In no way did I imply that "one side is right" because I don't believe either side has a monopoly on being correct.
Because laws often have room for interpretation, conservative justices tend to decide cases in ways that the conservative Republican Party agrees with. And liberal justices tend to decide cases in ways that the liberal Democratic Party agrees with.
But both conservative and liberal justices very often decide cases in ways that go against their own personal views. The Supreme Court judges that Trump appointed have done this multiple times.
"Here's a very simple rule of thumb: If the judges' opinions happen to divide along party lines, they are by definition partisan."
Very simple and very wrong.
Yes, partisan politicians appoint judges with legal principles that they favor but that doesn't make the judges themselves partisan.
Trump's SCOTUS appointees have all decided cases in ways that were distinctly not partisan, based on their legal principles and not any kind of party loyalty.
Partisan people (like yourself, presumably) don't even notice these decisions or try to downplay them. This is hyper partisanship itself and it's toxic to a democracy.
Just because you don't like their rulings doesn't make them wrong, legally speaking. I recommend reading the controversial decisions. What they've said is very different from what the memes about them claim they've said.
The important difference is that judges are experts at impartiality, ethics, and decision making. They also can draw upon the expertise of multiple independent people. A huge part of law school is about teaching ethics, biases, and critical thinking. Which doesn't mean every judge is good at these things but even the average judge is much better than the average person.
Politically appointed bureaucrats typically have none of these skills, are always beholden to people in power, and often are given an agenda to peruse.
Congress outsourcing law making to bureaucrats is unconstitutional and SCOTUS made the right call legally. If it causes problems, Congress is empowered to fix it.
Certainly is a problem for me and I've seen others say the same. Every doctor I've been to has mentioned it as an issue.
"Caffeine — a major component of many varieties of coffee and tea — has been identified as a possible trigger for heartburn in some people. Caffeine may trigger GERD symptoms because it can relax the lower esophageal sphincter (LES)."
"It is not libel to say that the ICJ's statement is a strong indication that a genocide is ongoing"
"This does not mean that the ruling does not indicate that the court thinks a genocide is occurring."
You've seen the video and are continuing to disagree with what the ICJ president herself has explicitly said. If you want to claim that Israel is committing genocide, you're free to do so, but don't continue to lie to yourself or others about what the ICJ has said now that you have been corrected.
"If you simply look at the definition of a genocide and the facts on the ground, you should quite easily come to the conclusion that this is a genocide..."
If you simply look at Israel government's military capabilities and the facts on the ground, should quite easily come to the conclusion that genocide is not the goal.
The Israel government's intention is clearly to kill enemy soldiers, even if it means killing civilians in the process. This is the same attitude that most countries have adopted in times of war.
The Allies did horrendously unethical things (like fire bombing millions of civilians) during WW2 but even that wasn't genocide.
Claiming that Israel's government is committing war crimes is a much more reasonable argument. It may not be true but it's not obviously false, the way the genocide claim is.
Ask yourself what Israel would do if every member of Hamas was willing to march out to a battlefield and meet them head-to-head in a large scale battle. Would Israel keep sending bombs at houses or would they target that battlefield?
Most people could be convinced that the right-wing Israel government is being unnecessarily brutal and hamfisted in their response to the Oct 7 attacks. If the goal was to convince more people to pressure Israel, that would be possible.
But the insistence upon specific word use ("genocide") is a transparent attempt at signalling in-group and out-group status. This has been a common pattern among political extremists for a long time. There's always some kind of rationalization about why its important but it's never the real reason.
Being divisive is the point.
Just like Trump's adherents signal their in-group status by pretending the 2020 Election was "stolen" so do the extreme left's adherents signal their in-group status by claiming Israel is committing a "genocide".
In both cases, the goal is not to actually convince people of something that is obviously false. The purpose is to have a loyalty test that can be used to differentiate friend and foe.
It may be an under count but probably not by any huge amount. Although there are a much larger number of people that are desperately poor.
Japan has a relatively low cost of living (especially in rural areas), reasonably good social safety net, low drug use, high levels of familial support, and other factors that make it remarkable. It's pretty hard to become homeless.
But even in the US, where all factors are far worse, there is a surprisingly small percentage of the population that is homeless. The absolute numbers are much smaller than most people would guess (even accounting for under counting).
We tend to focus and exaggerate homelessness because it is so visible. Poverty in general is a much bigger and worse problem everywhere.
I ran into these issues all the time with Java, C++, and Python projects.
But it's just not the experience of running Go in production, which I've been doing for over 10 years now, across many projects with many devs.
In practice, nil checks are just not very difficult to include everywhere. And experienced Go programmers don't use exceptions (panic/recover) almost ever.
Really cool work. I'm still slightly paranoid about the overhead of leaving tracing enabled all the time but if it really is 1-2% that'd be totally worth it in many cases.
I was just thinking today that the case style is the only thing I continue to find objectionable on a day-to-day basis after a decade of writing/reading Go.
I've fantasized about the idea of a future `go fmt` version rewriting all the code which seems possible if somewhat impractical.
I'd wager that most Americans want fairness in relationships with other countries. And also want the government to protect them against hostile foreign governments that wish to do them harm.
Americans subject themselves to all kinds of restrictions in terms of what can be imported into the US. There's no contradiction of the freedoms protected by US Constitution in this.
There's certainly no information that Americans need deny themselves by insisting that apps like TikTok are not controlled by hostile foreign governments.
The best solution to TikTok would seem to be for the responsible parties, such as Google and Apple, to add a warning message to apps believed to be controlled by governments. The same way Google already does with YouTube channels.
And for journalists and the government to investigate suspected ties and announce their findings loudly, so that people can make an informed choice.
But actually banning the app, even though it would be a good thing for users, seems like a fraught choice for a free country.
Kubernetes is so bad and the questions asked here are such a good example of why.