While this community is generally a place to complain about and laugh at Reddit, I don't know that you'll get any sympathy here. You're admitting that you said you wanted to kill someone, but justifying it because they're someone everyone should really hate. I'm with you on the second part, but you still crossed a line with the first part no matter how you slice it.

Most of the west has already been dealing with this for decades, and the way they typically deal with it is through offshore manufacturing and immigration. The process has been to identify a low cost nation, build up enough infrastructure to work from there, move manufacturing to that nation, and then when the nation becomes wealthier and no longer able to be exploited, restart the process. We've seen this cycle with India and China, and now it's starting to branch out (a lot of South American nations are being bulked up as "near-shore" partners that are cheap, but also in the same timezone and closer for shipping). Africa is another continent with a lot of potential future options.

What the ballot initiative was meant to do and what the legal wording of the initiative are are two different things, though.

there are a million and one ways to implement a standardized open protocol securely.

Right, but that work hasn't been done yet, and moving ahead before that exists is a big risk.

Title's a little click-baity there. The Massachusetts ballot initiative that passed is a poorly thought out security nightmare, so until those issues can be addressed it would be dangerous to follow it.

Now, according to Reuters, NHTSA has written to automakers to advise them not to comply with the Massachusetts law. Among its problems are the fact that someone "could utilize such open access to remotely command vehicles to operate dangerously, including attacking multiple vehicles concurrently," and that "open access to vehicle manufacturers’ telematics offerings with the ability to remotely send commands allows for manipulation of systems on a vehicle, including safety-critical functions such as steering, acceleration, or braking."

The title isn't wrong, it just doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.

But the US still isn't the one that needs to be pressured for that to happen. Barring a new anti-Ukraine president in the next election the ones to worry about are Hungary and Turkey who have also been speed bumps for Norway and Sweden's membership bids.

I think that's the point, but if they're willing to admit it now, how bad must it be?

“In the West today, their talks on the understanding of the human race are dominated by (concepts on how) humans are more like animals, according to the Darwinian evolution theory,” he said when debating the Human Rights Commission’s 2020 Annual Report in the Dewan Rakyat today.

“This contradicts the Islamic understanding of what constitutes a human, as Muslims believe that God created our spirit and body. This thinking has been rejected by Western scholars.”

Oh, so you should have an even higher standard on human rights than the west since the human soul is divine, right? No? 🙄

Just more "west bad" screeching from someone that doesn't appreciate being told that people (LGBTQ+ people in particular, but not exclusively) have human rights too.

While there's going to be plenty of pressure on her to recuse, there may not be any legal obligation or recourse against her.

Federal courts have repeatedly interpreted Section 455 narrowly in several crucial ways. They have emphasized that the question of whether a judge is biased must be decided “objectively: “whether an objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge's impartiality.” But here’s the thing: once again, the plain language reading of this test is not reliable. One of the hazards of a black robe is a tendency to think that your views are the (only) objectively reasonable ones. The law on Section 455 reflects a set of judicial norms and values, not necessarily the norms or values of a “lay observer.”

Very fair point. The unsealed indictment paints an interesting picture that I'm still digesting into this whole tapestry (Trump and his aide successfully tricked his lawyers into attesting that all documents had been turned over through a shell game of boxes in different locations and properties). I need one of those big cork boards with pictures and red string to organize all of the parts to this mess.

You'd have to have a hook - guaranteed performance or uptime. Maybe some niche feature set or enhancement.

I think it's similar to some of the other open source vendors out there that sell a service that they host, but do not actually own (even if they are one of the open source project contributors). You can't get too greedy because the thing you sell can be sold by anyone, so you have to compete on price and "extras". Not the easiest way to make money, but it's not unheard of.

I expect that in time, that's exactly what will happen. Some instance somewhere will offer guaranteed availability and performance for a monthly fee to it's members. That feels icky at first blush, but why should it? It's not everyone's cup of tea, but no one is forced to use that instance to be part of the larger community, and one instance can't hold the community hostage like a single company social media company could. They'll have success right up until they don't and the Fediverse will sort it out through migrations of users and communities.

some of these hiccups are from the unpredictability of exodus traffic and its impact on the various servers.

That's been what I've been wondering as well - with all of the chaos and hiccups right now, maybe I did figure this out already, and things just a little tilted for the time being. Then I also wonder if some of what I think I figured out might also be that tilt and worry myself again.

🤷Oh well - we'll sort it out eventually 😆

I already “burnt the boats”, so you lot are stuck with me now.

Fit perfectly is right. I refreshed and my eyes instantly detected a change but it took a minute to hone in on what it was. They just fit in like they’ve always been there. Fantastic execution.

I appreciate your help (not OP, but found this because of a similar question)

I can find a lot of communities by going to https://beehaw.org/c/[community]@[server], but some work and some don't and I can't work out a rhyme or reason for why and have to just try them and see what happens. I assume I'm just not getting something and making this harder than it should be, since that's my typical speed.

If you had asked me if they were still on the show before I read this article, I would have said “of course not.”

I just hope this is mutual. Not that they shouldn’t go retire now, just that it would make me sad if I learned that they were being pushed out against their will.

The Venn diagram of lawyers that see this as good press for themselves and the lawyers that have the experience and record to work a case of this magnitude has an exceedingly slim overlapping area at this point. We’ve seen very good lawyers come and go from his team when he seemed eccentric but able to be represented and as that veil lifted the talent pool has shrunk. I’m not ragging on the people that agree to represent him - no matter the person or crime, they are entitled to competent representation and someone has to do it - but several of them have just been completely out of their depth.

This looks a likely a big part of it, and then we also have reports from MSNBC that at least some of the evidence being presented against him came from one of his lawyers. It could have been a former lawyer and not one of the two that recently resigned, but if it was one of these two they would have to resign or risk personal legal consequences.

Trump seems to have taken the view that plotting illegal things with his lawyer is smart due to attorney client confidentiality (see Cohen), not understanding that confidentiality specifically does not protect discussions related to new crimes. No one can force your attorney to disclose that you told him you were guilty, but if you ask them to help you suppress evidence or intimidate a witness, nothing stops the attorney from turning you in, and they have reasons to do just that as you’ve just made them complicit in your new crime and that is not protected by privilege.

I don’t know if I’d call that doubling down. For them to come out and say anything that could be construed as disparaging or even hinting that Trump is guilty here would be extremely unprofessional (they’re job is to represent the client), so this is a pretty boiler plate resignation message.

The real message is in the timing. Leaving your client hanging with just a couple of days before the hearing speaks volumes. Whatever the conflict or disagreement that existed here, it was big.

Getting people sorted into servers that are going to be able to handle the load, or even better getting them to host their own servers is going to be the way to go.

That part still worries me a smidge, and it's somewhat related to my other concern about funding/scaling. As more of the general public discover and move over, the % of the general population willing and able to host their own instance is going to steadily decrease. Not saying that we're all gonna die or anything, but it's going to be a shift and we'll have to continue to adapt.