8·
7 months agoI don’t even get how they have the authority to do this. Measure 110 was enacted as an amendment to the Oregon constitution, so it seems like it would require another amendment to rescind that and recriminalize possession.
monotremata
- 0 Posts
- 20 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
2·7 months agoI mostly agree with you. The AND was kind of crammed in outside the list too, though; they’d written it as NOT bullet: limit 1, bullet: limit 2, AND bullet: limit 3. Basically I don’t think it’s implausible that they intended it to be maximally restrictive and just screwed that up. I just think that applying the law as though it means that requires interpreting the law differently from how it’s written, and different in a way that harms the defendants, which you previously weren’t supposed to do. Which seems super dumb.
I wasn’t suggesting the lawyers or the Justices should have talked about DeMorgan’s law, but rather that it would have been a helpful point for Mother Jones to bring up in the article, to make sure people are on the same page about the logic. You’re right that the notation is probably not helpful though.
The actual legal argument is pretty simple. The law as written is maximally lenient, but also not very logically consistent (e.g. the redundancy indicated in the article). So it seems like some kind of error occurred in the law-writing process. The question is whether they actually meant to write it as maximally restrictive or whether they screwed up in some other way. That certainly seems like ambiguity (a stance supported by the evidence that multiple courts decided these cases in different ways), and the prior standard was that in the case of ambiguity, you had to interpret the law to the benefit of the defendants, which here would be maximally lenient, and indeed also as written. The supreme court has basically reversed that, saying that you can interpret it as maximally restrictive as long as you’re pretty sure that’s what they meant to say. That’s a very different standard.
I think this case is maybe the equivalent of that photo of a striped dress that blew up the Internet a few years ago. Nobody thinks it’s particularly ambiguous, but they come to totally different conclusions about what the obvious correct answer is; just because the ambiguity isn’t necessarily obvious to the individual reader doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Yeah, I feel like the article should have made reference to De Morgan’s Law in order to explain the two interpretations. That’s the one that says !(A && B && C) = !A || !B || !C, and !(A || B || C) = !A && !B && !C.
In English, there’s no proper grouping operator, so it’s basically it’s a question of whether you distribute the NOT or the AND first over the list.
The Justices are saying that the ambiguity is completely resolved by the way the restrictions don’t make sense if you interpret it the other way. But the underlying assumption there is that the laws of this country are logical, free from needless repetition and contradictory requirements, which is a TERRIBLE assumption. Our laws are at best written by a committee of people not very familiar with the subjects of those laws, and at worst written by scam artists who then paid to slip them under the radar and into the books. They’re full of idiotic errors, deliberate sabotage, and absurdities. That’s the whole reason for the thing about the lenient interpretation, and this decision will change that in a way that gives judges a whole lot of power to do more harm.
And for those thinking that maybe time could have turned the THCA into delta-9 THC, that’s true, it could have; but time would also turn that delta-9 THC into CBN. So the delta-9 levels would be unlikely to have increased much over the baseline regardless of how old the weed was.
They’re actually kind of doing that in the E. Jean Carroll case. His “appeal bond” has to be 110% of the judgment award, so he has to put up 91.6 million instead of the 83.3 million she was awarded. My understanding is that the extra is to cover the interest that might accrue during the appeals process in the event that she still wins.
They did them first. I still keep seeing ads for “free” turbotax, though, so I’m not sure what effect it’s having.
A recent (satire) headline from The Onion: https://www.theonion.com/alabama-middle-schooler-jailed-after-taking-basketball-1851186115
I reject your premise that loving Israel means being unable to tolerate any criticism of Israel’s actions. I’m a citizen of the US; I would argue that I’m critical of the US because I love it, and want to see it improve. That’s why I’m so critical of our military and our foreign policy. We commit a lot of war crimes; it’s a huge problem. I’m also critical of our shitty healthcare system, our lack of social safety nets, our institutional racism, and so forth. As an individual I don’t feel like I have a huge amount of agency to affect those things, but I do try my best, including voting and communicating my views to those around me.
So yeah, I think it’s totally fine to be Jewish, and totally fine to love Israel. What I don’t think is fine is being okay with every aspect of Israel’s current actions in Gaza–in particular, the multiple instances of the killing of journalists, health care workers, and children, and the extreme restrictions on supplies entering the country. Those aspects are all obscene. The level of suffering in Gaza overall right now is unbelievable.
If someone takes offense at my calling those actions by the military obscene, I would argue that’s not a matter of Judaism. That’s a matter of rather extreme nationalism.
So say we, y’all!
23·9 months agoThe last time this happened, the deal was that the music was generated by bots, and also listened to by bots. Basically it was a scheme to get money out of Spotify.
But also, folks will use AI to generate anything these days, like these books that suggested that a good way to identify whether mushrooms are poisonous is to taste them.
Er…I suspect that part of the point is that their previous method of execution was lethal injection, and there was a pretty well-documented shortage of the drugs for that. They got really expensive. I suspect that’s around the point where someone looked into alternatives and came up with this.
I think you’re probably right that the method seeming maybe more humane to some critics was part of the appeal of this particular method, but I think the main goal was probably cost reduction and ensuring that supply chain issues couldn’t interrupt their murdering any more.
I see. I was thrown because the “Protocols” took the form of a fake leaked document revealing a fictitious plan for world domination, claiming to be written by Jewish elders, but actually written by an antisemitic propagandist. So given that this is also a plan for world domination and is horrifying those who read it, it seemed like you might be suggesting it was a fake created by left-wingers to discredit the right. Sadly, it’s all too real, and it’s not leaked–it’s all out in the open for those who bother to look.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was written by folks making shit up to try to stir up antisemitism. Project 2025 was written by actual “conservative organizations”: https://www.project2025.org/about/advisory-board/
36·11 months agoIt’s also used for sending huge amounts of data long distances. “Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.” That’s usually attributed to Andrew S. Tanenbaum, but wikipedia follows that with “other alleged speakers include…” so take that with a grain of salt. They do note that the first problem in his book on computer networks asks students to calculate the throughput of a Saint Bernard carrying floppy disks.
Well, okay, but we’re gonna create our own set of secret judges so nobody can keep an eye on what we’re doing. This is about us being able to watch you, not the other way around. --the intelligence agencies
I mean, only a misdemeanor offense, and the caller ID thing only cost them $6 million. Sounds to me like this is definitely within budget for a bunch of candidates.