Thanks for the clarification. I guess while skimming the article I mistook that distinction.

Certainly doesn’t change that we are cooked, but I guess it helps to think that the States aren’t completely craven during this dark age.

So NYC’s judiciary says corruption is OK if you help to extra-judicially ship people off to concentration camps?

This country is garbage. It’s done. The pillars have collapsed.

Signal is not a suitable venue for hosting national security discussions. It’s all laid out in the article that it goes beyond encryption.

Information about an active operation would presumably fit the law’s definition of “national defense” information. The Signal app is not approved by the government for sharing classified information. The government has its own systems for that purpose. If officials want to discuss military activity, they should go into a specially designed space known as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF—most Cabinet-level national-security officials have one installed in their home—or communicate only on approved government equipment, the lawyers said. Normally, cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF, which suggests that as these officials were sharing information about an active military operation, they could have been moving around in public. Had they lost their phones, or had they been stolen, the potential risk to national security would have been severe.

The tldr is that the endpoint is insecure. These discussions should not be done on a mobile device, it should not be possible to participate in or view the contents of the discussion out in the open, and it should not even be possible to accidentally invite 3rd parties that were not cleared.

This article goes further in displaying that participants are not adhering to data retention standards, either, to no surprise.

It’s a fascinating article, and really is a revealing example of how profoundly inept this regime truly is.

If you’re not afraid to be wrong you could choose to believe in anything. There is not a world that exists where microprocessor manufacturing grows in the US without incentives like the CHIPS Act. Especially not when those incentives can be recinded on the whims of whatever lunatic those wacky Americans choose to elect.

not a fan of Trump

But you choose to carry water for him.

That’s funny, I heard from my cousin that Fox News was saying that the White House claimed that tariffs and trade wars were to push companies to restore American manufacturing. But if that were true, why would they want to kill incentives aimed to spark renewed American manufacturing?

Just going by that thumbnail, he could be jerking off two masters.

deleted by creator

TIL that Germans that resisted the Nazi Party in WW2 were “useful idiots.”

“Overwhelming bipartisan support for the attack” across social media “has resulted in several narratives encouraging similar violent activities directed at other healthcare executive teams,”

This assessment has got it all wrong. People don’t want further acts of violence against healthcare executive teams. Or, I should say, not just healthcare executive teams. That thinking is far too narrow.

They don’t. Nearly everything that you buy has a unique serial number, and if consumers are buying direct from manufacturers it could, in theory, link a consumer to a serial number. It’s unlikely that they could make those connections, though. Peak sells direct, but they also sell through 3rd party stores and distributors, where there is an abstraction between the serials and consumers.

Bartiromo asked Trump whether he was “expecting chaos on Election Day” if “you win.” “Trump suggests he’ll use the military on ‘the enemy from within’ the U.S. if he’s reelected,” said the PBS headline over an Associated Press story. That one does not even superficially make sense, since Trump would not yet be president in Bartiromo’s scenario.

So this guy says “I’m going to order the military to attack American citizens if I’m reelected” and Reason is out here saying that headlines expressing concern about using the military for political revenge are fake news because this interviewer asked what he’d do on Election Day? He literally said that he would send the military after “the enemy within” in response to her question. Reason out here lying about the context of his answer because the senile old fascist can’t wait until inauguration to get his hands on the military. Probably would be good for the MBFC to re-evaluate Reason’s factuality rating.

It’s a weird strategy to show up and explain how one team operates without rules and lies about everything, but it’s the other guy that’s the problem. I can see that you’re one good faith fella.

Cool story, bro (or sis, or comrade, or whatever, idk you). Was it the Democrats 40 years ago that discarded ages-old decorum, stared down stare decicis, and said “nah, that ain’t for me,” to then threw out established case law, casting doubt on the legitimacy of 1/3 of the co-equal branches of government? Oh, no? It wasn’t? It was a group of far-right so-called “Christians” put on the SCOTUS by Republicans?

Yeah, that’s certainly how I remember it happening, and, you know, objectively true, so thanks anyway.

Oh you’re trying so hard to build a strawman! How adorable.

Roe was established case law. Reproductive rights were settled. Blaming Democrats when the actions of Republicans baselessly dismissed it is moronic.

Democrats did this by not codifying

This kind of gaslighting should not be tolerated. Everyone take a moment and block that troll.

That’s like saying that the burgler that bypassed your locks by smashing a window is fully justified because you didn’t put cages over the glass. Reproductive rights were protected by 50 years of precedent. Roe was established case law for decades and was overturned by a court that rejected how the judicial branch was working and has worked for centuries by ignoring precedent, accepting a case on weak standing to challenge it, and arguing that the established case law was wrong on shakey arguments.

Don’t let right-wing nuts lie to you about objective reality.

Shit, that’s a bad look for Disney. The idea that someone could sign up for a 30-day trial to some product and completely lose their right to a jury trial for life against any and all companies associated with the parent company is absurd.

The attorney was right to describe that as preposterous. And if the court cedes and tosses the trial, it sets a chilling precedent against consumer rights.