Primarily because it encourages people to keep doing this performative stuff, think they're actually helping people, and take resources away from more meaningful work. By resisting these efforts, I'm preventing what would likely be runaway acceleration.
In theory, the actual individuals are still bound by state law, but the supremacy clause allows federal laws made in pursuance of the US Constitution to preempt those state laws. Of course, these laws still need to be "necessary and proper" for carrying out an express power like regulating immigration. A law that is unnecessary or improper would theoretically not hold up in court. The same goes for executive action.
Perhaps the most infamous case of this was the Idaho manslaughter case against FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi for killing Vicki Weaver in the Ruby Ridge incident. His case was simply "removed" to federal court and dismissed under the supremacy clause (although this dismissal was later overturned narrowly when appealed).
This is why it's absolutely essential to always be aware of which types are value types in the .NET type system. Attempts by either users or the designers to conflate or unify them are ill-conceived. The nullability semantics could have been kept consistent if they went all the way back to the beginning of the CLR and did it that way, but this would have not been consistent with Java's JVM and type system (which they were trying to mimic).
That said, we already have value types like System.Int32 which inherit from System.ValueType (an abstract type) which inherits from System.Object (a non-abstract reference type), so things are already a bit weird.
Providing a platform for defamation and other tortious speech is generally legally protected under §230. They still have to respond to court orders and DMCA requests, though. This is how sites like Kiwi Farms remain online. That said, commercial apps can sometimes be sued under defective product laws.
Are there any POSIX or ISO guarantees on "FILE"? I think it's safe to assume that it isn't an incomplete type, but all functions that use it operate on pointers anyway. Storing a copy of a "FILE" object might result in each copy pointing to the same underlying file handle but having different internal state.
The amusing thing is that even today, there's a "blink" method on JavaScript strings. It's totally useless today, but it's still there for whatever reason. In fact, they don't even HTML escape the argument, so they were arguably terrible from the beginning.
Windows actually created a new process type for this: Pico processes[1]. This allows WSL1 to perform quite a bit better than Cygwin on something like Windows XP.
The consequences for following an illegal order include being sued, being held in contempt of court, or being criminally prosecuted by a subsequent administration. They don't have the same immunity that presidents do because they don't have a direct vesting of authority under Article II.
In the USA, both are true. Civil servants can (and should) refuse to follow an order they think is unconstitutional, illegal, or simply unwise. But this won't stop them from being fired for insubordination. I don't think the courts will attempt to force the president to retain subordinates that are actively opposing him on the job.
Yep. It's probably rooted in our psychology as primates. I'm not saying this is good, but psychology is often ugly.
Men want to compete for status against other men. If women are present, it's not quite seen as a venue for male intrasexual competition in the same way. It's also possible that the greatest status in society can be found where males compete (unless you're dealing with a matriarchal society).
Ordinarily I'd agree, but I don't think these degrees are being marketed as vocational credentials like you'd see at a vocational school. If you get one of the more questionable humanities degrees and expect it to get you a job, that's not exactly a reasonable expectation. Some degrees basically double as a vocational credential (CS, medicine, and even journalism), but not all.
A big problem is that a lot of people think that doing what they're told by the "smart people in charge" (which might include their parents), they can expect to succeed in life. And a lot of people told the kids to follow their passions but also get into the most elite school possible in order to impress some HR person. This was bad advice.
T&S departments generally exist for one reason: to manage reputational risk. This sometimes involves legal risk, but it usually just means preventing relentless hit pieces about your company enabling something portrayed as horrible. This can result in customers and even employees leaving if the media is relentless enough.
Companies take risks if the reward is considered good enough. In this case, that reward is income from the customer (who can still be dropped if the hit pieces start getting published).
Security features should be free or a lot cheaper. But compliance? Heck no. Customers with compliance requirements are the ones with some group demanding they prove that they're adhering to numerous (sometimes contradictory) policies. If they can afford to create all that red tape, they can afford to pay to comply with it.
The major questions doctrine itself is a relaxation of strict separation of powers. Normally there is strict separation between lawmaking, judicial functions, and enforcement. MQD at least allows the "minor questions" to be exceptions. I know that a lot of people think separation of powers is inefficient and outdated, but it's still the law of the land.
No, but it's perfectly fine for lawmakers to make laws setting these standards (ideally with the input of experts). That's how we get local building codes.
The ultimate power to make policy choices should be made by lawmakers who can be voted out. Bureaucrats are too insulated. An individual bureaucrat can't feasibly be fired by either a President or the Congress.
Open plans have visual and auditory distractions. Cubicles with decent walls at least eliminate the visual distractions. On the other hand, glass-walled offices might have decent soundproofing but have the distraction of people constantly walking by.
There's also the question of form vs. function. A lot of people in leadership care a great deal about the workspace looking "modern" and care less about it being effective for the people working in it.
They don't necessarily need to be big offices. It's just that corporations generally do seating based on seniority and status, not need. They have tiny cubes for worker bees and giant private offices for the queens.
Even small offices require more costly building materials than large cubicles. So even a high density might still be somewhat expensive. Fortunately, there are opportunities for cheaper commercial real estate these days, so someone has the opportunity to try something new.