> Please keep espousing this nonsense: 2028 will be fun.
I hope our little pushback against deporting random legally present gay bakers to the foreign gulag doesn't force you to support Trump's 2028 22nd amendment violation.
> The USA is not a democracy. The USA is a larger republic of a union of republics.
"The USA is a democracy" is a perfectly valid and correct statement. "No, it's a republic" is kind of a nonsensical retort, and I'm not sure how it got so popular.
There literally are no democracies which do not have representative elements, and "constitutional republic" and "constitutional monarchy" are concepts that are both perfectly compatible with the separate concept of democracy.
> An American illegally immigrating to Europe for financial gain (work) would be deported forthwith just for having done so.
They would be afforded a way to challenge their deportation, not be denied access to a lawyer, sent to a foreign gulag on the account of a random guys interpretation of their tattoos, then having videos of themselves in chain gangs posted on the governments social media.
Independently of your overall point, what strikes me here is that Trump could not possibly care less about any promises that the "US" may have made. He is effectively breaking every deal ever made, with no regard for any continuity of policy (not just now, think the Iran deal in his first term). With Zelensky yesterday, he again went on about this ceasefire deal would be with "him", not like "the other presidents".
In this context, its a bit rich for the pro-Trump "great peace negotiator" group to imply that the US needed to keep verbal promises made 35 years ago. It was, after all, just what some dude said one time.
> As an aside, in Canada, a sentence of life without parole is considered unlawful because it conflicts with Section 12 of the Charter guarantees that individuals have the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Courts have ruled that life without the possibility of parole deprives offenders of any hope of rehabilitation or reintegration into society, which could amount to cruel and unusual treatment.
Germany's highest court has held the same thing.
This is right and proper. We need to defend these principles, now more than ever.
They had a choice every single time they dropped a bomb! In fact, "the IDF is the most moral army in the world" supporters would like us to believe that very often, they chose not to.
If they want credit for the ones not dropped, they need to take responsibility for the ones they did. Not really that hard!
This is important because "it's all on Hamas's hands" is really just a refusal to engage with the ethical questions at all. Folks could (and clearly would!) say that, whether one child is killed, or a million. It's just a question of when it becomes untenable to brush the question away.
The idea that "this is more or less like any other country would have reacted" is the same trap; this makes Israel no worse or better than any other country, and conveniently means we don't have to ask ourselves about the morality of it all.
> If you're Natanyahu on October 8, 2023, and the reports of the Hamas massacres on civilians come in, there is almost no leeway for reacting in a way differently than how the Israeli government and the IDF reacted.
Any lack of political leeway to react differently is squarely within Israel's ethical score card. I.e. "Israel as an entity is not responsible for its choices because the entities constituent parts forced those choices" is reductive.
> The problem right now with the hostage deal is that it leaves Hamas in charge. That's a huge problem.
That this is the current outcome is maybe an indication that your framework of the three possible options (what Israel did + two strawmen) is lacking.
> The blood of the Palestinian civilians that Hamas waged war from behind is absolutely on Hamas's hands.
Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Thousands of Palestinians children are dead, and for every single one, Israel could have chosen not to kill them, and the decision to do so is on them.
That's why when referring to the price people generally don't talk about sales, but about the "floor price", that is, actual committed listings that someone is willing to sell for.
The floor price can be a dubious measure of value for many NFTs, since there are few buyers, but for highly liquid collections like the Penguins, there are corresponding standing "offers" that owners can sell into any time they want, therefore creating a spread between listings and bids.
> The U.S. Constitution provides rights for citizens to have free speech — not non-citizens.
This is basically untrue. At times, the court has applied different standards to speech by residents, but this does not mean that they would allow the government to apply any kind of limit on their speech, or indeed, more than very narrow ones.
In addition, the first amendment also covers the right to receive information.
Foreign ownership rules are not the same thing as the EU banning RT through legal means, or Israel shutting down Al-Jazeera and instituting internet blocks. You will notice that RT is not blocked in the US, nor is any other foreign media company.
It's not really a big deal if someone sneaks on board, therefore, no reason to burden millions of flyers every day with additional checks. Also, you may well not have ID on you. Maybe you don't like to carry it. Maybe you forgot your wallet. Maybe you don't even have one. Who cares?
- Countries with a link, but are cursive, generally provide the certificate in most cases (this seems to be broken, I see no cursive ones, but the UK is among this group, which one can see when opening the link; but that seems to be the minority).
- All others they seem to suggest need to go through the exemption process.
I am seeing different things online about this, de.usembassy.gov says "no such government issued document exists in the United States", but maybe they are referring to the federal government.
In any case it say that since 2021 Germany will accept a sworn oath from US residents to declare their eligibility.
It's actually somewhat similar in Germany. You need a Ehefähigkeitszeugnis, essentially that document proving that you are not married yet. You would have needed to get this from the US.
Because most countries don't have that sort of document (including the US), you then instead need to apply to your local Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) for an exemption.
All the way, any foreign government documents need to be notorized by the German embassy in that country.
> On this issue in the group that complain about the cookie law there are some people who are very wrong on purpose because it's in their interest, and some people who are very wrong because they genuinely don't understand the position they're defending, complaining about being made aware of the fee, instead of the fees themselves or the fact that the companies hide them if not forced by law.
The reality is that I (and others who are complaining, as well as many who have resigned themselves to their fate) are happy to have a website "track me", certainly if the cost of non-tracking are having to click away an annoying popup, and think that people who compare a website wanting to know the number of their visitors to "hidden fees" are kind of being ridiculous.
> The purpose of incarceration isn't to coddle murderers,
Unfortunatly in the real world your criminal justice ethics will have to accommodate crimes that are not murder, so you might need to think about some prisoners eventually getting released, who might then go on and do more criming.
> it's great if they change their life but ultimately it's to extract murderers from society
In that case, there is no need to make prisons particularly cruel. Cost can be debated, but surely as a society, we can put a value on humaneness. Even if not, if say I, a billionaire, wanted prisoners eat caviar every night and am willing to fund it, surely this should be allowed.
> I believe this is a clue to where the GP post is coming from: we can't, therefore the study must be flawed.
How so? They are clearly saying they expected this to be possible already, until this article claimed otherwise (by suggesting AI is contributing something new here).
They are saying that this result will not resolve the disputes, because it doesn't address the core thing in dispute: that there are meaningful differences that people actually care about. For example, maybe it is possible to tell the sex based on the shape of the brain. This doesn't mean that men and woman think differently, which is what people are actually arguing about. And the AI in this study can't proof that, because it doesn't give us any further insights into how cognition works.
This point strikes me as actually pretty mundane and obviously correct. The fact that 5 people immediately seem to have misunderstood it (as in, they are not responding to the argument) seems to tell us something about their priors instead.
> If you hold ETH according to the chain, it’s yours.
So is my NFT! No one can take it away from me. There are a couple things that could happen:
- The artist can mint an additional copy; this could mean my own copy loses value, or it could mean the community doesn't care, and continues to value the original one. Similarly, the folks that issue some ERC-20 token can decide to issue a new one and abandon their old token. In fact, vitalik et al could advocate for a fork for ETH. This is just how the social layer works.
- The media file associated with the NFT could be lost or changed. This can be a problem, but can also be addressed (IPFS), and can also be art: https://publico.pob.studio/piano
Larva Labs, the pioneers behind Cryptopunks, didn't even bother to put a link into their NFT at the time: it literally is a item/owner table. They didn't forget the link, they correctly understood that what the token represents is defined at the social layer.
> The entity selling them just takes payment via ethereum or other coins, but at best what they're storing on that chain is a pointer saying "oh yea, nytesky bought this thing that we store elsewhere".
The thing that I never understand when people make this complaint: Do you think my purchase of the "monkey picture" is now more real, because someone else paid for Ethereum nodes to physically store the bytes to it, instead of a link? Do I own it "more"? Does it have to be stored in a particular location within the Merkle tree? Can I upload it myself to make my ownership of my monkey more "real"?
What if I store it in the Arctic World Archive instead, does it now have more or less permanency than on the blockchain?
The line of critique inherently seems to make no sense; it's IMO a strong sign that it is fundamentally flawed.
> When you buy an actual piece of art, the provenance is useful because it lets you know the art you have is the real thing.
When you buy art as an NFT, you do own an actual piece of art. Unless you think a non-physical art like say The Clock inherently cannot be sold outside of a copyright transfer, and that has been untrue long before NFTs.
I hope our little pushback against deporting random legally present gay bakers to the foreign gulag doesn't force you to support Trump's 2028 22nd amendment violation.