"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: [...] like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead." —Jonathan Swift
- Posts
- 45
- Comments
- 1385
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 45
- Comments
- 1385
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
Why did they make her look like she's about to terminate the waiter at Chili's who brought her soggy fries?
If you couldn't make bunk
I made small but meaningful contributions to a reasonably well-known project still used by millions of people.
Maybe don't assume I made bunk just because I have an iota of humility to acknowledge that a hard fork of a modern web browser announced by someone on Mastodon who spent a collective five hours patching main is a pipedream.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tantamount
My point if you didn't get it is that this has basically the same effect as expressing strong disagreement – inasmuch as it's extremely likely this won't see any meaningful usage or development and will quickly fizzle out.
Source: worked two years on a FOSS project vastly less important, complex, dangerous, and time-sensitive than a web browser.
Source 2: Obviousness.
It's not wrong tho. There's a new initiative.
Hence my point: announcing "a new initiative" doesn't denote an actual amount of demonstrated momentum, but it certainly connotes it.
And, so far, they are showing lots more than all the other wannabes and nobodies who complain the same on the internet but don't deliver.
Dude, it's a patch on top of main that removes Firefox's tepid, trivially disabled AI features. What do you mean "lots more"? lmao this is tantamount to a strongly worded letter about Firefox's inclusion of LLM tools.
"There's a new initiative" is doing a fuck of a lot of lifting from "someone on Mastodon said they're going to try".
Seconding OpenStreetMap. You can download the maps for offline use, and there are plenty of FOSS apps that use it. It's incomplete in some areas, but if you're at the point of physical paper maps, you may as well channel that friction into contributing here and there and helping improve it for others.
[Beshear:] It says I appoint all state officers when there’s a vacancy. The question is, does that apply to federal offices? Well, before there was ever a law in Kentucky on how this would work, multiple appointments were made by governors, assumingly under that provision.
Until Beshear sues and wins (or at least until he files a suit), I'm going to be bold enough to challenge that. The wording clearly does not support what Beshear's saying. First, I'll note preliminarily that the section covers all elective offices*, so this is all we need to read from:
Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, vacancies in all elective offices shall be filled by election or appointment, as follows:
Notably, the "except as otherwise provided in this Constitution" is referring to the section on judicial vacancies. To my knowledge, these are the two sections that cover vacancies (show me I'm wrong if I am).
Next, we have a bunch of stuff covering city, town, county, district, and State offices. We can safely skip that (skip down if you think we can't). This brings us to:
Vacancies in all offices for the State at large, or for districts larger than a county, shall be filled by appointment of the Governor; all other appointments shall be made as may be prescribed by law.
First, "State at large" is defined in the KY Constitution (sections 69–96) and does not mean federal offices. And then it says all other appointments shall be made as may be prescribed by law.
Microanalyzing that sentence in case you think there's room for doubt: "as may be prescribed by law" means that the law can prescribe how the appointment is made but that a law doesn't have to exist – where "may" is opposed to "shall". I.e. if there is no law, which there doesn't have to be, do whatever the fuck you want, but if there is one, follow it.
The obvious reason other governors were appointing their choices is because there was no law in place to say otherwise, and "may" meant there didn't have to be one until Republicans decided to ratfuck Beshear.
Lastly, if he's trying to assert that "state offices" cover federal ones, I mean, good luck, I guess. That's a dumb, ad hoc argument that's likely to fail given there's literally a section that differentiates between State office and Federal office.
If the governor himself(TM) actually sues, then fair game, and we'll see who wins. Otherwise, dead serious: I think he's completely misreading the law and Republicans are correct on this – not morally, of course, but legally. I invite you to read the linked section and point out where I'm wrong.
TL;DR:
- The section covers all elected offices (with judicial being the exception).
- It spends a bunch of time covering city, town, county, district, and State offices (incl. a special excerpt for "State at large", which per the KY Constitution is not federal).
- It then says "all other offices" may be prescribed by law.
I'm going to be ballsy enough to say this: if you can read this plain English and still take Beshear's word on it, that's fine, but it's strictly an argument from authority. Andy Beshear's word is not a legal consensus that there's ambiguity. Please, read it for yourself and try to challenge me based on what it says.
(Didn't downvote you, btw; I appreciate you linking this.)
but I do know you're not representing this fully.
All I've done is link to the relevant section of the Kentucky Constitution and (in my other comment) explain what it says. If you think any part of that section is ambiguous, if you think my interpretation is wrong in some specific way, if you'd like to cite some other relevant portion of the Kentucky Constitution I'm not considering, or especially if you'd like to provide any citation to the counterarguments of "lawyers interviewed on this matter", I invite that.
But right now, I'm looking at the section of the Kentucky Constitution that provides for replacements of vacant offices, and not only do I see nothing that would bar the KGA from making this law, I see broad, affirmative, plain-English authority given to them to do exactly that.
I'm not trying to hoodwink you with half-truths; I know of literally no other information that would weigh on whether or not the Kentucky Constitution enables the General Assembly to prescribe the means of appointment. I don't know what to do with "you're not representing this fully" and a vague allusion to some alleged legal consensus when I'm representing it as fully as I know how.
As I pointed out in another comment: the Kentucky Constitution does not say this.
Any vacancy not covered (which in the Kentucky Constitution's case are city, town, county, district, State) is filled as "prescribed by law".
This is misinformed. This is what the Kentucky Constitution says.
Note that when it's discussing appointments versus elections, it's specifically talking about "city, town, county, district or State officers".
When we get toward the end (not having mentioned the US House or the US Senate):
Vacancies in all offices for the State at large, or for districts larger than a county, shall be filled by appointment of the Governor; all other appointments shall be made as may be prescribed by law.
This leaves the KGA complete leeway to prescribe how replacements are appointed to the House and Senate, including holding an election first, functionally reducing the appointment to one choice.
Edit: And in case you think "offices for the State at large" is ambiguous enough to include the US House and US Senate, please see sections 69 to 96 of the Kentucky Constitution.
And the election requires 63 days' notice to the sheriffs in each county. And two elections a few weeks apart is going to annoy and confuse voters.
And (extrapolating the process for vacancies in primary elections) Beshear isn't the one who formally recognizes McConnell's absence for the purposes of the election; his Republican SoS is.
And if Beshear calls up an election without having properly verified only for McConnell to show real proof of life, the Democratic governor of a deeply red state with two more years left is going to have a scandal on his hands.
They're basically asking Beshear to snatch a Democratic scandal from the jaws of a Republican one.
Futurism's are particularly egregious. It exists to get clicks, and I mean in a way that clearly none of its writers give a single shit.
This headline and story in particular are okay enough, but in general, Futurism will take scraps and turn it into "[x person/business/industry our readerbase doesn't like] is literally shitting its pants and DYING".
Well, yes. If you didn't know by now that impeding a federal investigation by destroying records is illegal, then I don't know what to tell you. (Edit: That said, this was charged under a somewhat different statute. I was trying to answer specifically your question.)
The point in dispute here is that the search was an illegal violation of the Fourth Amendment in the first place, and consequently the wipe proceeding that cannot be prosecuted because the government had no legal right to access that information to begin with – that is, it was always defendent's to do with whatever they wanted, and they were under no obligation to preserve records.
Edit: I will say I haven't directly read the defense's arguments, so there could be more nuance here/I could be outright wrong about the grounds of the argument thanks to the telephone game.
I'd assume based on the specific charge that the hitch the defense is arguing is based on the word:
for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control
If the Government has no lawful authority, then no crime, it'd seem.
If you know about this and continue to pay for it given viable alternatives, yes, you knowingly, willingly are. They wrote a whole spiel justifying it, so I'm going to point it out.
Flamman reports that [Berntsson's] was the largest single private donation to any Swedish party in 2025, and on its own represented 72 percent of the [neo-Nazi] party's income for the year.
Sorry, someone who's knowingly funding the neo-Nazi party in Sweden – not because they have no other choice but because they don't fucking care – doesn't get a vote on what is and isn't woke moralizing authoritarianism.
Fuck crypto shills. Fuck neo-Nazis. And fuck you, you whiny little Nazi-funding bitch.
"Reeee, a community vote that says we shouldn't spend community-donated money hosting pump-and-dump projects that exist to put money in the hands of the wealthy far-right while destroying the environment is authoritarianism!!1 You should be forced to host my trash at your own expense; stop trying to control me, woke moralists! Stop caring about things and help me destroy the world!"
Is there no git hosting service left that isn't pushing censorship and fascism? I think I should just start self-hosting at this point.
Aw, is someone sad that a nonprofit won't spend their own money to host shitty pump-and-dump tools destroying the environment? Little pissbaby need a minute to compose themself?
Edit: By the way, speaking of fascism, OP...
Edit 2: Just want to say I find it immensely funny that the two people in this thread bitching about this democratic decision and calling it "fascist" and "authoritarian", respectively, have posted an image of Germany captioned "The aggressor nation?" and knowingly, intentionally continue to fund neo-Nazis in Sweden.
It's always projection from the "woke moralists!!" crowd.
so it was REALLY unfortunate timing to do a fan remake
That's true, but I don't think it moves the needle in their favor at all; if anything, to me, it makes it worse.
It's still just as much of a dick move (part of a broader pattern of dick moves around the time) that shows utter contempt for fans. A smart company would've leveraged AM2R to create hype, because it was pulling a Game Boy game from 1991 out of obscurity. Personally, it got me excited even as someone who wasn't even a Metroid fan at the time, and I refused to buy Samus Returns solely because of what Nintendo did. It could've ridden AM2R's coattails and gotten a purchase from me.
AM2R is hardly a market substitute for Samus Returns in a way that hurts Samus Returns more than it helps (given most fans dedicated and knowledgeable enough to play AM2R were probably also big enough fans to want Samus Returns regardless), and I'd bet anything that if they reached out to the AM2R team, Nintendo could've done something cool with them to amplify the hype while stepping on Samus Returns' toes as little as possible.
This wasn't the revolutionary part about Newton's conception of inertia. It was the counterpart: that an object in motion will tend to keep going forever unless acted upon by a force. This was pretty staggering in a world where an arrow fired from a bow (below escape velocity, you snitty little pedants) will slow down and fall to the ground as though getting tired on its own.