But, this decision didn't take those powers from Congress. It took those powers from federal agencies. Congress empowers the agencies, yes. But, Congress also deferred any technical decisioning to the agencies. Those agencies are filled with actual experts who are fully committed to their field. Now, the court just said that those experts aren't the right place to enforce anything but judges are.
Today it is. While not the existential threat to the US that communism/China are or perceived to be, Japan was very much a threat to the US in the 80s/90s. All kinds of concerns not just about the car market but manufacturing in general, how much real estate Japan owned, how much treasuries Japan owned, etc,
I know a few people who lost their collective minds when a Japanese guy bought Pebble Beach. Turned out to be a terrible move on his part.
Japan was very much a threat to the US back then. Maybe more perceived than reality but a lot of the same rhetoric/narrative you see today about China, was Japan vs the US back then.
So, KPI wise you can make an argument that it is effective. I may not agree with that argument in that we (USA) spend a lot of money and impose a lot of restrictions on the general population to get there.
Crime has always been a "the sky is falling" kind of a thing even if it's literally one crime. We are more safe than we were in 2001 by any objective measure, whether or not that is "safe enough" is going to be different for everyone...
Off the top of my head....
-How was the labor sourced for those services?
-Child Labor, illegal immigrant labor?
-What are the working conditions for the labor?, is it sweatshop
-what inputs go into the goods/services?
-what do they do with their waste?
-where do the inputs come from? My country, another country, my town, a town in my state...
you may think the government plays a role to enforce some of these, and they do to a point...
You can go on in your own head about all the things behind that simple exchange of money for something. If it's a perfectly competitive market sure, that may work but there aren't many if any markets in the US that are that level of competitive.
A personal anecdote for you. My uncle owns an auto parts re-manufacturer, so they rebuild car parts and sell them. I worked there a lot growing up. The normal input is buying "cores" from service stations....your starter motor isn't working and you get a new one, that old one is sold to someone like my uncle who refurbs it.
Often we had people come by with very clearly stolen parts....should we have just exchanged money for those? This ranged from a tweaker who would show up with one part, to full scale organized theft rings with pallets of parts...
So, do we buy those since the price is much, much better? There is a an ethical decision there...
You can look at it like this... They jury was concerned about the speech by the think tank. They don't want anyone else to have to suffer through it. The plaintiff though didn't have actual monetary damages from it, but you and me might have.
The jury is signaling, stronly, that this type of speech isn't allowed and should be punished. The fact that it happened to someone who wasn't monetarily harmed much by it isn't relevant but let's put a high bar out there to deter anyone else from this type of speech towards people who could be damaged.
The way the laws work it is really the only thing they could do if they believed the defendant's speech is harmful.
So, I think you are correct. The jury messed up, wasn't explained to properly, etc. There are thresholds on how much punitive damages can be awarded and they are some multiple of the other damages...this one is more than that.
The reasons were...."....after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”
So, the jury found that they made statements that were willfully intended to harm someone - they were deliberate to inflict harm. They found that the actual harm wasn't much in monetary terms but decided to levy a large punitive award to signal to others not to do this and punish the two that did.
That makes sense. You have to prove actual damages, either the plaintff didn't try to or were unsuccessful...so $1 and then a larger amount to punish the behavior and deter others from doing it.
And it's not like it hasnt been known for a long time how dangerous silica can be. I worked in a chemical manufacturing plant as an engineering intern in the 80s, at a plant that made marine coatings. One of the products contained silica as an ingredient. The precautions that went into the production of that product were crazy, workers entering the area had to wear what amounted to space suits with full respirators. I vividly recall putting these suits on any time we had to do any work in that production area.
I am only half serious about that....should have pointed that out. Interesting links though. Correct that not everyone with income is required to file, though they should. I did not know the income level was that high though, would have guessed half that.
Just a guess but I think that overlap is probably pretty large. I would think the majority of people who don't owe taxes are due to lower incomes who would not be required to file and that is offset with deductions....purely a guess though.
I am curious what you think could happen. I did a lot of looking after all the allegations and all the lawsuits. It is remarkably secure today, all the lawsuis that have been filed, etc. and nothing was found.
Where do you think the vulnerabilities are that can be exploited?
There is a lot of things wrong with this but I have said that in order to get your tax refund you have to show proof you registered to vote. I'd like to say proof that you voted but that may be a step too far...
Agree, it should be easier not harder to register and to vote
One of the interesting by products of all of this is that elections are getting less secure instead of more secure. After all these allegations came out and if you dug into how elections are run, they are pretty secure - not perfect of course. Now, you have states opting out of things like the registry that can detect if a voter votes in more than one state. So, it will be harder to catch a person voting in more than one state now. I guess that only applies to presidential elections where that would be illegal but I am sure people have voted in more than one local election too and they should not have.
I live in Illinois and I don't know if it is free or not but you can get a sate ID here that is not a drivers license and use that to register to vote.
A national version could make sense. Since the more voters there are only helps one party, we'll never see anything like that on a national level no matter how much sense it makes.
I have the same issue and just now found it was because of Private Relay. I did not connect the fact that I had no issues accessing archive.is when I had a VPN on - which disables Private Relay. Since they got a location, not my location but a location they were hunky dory....
I saw this post and tried it with and without Private Relay and sure enough, turning it on is the issue. Good to know....
Edit: I updated Private Relay to "Maintain general location" for IP Address Location Settings and archive.is loads fine.
Second Edit: Maybe not, it all works now and I think it is either session or cache. I got to play around with it
Ohhhh, now that is interesting. I think I'd say you don't have an expectation of privacy when you park your car on a public street, people can look into the windows and if they are tinted then using a device to "see" through the tint doesn't go over the line to circumvent your expectation of privacy - if items were in the trunk....maybe that elevates the expectation of privacy but leaving something on the seat or something that can be seen looking into the windows of a car parked out in public seems like you should not expect a high level of privacy.
Your house/apartment on the other hand...you should expect a high/higher level of privacy there, even looking into the windows - if something is found looking into the windows it should not be admissible as evidence without a warrant.
I do not know if the law actually distinguishes privacy if it's a car vs a residence.
It has been a bit but I believe you can log in to Music and Messages with a separate appleid. I believe you have to login to the app store though with the ID assigned to the machine. I am not 100% sure that is still the case though.
So, I think you can have the Mac and app store on a work id and then Messages and Music on your personal ID.
There is some statistical thing about fraud and the frequency of certain numbers being made up. I don't recall it specifically but made up amounts, dates, number have certain clusters of numbers vs what normally occurs.
edit; didn't get all that was in my head out :-)
So, it could be made up or support the fact that actual docs or good record keeping weren't a thing.
Not the poster you asked. But, a lesson we continue to ignore is that there are other options to tame inflation besides raising interest rates. The problem is the option isn’t politically expedient so Congress just raises its hands in mock exasperation and says well, it’s the Fed’s mandate to manage inflation.
Congress are cowards and won’t do what should be done - raise taxes. That is likely the fastest least painful long term solution to quickly climbing inflation
I say likely solution because at this point economies are so complex I’m not certain there are solutions without any butterfly effect consequences
The issue is under what authority does the government have to put such a ban in place. There isn't one today. The article discusses some attempts to work around that issue, all of which are problematic.
The article does not mention it but all the work arounds also rely on the fact that ByteDance is a Chinese company. So far they have been reluctant to change that but they could easily incorporate in the US. The parent company today is Chinese but the parent could become a US or EU company and then all of this banning talk gets even more dicey to pull off.