It might be worth taking a step back and looking at your objective with all of this and why you are doing it in the first place.

If it’s for privacy, then unfortunately that ship has sailed when it comes to email. It’s the digital equivalent of a post card. It’s inherently not private. Nothing you do will make it private. Even services like proton Mail aren’t private–unless you only email other people on proton.

I appreciate wanting to control your own destiny with it but there are much more productive things you could be spending your time on the improve your privacy surface area.

I think the Dems found the:“why not both?” meme when it comes to politics against the maga Republicans, who gave up on competing on policy years ago. They’ve only been competing by creating these dumb “culture wars” and ad hominem attacks of opponents. There is no principled position, there is no good faith arguments, there is no limit to their hypocrisy.

The Democrats have been getting beat on messaging for years too.

What I think we are seeing now is a sea change. The Democrats have wildly popular policy and positions on most things. They win on policy.

And now they arent letting the Republicans get away with being “weird” hypocritical unprincipled lunatics that lack substance. They aren’t ceding the field on the “manipulation” that Republicans have been engaging in for years. Call them weird. Call them old. Call them criminals.

If they hit below the belt, hit back. If they stay on the high road, meet them there. But as soon as they want to mudsling, slap em in the face with a well deserved mud pie.

When democracy is at stake you can’t afford to lose an election because you wanted to avoid calling a couch-fucking creep, weird.

I’ll also add, I think the reason you are seeing such a ground swell in Democrat support and a dogpile on JD Vance is the pent up frustration of years of Dems being doormats and not squaring up and fighting back.

This is how you beat a bully. You have to bloody their nose. Turn the other cheek sounds great but you quickly run out of cheeks. Fight back.

Control Deez nuts

Thanks for posting this but I’m not sure I understand it.

What if it was a material part of the case? In the article linked, it wasn’t even “gay panic” as much as self defence that started from an unaccepted gay advance that turned into a fight.

For example, what if two people went home from a bar preparing to hook up, then one discovered the other wasn’t the biological gender/sex they expected. It gets heated and they fight. The gay or trans person receives the worst of it. Police get called.

Can you not include that as a part of the defense?

Is that what they are calling gay/trans panic?

This seems weird to me because in court you should be allowed to admit facts and evidence. If one of the parties was gay or trans, and that played a role in the event, it seems wrong to not allow it as it’s very relevant.

I feel like I am missing some legal nuance.

I mean it’s NPR: an American public radio news outfit.

Why the fuck would they be concerned with the minimum wage in Tanzania?

Strike that, that’s actually precisely something NPR would probably cover lol.

Fear drives people to the polls though. It’s kinda sad but true. So there needs to be a mix.

I don’t know exactly how crowd strike works, but this sounded like a “virus signatures” update (IE not a software update per se). And thats what caused the issue.

I think “real time virus protection” is why people use it so they expect the signatures to get updated asap/with little to no human intervention.

This is a crowd strike epic fail…for how they let their software blue screen systems with a virus signature update.

Yea, caused by gestational diabetes. It’s probably why that baby died 11 hours later.

I read that the hormone swing from pregnancy to “back to normal” the month or so after is the fastest swing in hormones a human can experience.

It can absolutely fuck up your brain during that time + lack of sleep + stress. It’s a recipe for this kind of thing.

Bro, a quarter of the Borer Patrol *are" Puerto Ricans.

It depends on the software and situation of course, but if you are paying a contractor to develop/write a solution for you aka “government built” then the contractor that writes the code owns 0 of that code. It’s as if it was written by Uncle Sam himself.

Now, if the government buys software (licenses), the companies will retain ownership of their code. So if Uncle Sam bought Service Now licenses, the US doesn’t “own” service now. If service now extended capability to support the govt, the US still doesn’t own the license or that code in most cases.

Sometimes the government will even pay for a company to extend its software and that company can then sell that feature elsewhere. The government doesn’t get any benefit beyond the capability they paid for–ie they don’t own that code. That can work to the governments benefit though, because it can be used as a price negotiation point. “we know you can sell this feature to 50 different agencies if you develop it for us, so we only want to pay 25% of what you priced it at”.

But like it said, if it’s a development contract and the contractors build an app for the government, all of the contracts I’ve ever seen, have Uncle Sam owning it all. The govt could open source it if they wanted and the contractor would have no say.

That’s what we call GOTS products https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_off-the-shelf#:~:text=Government off-the-shelf (,for%20which%20it%20is%20created.

Vs COTS:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf

With COTS, that’s where you’d see the ownership (depending on the contract/license agreement of course) remain with the vendor.

They explicitly do not, at least with every US federal contract I’ve ever seen. The govt owns the code that is written full stop.

Ngl, I struggle with how the votes are tallied and have to think about it for way longer than I should to understand it.

I’m embarrassed to admit that.

Apple wants the next generation. Kids love their watches. Parents don’t want to spend $500+ on a kids watch.

I felt like I must have misread the ruling after seeing all of the articles and comments.

Former presidents also have a “presumption of immunity” for their official acts while in office — but, the court ruled, there is no immunity for “unofficial acts.”

So chutkin is going to decide what acts were official acts and which were unofficial.

But “presumption of immunity” is a weird fucking phrase too because it makes it seem like you can prove they aren’t immune? Like presumption of innocence–you start there and work the other way. So presumably(pardon the pun) you can start there with this and work the other way still?

I’d need actual lawyers to make this make sense.

But either way it didn’t seem as “carte Blanche presidents can do anything” to me when I read it.

Federal ethics guidelines are $20 of value and it can’t be a cash equivalent (gift card).

These clowns are so out of touch.

As I was reading the article it just kept getting worse and worse:

More than 60% of those surveyed said they posted fake jobs “to make employees believe their workload would be alleviated by new workers.”

Sixty-two percent of companies said another reason for the shady practice is to “have employees feel replaceable.”

Two-thirds of companies cited a desire to “appear the company is open to external talent” and 59% said it was an effort to “collect resumes and keep them on file for a later date.”

What’s even more concerning about the results: 85% of companies engaging in the practice said they interviewed candidates for the fake jobs.

The way I read all of this and th decision is that they are saying that this law specifically only applies to bribery. They define it as a quid quo pro in advance of an act.

In this particular case, you can’t charge the guy with bribery because it doesn’t meet the definition.

That doesn’t mean a “tip after the fact” isn’t corrupt. That doesn’t mean that’s not in violation of some other law. It’s saying that you can’t apply this law to this case. This court is threading a fucking needle in an attempt to make this a state issue and say the Fed law can’t apply.

Justice Jackson’s dissent is amazing though:

Snyder’s absurd and atextual reading of the statute is one only today’s Court could love."

The Court’s reasoning elevates nonexistent federalism concerns over the plain text of this statute and is a quintessential example of the tail wagging the dog," Jackson added.

Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions. Greed makes governments—at every level—less responsive, less efficient, and less trustworthy from the perspective of the communities they serve,"

I flew on a 737 max 8 today, so I basically know how these astronauts feel.

This comment chain made me chuckle. It’s such an “internet comment section” …trope? I don’t know the right word.