It was a Crowdstrike-triggered issue that only affected Microsoft Windows machines. Crowdstrike on Linux didn’t have issues and Windows without Crowdstrike didn’t have issues. It’s appropriate to refer to it as a Microsoft-Crowdstrike outage.
This bill is literally about the federal government purchasing flags, not private citizens…
Yeah, does anyone expect them to be like “Whoops, you got us”?
Before the release of further details by the authorities, others including the X owner, Elon Musk, tweeted questions on social media.
Tweets only happen on Twitter, not any “social media”, and if you’re going to call it X then call them posts. Or Xits.
Nutmegger? She’s not from CT!
The court basically said it was a separation of powers issue. The basic powers of the branches are:
The Chevron Deference doctrine was the courts saying “Congress occasionally writes laws vaguely and we don’t have expertise on every subject matter, so we are going to defer the decision-making of what exactly the law means to actual experts in the Executive branch.” Congress has written laws using this logic, intentionally granting power to the Executive branch that would otherwise reside with Congress (i.e. Congress says “how much of X particulate in the air is too much? We could write a specific law stating that 500 ppm is too much, but it’s a lot of work to do that for every particulate, and the science gets updated over time, so we’ll just tell the Executive to place ‘reasonable limits’ and call it a day.”)
Now the Court has said “That power you’ve ceded to the Executive branch? That should be ours because it’s our job to interpret what laws mean. We now decide how much of X particulate is too much, even when we mix it up with Y particulate.”
It’s a blatant power grab by the Court and a separation of powers issue. Congress SHOULD be able to remedy it by specifying that this decision-making power should reside with the Executive branch and the Judiciary won’t be able to say “no mine”. I mean, this Court WILL, but a legitimate Court wouldn’t.
Even if I could afford one, the only option close to my price range is the Model 3, which has a terrible interior design. I want to have physical buttons for stuff like climate control and airflow.
Now that there are options with decent range like the Ioniq made by car manufacturers that actually care about usability and not just looking as pretty as possible, there’s no point in going for a Tesla in my brain.
You may not care not conservatives care. If Clarence Thomas can write an opinion that will let Cannon’s dismissal stand but deny Hunter Biden’s appeal, he will. The rabid need to do something to (any) Biden may override the desire to let this stand for Trump.
Having continuous pieces like this make a difference. Think of how many “Biden has to step aside!” pieces have been written in the past two weeks and how much a part of the political discussion that is. The more time the media takes up shouting from the rooftops that Trump is a threat to America, the more mainstream and central the discourse becomes.
So does Britain. Something like 75 of the last 100 years have had Conservatives in power. Obviously, what that means has changed over time, but it’s clear that every time Labour gets a shot at governing, Brits yell “Not good enough!” and put the Tories back in office.
This is exactly right - the exact same “Let’s burn down the system sell off the system to the highest briber bidder” sentiment that’s been ruling the Republicans has been eating away at the Tories as well. Now, every time leadership fails to make changes, they toss them out and put someone more extreme in their place (until you hit a Liz Truss)
I don’t disagree that their priorities are wrong, but this is not an aberration, this is the norm (and that norm should change)
What? You didn’t get to rule on a case solely based on your fucking betting pool.
This is exactly how injunctions work. It’s a combination of “how likely is the party asking for the injunction to win” and “how much damage will be done if the injunction is not granted”. It’s the same logic used to block abortion laws from going into effect and things like Trump’s gag order being enforced, while those actual cases work their way through the courts.
A judge can rule that a case was unfair due to procedural issues, like that a jury arrived at its decision by evidence that shouldn’t have been admitted in the first place. There are terms in this I’m not familiar with (I only know “runaway jury” from the John Grisham novel…), but that seems to be the basis of throwing this out. I’m sure Legal Eagle will cover something as big and weird as this in the next two weeks or so if you want well-explained legal analysis of the finer points.