at any company big enough to matter.
I trust your hypothetical VP to not want to get fired from his nice job by skipping the paperwork for a done deal.

Do you honestly think that Amazon just didn't read the contract? Microsoft? Google? The US government?

They're getting sued, and they're gonna have to pay some money. Cynicism is one thing, but taking it to the degree of believing that people are signing unread contracts that waive liability for direct, attributable damage caused by unprofessional negligence is just assinine.

In this case, it's really not a Linux/windows thing except by the most tenuous reasoning.

A corrupted piece of kernel level software is going to cause issues in any OS.
Cloudstrike itself has actually caused kernel panics on Linux before, albeit less because of a corrupted driver and more because of programming choices interacting with kernel behavior. (Two bugs: you shouldn't have done that, and it shouldn't have let you).

Tenuously, Linux is a better choice because it doesn't need this type of software as much. It's easier and more efficient to do packet inspection via dedicated firewall for infrastructure, and the other parts are already handled by automation and reporting tools you already use.
You still need something in this category if you need to solve the exact problem of "realtime network and filesystem event monitoring on each host", but Linux makes it easier to get right up to that point without diving into the kernel.
Also vendors managing auto update is just less of a thing on Linux, so it's more the cultural norm to manage updates in a way that's conducive to staggering that would have caught this.

Contract wise, I'm less confident that crowd strike has favorable terms.
It's usually consumers who are straddled with atrocious terms because they neither have power nor the interest in digging into the specifics too far.
Businesses, particularly ones that need or are interested in this category of software, inevitably have lawyers to go over contract terms in much more detail and much more ability to refuse terms and have it matter to the vendor. United airlines isn't going to accept the contract terms of caveat emptor.

I wasn't mocking your argument, I was agreeing with you and clarifying that my feeling was about who I'm most "irritated" with, not about responsibility or legal culpability.

My example was for simplicity, not mockery.
The power going out is the power companies fault, so I'm most mad at them. The store didn't have a generator because they trusted the power company, so my cake got ruined. I'm still mad at them but less so because they weren't the cause of the problem, even though they could have done more to prevent this from impacting me.
Culpability wise, I can only make demands of the store and hope that enough other people do so that they in turn demand answers from the power company.

There are actually a fair number of certifications, including ones from government agencies, relating to software development, deployment, and related practices. That so many organizations didn't have the ones relating to protection from supply chain issues is distressing, to say nothing of it slipping through quality control in the first place.

Please, if you think we're in a place in this thread where I'd be mocking you, re-read it with the understanding that I agree with you entirely on legal and structural issues, and at most just have a different opinion about where the balance of "fuck you"s go. I think I put more scorn towards the vendor because doing the thing is worse than failing to prevent the thing. Also, I work at a parallel company and so I'm more familiar with exactly how much you have to be fucking up for this to happen because I spent the last three days dealing with the more minor controls that prevent this from happening. Everyone has outages because you can't prevent 100% of errors, but it's on the vendor to build to the spec of their most sensitive customer and ensure that outages don't keep a doctor from patient records.

Can't fault you for feeling that way. I definitely don't think anyone should be exempt from responsibility, I meant blame in the more emotional "ugh, you jerk" sense.

If someone can't fulfill their responsibilities because someone they depended on failed them, they're still responsible for that failure to me, but I'm not blaming them if that makes any sense.

Power outage or not, the store owes me an ice cream cake and they need to make things even between us, but I'm not upset with them for the power outage.

I'd love to know how you plan to do user mode packet filtering. Keep in mind that on Linux, the designated API is inherently kernel mode. https://netfilter.org/

This isn't one of the cases where we're talking about Linux being superior to windows. Any OS will be fucked if you give it a mangled kernel module. In this case, it's just that only one got one.

Your perception that anything that touches the kernel is an intrinsic security risk is unfounded.