IHeartBadCode @ IHeartBadCode @kbin.social

Posts

2

Comments

750

Joined

2 yr. ago

Is aforementioned drink free for life too? Because there's this whiskey distillery just up the road from me and they make a black tea infused whiskey that I wouldn't mind.

Next hardware reset and automatic reorientation for Voyager 2 is October 15th. Yes the device automatically resets itself about four to five times a year. Communications are expected to be reestablished then.

So the thing is the case has four parts, three out of four are basically (and I quote from the filing):

[X/Twitter] not only rejects all claims made by the CCDH, but, through our own investigation, we have identified several ways in which the CCDH is actively working to prevent free expression.

Which pretty much the vast majority of the filing is this. Which is basically"Nuh-uh YOUR mama so fat!" So yeah, it's going to go nowhere. The inducing folks to break contract, etc. Yeah, there's next to nothing there. CCDH has tweets showing the very things they indicated and it's a semantic argument on what "flourished" may or may not mean to a hypothetical person who wants to buy ads on your network. Basically if you've got demonstrable garbage on your network, don't be surprised if someone points it out.

The fourth part does touch on something to which we don't have clear guidance on. And that is how CCDH accessed the site to obtain the data. Scraping a website is mostly free, unless you're doing it for the explicit purpose of profiting. However, CCDH is a non-profit so this is going to be an uphill thing for Musk.

Except in the case where the court decides to toss a curve-ball. See, the various US courts don't have any actual legal framework to work from for web scraping. Congress keeps kicking the can on the issue. And that's the thing that's got CCDH awake at night, a Judge literally can just invent their own rationale on why scraping is wrong or a protected right. It could literally go either way given a wild enough judge.

Anyway, the entire point is that no one should be using X or Twitter or whatever the fuck it is now.

Something else, that I'm shock no one really talks of, decrease in falling numbers for wheat. Wheat today has way higher alpha-amylase activity than it did not but fifty years ago. And every decade or so it is getting worse. Flour with higher alpha-amylase activity will not rise in the same way that flour with lower activity has.

So say you plant an acre of wheat and expect 3000 pounds of flour, but that flour has a low falling number value. No one is going to buy it, so now you have to plant say 1.05 acres and you take that 0.05 acres to enrich the content of the flour so that you have 3000 pounds of flour that people will buy.

You can see where this starts getting troublesome. At some point the falling numbers continue to drop, now you need 1.1 acres for 3000 pounds, ten years later you're now up to 1.25 acres to get that 3000 pounds and so forth. And we KNOW what is causing it. When wheat begins to germinate too early, you have increased alpha-amylase activity. Wheat germinates when you have unexpected rainfall when you shouldn't and then temperatures that fluctuate wildly. And the thing driving continued decreases of falling numbers is climate change, there's not even remotely a dispute about this.

We're having to grow more and more wheat and get less and less from the wheat. I mean it's not massive overnight changes, but when you look at scales like just the last fifty years, we're having to enrich wheat more often than not to hit gluten content assurances. That's a non-zero cost and it keeps going up, which in turn is making anything that's not unleavened bread, increase in price.

I don't know if anyone has done a study on this, but it's got to be costing everyone a bit of measurable money. It's absolutely happening in pretty much every wheat farmers haul on this planet in such regularity at this point, you just cannot pretend it isn't happening. And yet, I don't think I've ever heard anyone really discuss this very real and concerning thing that literally happening right in front of us, outside of maybe a few AG sites and what-not that regularly talk about it.

In San Francisco, under the in-law and illegal space legislation of 2016, tenants are granted the right to refuse an inspector onto the premises. So for the San Francisco area, residents are granted the right to refuse inspectors into the building.

This doesn't prevent the inspectors from lodging a formal complaint, which SF has indicated that, that's exactly what they're going to do with Musk's office. This would start throwing the whole thing into civil court which can lead to civil penalties. Which combined with Musk not paying rent in several locations and facing evictions and the associated fees with that, any penalties will just be added to the pile of money that he's currently setting "ablaze".

even if I find a convention or rare place to explore them with others, they are often filled with people who already found their people and aren’t seeking any new applicants

Any group like that doesn't deserve your awesomeness my fellow person ✊.

Necessary and proper clause:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

— Article I Section 8 Clause 18 US Constitution

Under this clause congressional power encompasses all implied and incidental powers that are "conducive" to the "beneficial exercise" of any enumerated power. This is established by the SCOTUS in 17 US 316 McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). This includes any power enumerated in Article III of the US Constitution which is what establishes the third branch of Government, the Judicial branch.

Alito is just trying to play semantics with the term "regulation". In that "regulation" has a formal understanding of deriving from rule making and not legislating. But no member of Congress is pitching that we need some executive or legislative office extending a regulatory power over the court. Congress wishes to establish by fiat a code of conduct that the Justices must abide by.

And by the exact same clause in the Constitution, Congress has the right to open investigations into anything that they may legislate upon, including this.

The biggest question is can Congress compel the Justices to divulge any information. And the answer is something we've really been needing ANYWAY. We have laws to properly identify crime. We need either Congressional rules or actual laws, that indicate what's an impeachable offense. Congress has the ability to pass a law that if a judge doesn't come clean about their dealings, that the Judge is to face an automatic impeachment vote.

That's the part where Congress gets wishy washy on it. Because if a Judge isn't coming clean about their dealings and we have such a law, suddenly all the members of Congress have to go on the record for "do I approve of underhanded dealings?" But YES, Congress absolutely has the power to "regulate" the Justices. The Founders absolutely intended for Congress (for better or worse) to be the branch that's supposed to keep all the other branches from being corrupt, and it's up to the voters to keep Congress from being corrupt. That's how we made this form of Government.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

— Article I Section 8 Clause 18 US Constitution

The Constitution indicates that Congress gets to set the laws that are necessary for proper execution of all the powers enumerated in the Constitution.

New York University professor Steven Koonin has presented data

Who is also the chief scientist for BP. Just so we've got that out there.

in his bestselling book, “Unsettled,” to show that the science is not as settled as many politicians would have us believe.

Which many scientist have indicated is just being contrarian to seek more books and the arguments within the book are easily debunked.

Koonin is a respected academic physicist

Yeah in physics he knows his stuff.

Koonin finds that daily record high temperatures have not increased over the past 100 years and daily record lows have become less common. This is directly at variance with media headlines.

Yes, because his dataset is from the 1990s. There's zero reason to think any conclusion he has is in step with modern data. His modeling method even pre-date the 90s. Everything he has used to provide argument is not via a method that is modern. His data is right just that is using methods no one uses because it's wildly inaccurate. So right in this case just means he's consistently inaccurate. Everyone please refer to your seventh grade science class on the difference between accuracy and consistency.

The media covers climate change as though doomsday is approaching. Bad news sells, and well-funded organizations support the crisis message.

The irony of this statement while completely missing the notion that someone can just say a lot of opposite things to sell a book is... Interesting.

Even if rising “greenhouse gas” emissions were affecting the climate, actions by the United States will not be helpful in the absence of changes by China and India, the world’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases.

Yes. Let's not do something because China isn't doing it. That's fine argument. You know China isn't doing human rights so I guess we can nix that here too.

If the United States were to get rid of all fossil fuel emissions, this would only reduce global temperatures by 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.

Just FYI, 0.2 is equal to 2,100 Tsar Bombas going off at once. That's the largest nuclear device ever created by humans. Decreasing 0.2 is like not blowing that many nuclear bombs. 0.2 is super significant. This is what happens when you have some mid-sixty year old economist talking science.

The EPA’s proposed tailpipe and power plant regulations will reduce economic growth by raising energy prices.

Lady, I don't know if you've had a change to exit your private jet, but fuel cost are going up, no matter what. Everyone was like "if you increase minimum wage food prices will go up!" And then we didn't increase minimum wage and prices still went up. I'm just going say, I don't think it really fucking matters what we do or don't do at this point, prices are going up no matter what. I used to buy eggs for fifty-nine cents way back. What happen? I didn't get any nice shit or saving the planet and eggs are $4, what happened?

Raising the cost of energy at any time is poor economic policy, but especially when economic growth is slow. U.S. annualized gross domestic product growth was 2% in the first quarter of 2023, with data for the second quarter expected on Thursday. It’s summer, but now is not the time for Democrats to use the excuse of climate change to slow the economy further with more regulations.

Well the cost of energy is going up anyway, so it doesn't matter. And economic growth is slow, because for the last fifteen years its been at breakneck pace. So maybe look a bit more than just a single year for your data points. And also, y'all just hate regulation, that's what it boils down to. But every time regulations get removed, "Oh no! The Housing Market crashed! The econmy is getting tanked!" There's just been no demostrated self-restraint so, yeah, nah, I don't trust you mfers. I think you all need more regulation.

Also, the econmy is going be in more pain later than now if we can't fucking grow food. I know, none of that is your 65 year old ass' problem, but I mean people who are 12 right now, might want to eat when they get to their 50s. I know, you'll be dead and all, so it won't matter to you, but it kinda of matters to them. So I mean, pardon if we all take your perspective with a nonexistent grain of salt.

Trump's lawyer.

"It's 1°C. That's not a lot."

It's 1°C on average. That means every molecule of air has AT LEAST 1°C extra thermal energy. And I'm not sure if anyone has noticed, there's a lot of air molecules. So while taking one cubic centimeter of air and increasing it by 1°C isn't a ton of energy. Do that for roughly all 109 tredecitillion molecules and you get about 2.2 zettajoules of energy. Annual US energy consumption is just 0.094 zettajoules. So one degree increase is equal to more energy than the US uses in 23½ years. The biggest nuclear bomb humans ever made, that pulls in at about 0.00021 zettajoules. So one degree is roughly 10,500 Tasr Bombas going off and then the resulting heat just never leaving.

All of that energy. It has to go somewhere. Sometimes it makes ice turn to water, sometimes it increases the speed at which some wind is moving, sometimes it increases the surface temperature of land, sometimes it evaporates water leaving an area very dry. But it has to go somewhere. And it cannot just radiate back out into space, it hits a CO₂ molecule, bounces off of it, and flies right back down to Earth. And the more CO₂ molecules we put out there, the more often that happens.

I think this is a great time to point out that "making money" for 𝕏 is important. But his company 𝕏 has a $44B operating debt that has an insane serviceability. Dude's company could be making $100M a month, that's nearly forty years to make good on just the principal of the loan. No one is giving him that kind of time.

𝕏 doesn't need to just make money, it needs to act like a money printer on a cocaine fueled binger, just to cover the massive debt he has saddled the company with. Which when you hear him talk about aspirations for 𝕏 it sounds a lot like he wants to make it like China's WeChat. I don't know if the US is a good market for something like WeChat and even if it is, I think someone like Apple would be way better at it.

But does make sense because Tencent, owners of WeChat, rank in tons of cash on their various holdings. And that's the level Musk really needs to get at to put this debt thing in his rear view. So, Musk better hope that bird he's poking suddenly turns into way more than just a place to post one's daily rants. Like that bird has got to turn into the next Visa/MasterCard at this point.

Nah. People changing minds they've already set, that's a mighty tall task.

I like to think Fermi had it down and we just are really hesitant to embrace the whole conjecture of the great filter. As each day passes, I find more evidence to support that the sole purpose of intelligent life is for it to become intelligent enough to destroy itself.

If I built a social media mega hub that can be abused to brainwash humanity

Humanity is capricious as fuck. You can brainwash them, but then after a while, you just got to brainwash them again. Gets old.

I would like to think keeping it off the wrong hands is priceless

Yes, BUT have you ever considered that with enough money you can just not care?

Also, look at what's his face that started Twitter. Now he's got insane levels of Musk's cash and started yet another social media company, Blueksy which a lot of people ran over to. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

If you need to do something shitty, soften the blow.

"But why though?"

— Elon Musk

It wasn't super secret, it's just that the HTTP protocol standard is getting quite large. HTTP standard site.

Same with HTML, the standard for HTML 5 is just so massive no one person can know all of it. It is completely unknowable to a single person at this point (without referring back to the standard).

The protocols and standards underpinning the Web have become over engineered in my opinion. I'm sure it was with "best intention" but I recommend gemini protocol at this point for "fun" and http for "business". Corporations owns HTTP at this point and there's little that can be done to change it. It has become the modern Adobe flash with the veneer of openness to satiate the causal observer.

But that's my two cents.

Side note for anyone wanting to visit Tennessee. We don't know how to drive and we're very eager to show you how much we cannot drive! As our State motto goes:

Tennessee. Have you ever wondered how good your car insurance was? Wanna find out?

There's so many legal issues with the manner by which the Governor implemented this program, this case is just going to become a black hole for Texas tavpayers.

One, Federal navigational servitude. The Rio Grande river falls into Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Furthermore, United States v. Rands 389 US 121 establishes that no State can act by itself on waters used for commercial purposes. So, the emergency order by the Governor cannot just unilaterally lay claim to the river in a manner that allows them to erect these structures without consent from Congress.

Two, you can secure a border by deterrence. You cannot secure a border by murder. That flies in the face of so many international treaties and just up right violates due process in the 14th Amendment Section 1. A common refrain that some tend to spout is securing a house. Yes, you can secure your house with your gun, but what you cannot do is rig your gun to go off whenever a door is opened. That's a booby trap and it's illegal in every State. So a court is going to have to look at these buoys and decide if razor wired topped, net entrapping, buoys that rotate you underwater constitutes a trap.

And no, it isn't "they made choices". Deterrence is the upper bounds a nation can do to prevent someone entering a country. When they enter you can arrest. But at no point is killing someone before they enter your country legal in any sense. Even if they make the choice to enter the river. It would be one thing for someone to die of thirst because they cannot get over a wall. It's an entirely different legal domain if the wall has a sensor that causes it to fall over and crush someone getting too close to it.

Again, a judge has to draw the lines on these things, but considering that the US is filing in Austin, I think they're going to have a fighting chance to convince the judges of the dangers the barrier presents.

Three, the whole wildlife thing. Congress has granted a lot of broad authority for the President to manage wildlife. Now, this is one of those that'll be really scrutinized by the court. But it does mean that there's got to be a State's interest in overriding the Federal government on this point. If the US Government can show that numbers of crossing are indeed going down, that'll hurt Texas' claim to have some interest in protecting their population in this extreme manner (not the buoys but the emergency declaration which authorizes the buoys).

The navigable waters point is one that courts can come down hard on, especially considering the river we're talking about. Texas is going to have to go out of its way to really show it's point on this one. Judges of both flavors aren't really cool with industry being hurt by political stunts. The point about killing people will come down to safety studies and if one was conducted, how it was conducted, and so on. I'm just having a hard time thinking that some safety engineer green lit razor wire on top of floating rotating barrels with an entrapment net underneath. No part of how these are being used sounds like safety was remotely considered, and yeah, we have to consider the safety of illegal immigrants, that that whole "due process" thing we created in the 14th amendment.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

And it says "any person" not "citizen". That's because when the 14th amendment was written slaves were largely not considered citizens so the amendment needed to include literally any human being the government interacts with. And thus, that means it applies to literally ANY HUMAN BEING, including the ones crossing the border illegally. They are granted a right to due process under the law and a right to protection of life, which means that safety has to be considered in the construction of this barrier of theirs.

And the thing is courts do attempt to do the action of minimal effect, if the barrier can be made safe, that's likely where the courts will go. But if making them "safe" renders them useless, then the court usually will fall back to status quo. Which that's brings us to the whole emergency order that authorized them. A return to status quo would rescind the emergency order and thus make the barriers no longer a Texas thing, but trash that the Federal government would have the right to clean up. Since there's nothing legally authorizing their existence.

It's odd Texas picks this hill to burn so much of its tax payers' money on, but I guess this is the fight they want.

Clearly the original was Mythos Games when they produced XCOM. Musk just added a fucking dot and thought that made it "original".