• 0 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • If Trump wins, all these idiots that voted for him because “thuh conomee was better” are going to act all shocked when he actually does all the really insane stuff he’s promising to do and tried to do in his first term but the handful of rational Republicans around him stopped him from doing.

    I saw interviews with voters recently that basically showed people don’t believe he’ll do all the crazy stuff he’s promising, that it’s just a negotiation tactic or to “keep the base onboard” or to “generate attention.”

    When things really go to shit, I guarantee the people that voted for him will take no responsibility for it.




  • But that’s not what TypeScript does. The joke in the meme doesn’t really even make sense.

    A better analogy would be you have a basket that’s explicitly labeled “Fruit” and TypeScript complains if you try to put laundry detergent in it because you said it’s supposed to be a basket of fruit.

    This meme was clearly made by someone who doesn’t use or understand TypeScript.




  • The President can’t just order DEA to unschedule it because it would very likely be a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (the same thing that the Supreme Court said Trump violated when he tried to end DACA). Just ending the scheduling altogether with no strings attached would really need an act of Congress to be safe from being overturned by the SCOTUS.

    A few months ago, Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services submitted a formal recommendation to the DEA to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III. It’s now in the DEA’s hands. Schedule III means if you have a prescription, you can no longer get fired for it if you test positive and it’s recognized as having real medical value with moderate to low physical dependence. Not ideal, but complete unscheduling is something the DEA would never go along with. Rescheduling or an act of Congress are the best bets, and Biden has formally requested the DEA to do the former.




  • I’ve tried to make this argument on the more extreme political communities and the arguments supporting a strike ranged from “everyone would blame the rail companies” to “the damage to unions is worse” to “all those people without jobs would rise up in protest to support the unions” to “it wouldn’t be that bad, it’s being exaggerated by the corporate media.”

    It shows just how privileged those people are to actually think that when people who are already living paycheck to paycheck, rationing insulin to survive, and barely managing to feed their families suddenly lose their income, can’t get insulin, see food prices double, and can’t even drink the tap water anymore because of a “rail strike”, they’re going to understand the nuance of the situation and blame rail companies for not giving the workers sick days.


  • The railway strike would’ve caused shortages of chlorine for city water supplies, shortages of essential medicines like insulin and antibiotics, severe food insecurity and inflation, and would’ve led to millions of people losing their jobs. Railway freight accounts for 40% of freight transport in the US. Imagine 40% of everything that’s made every day suddenly not getting to where it needs to go. There’s a reason Congress has never refused to block a railway strike every time it’s been threatened over the last 150 years.

    The contract was good for the workers but didn’t include paid sick days. Congress imposed the contract on the rail workers when a couple of unions didn’t ratify it (although most of the unions did).

    Biden kept working behind the scenes after signing the law Congress passed to block the strike and got the rail workers their sick days without the suffering a rail strike would’ve had on the millions of Americans who were already struggling with high inflation on essentials. The IBEW union explicitly thanked him for it: https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid


  • It absolutely does matter. Alec Baldwin also asserts that he never pulled the trigger, and the FBI’s analysis found a flaw in the weapon that could cause it to fire without pulling the trigger.

    In order to be convicted of a crime, the state needs to prove mens rea (i.e., the intent to commit the crime). You can’t be convicted of a crime unless the state can prove you either intended, or should have known, your action would be a criminal act.

    If I’m at a gun range, the instructor who is teaching me hands me a gun and says it’s safe to fire downrange, and I shoot it, but it turns out someone is in fact downrange out of my visibility and is injured as a result of my shot, could I be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon? The clear answer is no, because I reasonably relied on the expertise of someone whose job it was to ensure the situation was safe before I performed the dangerous action.

    Similarly, there was someone on the set whose job it was to ensure the gun was safe to use. That person handed Baldwin the gun and asserted it was safe to use. Baldwin reasonably relied on that person’s expertise when he handled the gun and did not do anything unreasonable with it while handling it, so it doesn’t make sense to charge him. If he had some role in the presence of live ammunition, then he might be liable in some way, but in his role as an actor, he bears no responsibility.