kava

@kava@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Coming on Lemmy and complaining because there are too many Linux users is like going in to a brothel and complaining that there are too many hookers⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  indie OS

  it’s the OS that virtually every server uses. even Microsoft servers slowly switched away from Windows roughly a decade ago. Today majority of their servers run Linux

  it’s not indie- it’s big and corporate. the difference is there’s a weird serendipitous intersection of OSS and corporate interest that has arisen in a way that allows regular joe schmoe to run software you can actually control. so that your computer actually belongs to you

  imagine with your car. would you be OK with ads in your rear view mirror? with your car constantly sending data about how you drive to some nameless corporation? your car randomly turning on and updating itself while you sleep? taking away features you may want or adding features you don’t?

  that’s the path we’re going down with cars right now. and it’s partly because people are content to sit on their laurels and cede all of their collective power to companies like Microsoft

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Having $270 billion dollars and spending the bulk of your time trying to make more money is like weighing 900 pounds and thinking "ooh, I bet I can get to 1000".⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  at that point it’s not really about the money

  everyone needs a purpose. if you take away that purpose, people will start deteriorating.

  “journey not the destination”. once you’ve reached something like $50M any more money doesn’t make any real difference in your daily life.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Google creating an AI agent to use your PC on your behalf, says report | Same PR nightmare as Windows Recall⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  i guess it’s just puppeteer + ai prompting

  unless AI gets significantly better in the next year or so I doubt it’s gonna be any better than someone spending an hour writing a puppeteer scraping script

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Norwegian government to set 15-year age limit for using social media⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Kids are disadvantaged in a number of ways compared to adults

  • the obvious factor is that the prefrontal cortex is not developed. they simply do not have the capacity to make fully informed decisions.
  • another factor is the simple lack of experience. when you look at an 8 year old to an adult, that adult has been through a lot of shit in their life. they learned a thing or two and that gives him the ability to sniff out bullshit much more easily than a child. think of it as the bullshit immune system
  • kids don’t have the resources that adults do. they typically don’t have access to credit cards so the free things on the internet attract them more easily. websites (really apps these days) prey on this fact.
• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Despite tech-savvy reputation, Gen Z falls behind in keyboard typing skills⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  People believe just because someone interests with some sort of digital device, it makes you an expert on computers. The thing is, it depends on the type of operating system you are interacting with.

  For example when I was young, my father would buy those big old gray computers from yard sales. I would mix and match the pieces inside to build my own PC. I broke a lot of shit but learned a lot.

  The operating system was one where you more or less had total control over the computer. By 12~13 I was using CD-Roms to load different Linux distros and play around with all sorts of different things.

  This experience basically taught me how operating systems work at a fundamental level. How it needs a kernel, how it loads and maintains services, packages, etc. How file systems work and learning how terminals are useful. Scripting languages, and eventually coding applications.

  Compare and contrast that to the young kids of today. What do they get? A phone and a tablet. You can’t open it up. You can’t tinker with it. The OS is closed off and is deliberately made as difficult as possible to modify.

  You get what you get and you don’t get upset. That doesn’t leave nearly as much room for exploration and curiosity. It’s a symptom of our computers becoming more and more railroaded. More and more control by large companies.

  It’s really sad, I think. Fairly soon I believe every device will be a “thin device” or essentially a chrome book. Very little local processing power and instead it’ll essentially stream from a server.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why does the USA have so few legal protections for ordinary people, and how can we change that?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  There are laws against excessive fees like this. In my home state of Florida, a landlord cannot charge more than 20% the rent in late fees.

  And trust me, Florida is not known for its consumer protections. So chances are your state has a similar law which is probably better.

  So if I were you I would look up the law and not pay.

  Assuming of course you are telling the full truth- your full rent payment was late for a short period of time.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube is Losing The War Against Adblockers⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Personally I prefer subscription model over ad-based data tracking model. When you get something for free, you are the product being sold. For example Facebook or Reddit. Your content (comments, media) is used to populate the site and your data is sold to advertisers.

  When you pay a subscription, you are the customer. There’s more incentive to create a proper service with the actual users in mind when it’s a subscription model.

  When advertisers are the primary customer, they will always be a priority in determining policy. So for example YouTube- longer ads and more of them.

  Of course, I think Google is guilty of double dipping. We pay for premium but I’m certain they still sell our data to advertisers. For example you watch a lot of carpentry videos, they will sell a list with your name that says “likely tool buyer” or something along those lines.

  But generally speaking, I never mind paying a subscription for a service. It’s more honest, more clear what’s going on.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YouTube is Losing The War Against Adblockers⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I just pay for premium. I’d rather pay the $25 a month to never have to see an ad.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Some subreddits could be paywalled, hints Reddit CEO⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m guessing there will be some compensation. Something like the streaming model. Company makes $ and gives a cut to user. The most popular ones can make quite a bit. I believe Twitter does this now too if I’m not mistaken. You can get paid based on total impressions to your post

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨TikTok pushed far-right AfD party on young voters in Germany⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Ideas spread between humans. On systems designed to facilitate communications between people, these ideas will likewise spread. Did AfD exploit TikTok’s algorithm or is right wing populism seeing a large growth worldwide?

  When the printing press come out and certain news agencies starting “Yellow Journalism” were they exploiting that system of communication for profit?

  Did JFK and Nixon exploit TV for their own political purposes?

  I believe wholeheartedly that every social media algorithm should be open source and transparent so the public can analyze what funny business is going on under the hood.

  But is it any different from how TV channels pick what shows to play or what ads to run? Which articles get printed and the choice of words for a newspaper?

  I think people are quick to jump on TikTok because of some unusual socially acceptable jingoism but I don’t see how at its core is fundamentally different from other forms of media, let alone other popular social media platforms.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Google Chrome ships a default, hidden extension that allows code on *.google.com access to private APIs, including your current CPU usage⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s sort of legally gray but generally speaking in the US downloading is a civil offense but not a criminal one. You can get sued by the copyright holder for example but you won’t end up in jail over it.

  People usually never get sued for it because it’s not worth it for Comcast to pay for lawyers to try and extract any money out of regular people.

  What’s usually considered an arrestable offense is uploading aka distribution. Once you start hosting seedboxes then you enter the area where you’re liable to go to prison.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Google Chrome ships a default, hidden extension that allows code on *.google.com access to private APIs, including your current CPU usage⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I appreciate the list. I’m not saying there aren’t valid concerns, just that in my day to day life it’s one of those items where the steps needed to avoid browser fingerprinting is usually more work than the value I personally get from my perspective.

  I’ve looked into this, and I’m not clueless. I’ve developed websites, I’ve done a lot of stuff with Selenium / Puppeteer, and have toyed with Firefox browser extensions.

  I understand the tools they use and it’s just very tricky to fully eliminate this type of thing. For example they can even use the browser window size. Are you going to randomly change window size to some novel dimension when you open up a tab?

  What about the JS engine you use. For example using Firefox already narrows down your anonymity by like 95% or something because only a small amount of users use the browser. Etc etc

  It’s hard to do this correctly, and I feel like VPN + private window usually takes care of the price fixing thing on the list, for example. When I’m searching for flights I usually do this.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Google Chrome ships a default, hidden extension that allows code on *.google.com access to private APIs, including your current CPU usage⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I remember back in the day everyone used Firefox. Then Chrome came out and there was a nice ad campaign and it was actually way faster.

  Then slowly everyone switched to Chrome. At some point in the last 15 years, it switched to Firefox being superior.

  I switched back to Firefox maybe like 7~ years ago? But I did it for open source reasons.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Google Chrome ships a default, hidden extension that allows code on *.google.com access to private APIs, including your current CPU usage⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah I’d only worry about it if I were trying to buy drugs on the dark net or something. I guess if torrenting became illegal I would also worry.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨why isn't anyone calling for Trump to drop out.⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  We can discuss what people should do all day. I’m talking about what people will do. Biden is losing this election. People are talking more about whether he is even capable of the job and nothing about the good things he can do for the country. His own party is rebelling against him, with Dems from swing states calling for his resignation.

  Biden’s toast, and the DNC with him. It’s unfortunate but it is what it is.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨why isn't anyone calling for Trump to drop out.⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Speaking confidence has nothing to do with lying or telling the truth. Go back 20 years ago and look at a Biden speech and compare it to today. Hell, go back 4 years ago to the last Biden v Trump debates.

  Biden isn’t half the capable public speaker he was before. He mumbles and gets lost. He sounds unsure.

  Trump doesn’t care if what he’s saying truth or not, he just says things with the conviction of a conman.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨why isn't anyone calling for Trump to drop out.⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  You have to look at it from the GOP perspective. Trump is the most popular candidate, he managed to accomplish big ticket items in his administration, and he is more “mentally there” than Biden.

  Just look at debate. Trump spoke quickly and confidently. Biden mumbles and forgets what he’s talking about, stands there with mouth open staring, etc.

  There’s a reason in 2020 debates, polls showed most people thought Biden won the 2 debates. But in the last one, overwhelming % of people thought Trump won debates- even democratic voters.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨why isn't anyone calling for Trump to drop out.⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I think you misunderstand who is asking Biden to drop out and why.

  Dems are interested in who is the DNC candidate and Republicans are interested in the GOP candidate.

  Republicans as a whole are OK with Trump. He’s not incredibly popular, but he has some achievements under his belt and has a relatively small but very loyal core group of voters. The average Republican believes that a) Trump has good chances of winning election and b) will likely move forward conservative policy objectives.

  Therefore, why would they want him to drop out?

  If we look on the other side at Biden. A growing group of people believe that he is not 100% mentally there because of his age. Because of this, not only does he a) have lower chances of winning the election but also b) is he really competent enough to be president? Sure, there’s a sort of shadow administration behind him but people still put value in having a strong and mentally quick head of state.

  Beyond that, there’s also a small group of progressive voters who are unhappy with Biden’s policies. He simply isn’t a very effective leader and is one of the most unpopular presidents in US history. He’s even more unpopular than Trump, who was also a deeply unpopular president.

  So, people want Biden to resign because they believe other people would not only a better chance of winning election, but would be more effective leaders in terms of advancing DNC policy objectives.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨My Windows Computer Just Doesn't Feel Like Mine Anymore⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I think the guy you’re replying to is probably right, just because you can tell from the article the author is not really an expert or advanced user.

  But I upvoted you because honestly we do not get enough random Shakespeare on online comments lol

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The justices of the supreme court ruled that Trump was immune and effectively above the law while being president. What is now stopping Biden from bringing a gun to the next debate?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  If your argument is: the Supreme Court is compromised and will intentionally ignore the constitution and the laws to protect Trump- then what difference does this ruling make?

  Why did the courts not hand the election to him? He sued in many courts over the 2020 election drama. Fake votes, rigged election, etc. He lost every court case.

  I think people assume the 9 justices are politically motivated but they in general hold a deep respect for the laws and the constitution. Every single decision is documented and you can read their opinions. Everything has legal reasoning, nothing happens just because

  For example the Roe v Wade one. I don’t think they should have repealed it for practical purposes- but the ruling legally makes sense. The courts are not legislators. Congress should be the one passing legislation to give right to abortion, not the courts.

  Why did Congress not pass anything since 1974? There were many Democratic majorities since 1974.

  I wouldn’t have repealed just because of the damage it caused, but I understand the legal argument.

  So to summarize: they follow the law. Not necessarily what is best for the country

  everything could be viewed as official in the right lens

  No, isn’t true. Insider trading? Not official. Is a crime and can be prosecuted.

  And note that it is “presumptive immunity” not absolute immunity. Therefore even official actions can be criminally prosecuted on a case by case basis. It’s just that because it’s presumptive, there’s a higher threshold of evidence the state would need to prosecute.

  If president had immunity, why Nixon

  Nixon did not act in an official capacity. He was guilty of obstruction of justice, breaking into office, etc. These things he did not do in an official capacity.

  I think a better example would be the Iran Contra affair. I think that’s a very legitimate concern. If I order the CIA to do something - is it official? What if it’s something clearly against the laws and/or against interests of the USA? Here I think there is a valid concern although that doesn’t mean the ruling is the end of democracy like people are making it out to be

  It’s OK to do insurrection

  He can still be held criminally liable for the insurrection. He will argue he was acting officially, it will go to a lower court, then bubble up to the USSC and they will rule.

  I think it’s fairly obvious it was not official

  OK to use official employee

  Yeah I think this is wrong and a valid concern. Although keep in mind: they already had this presumptive immunity. The difference is now the law is clearer and there’s a process to remove this immunity whereas before it wasn’t there

  denying people who actually understand the law, like professors, etc

  You can find just as many legal experts who agree with the majority opinion. It was 6-3 in the Supreme Court.

  But again- appeal to authority doesn’t work. You make arguments, like you did in this comment. I respect you more than almost anyone else because you took the time to read and give reasoning

  I don’t believe what someone says just because they’re an expert. I listen, but I look at the reasoning. Look up “Nobel disease” . Experts sometimes say some wild things

  our Congress is deadlocked

  Yes they are a mess and we’re headed towards fascism. Not because of this ruling though

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The justices of the supreme court ruled that Trump was immune and effectively above the law while being president. What is now stopping Biden from bringing a gun to the next debate?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Pt2: had to split in two because of length. See other comment first

  _______continued…

  my response to this is: if there is immunity, but not for criminal prosecution, what does the immunity apply to?

  moving forward, the dissenter discusses the “framework for prosecution of unofficial acts”

  Quick on the heels of announcing this astonishingly broad official-acts immunity, the majority assures us that a former President can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts.” Ante, at 15. Of course he can. No one has questioned the ability to prosecute a former President for unofficial acts Even Trump did not claim immunity for such acts and, as the majority acknowledges, such an immunity would be impossible

  essentially saying, yes. unofficial immunity would be absurd.

  It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is “‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,’” he is taking official action

  they are arguing that the statement is too broad. that it would be effectively impossible to distinguish an item from “official” to “unofficial”

  so their problem is not that there doesn’t exist a method to prosecute a president for criminal actions, but that the proposed framework is not going to be effective in doing so

  ---

  to conclude: i’ve read a couple dissenters and i’ve read a couple of the majority. i personally don’t think this ruling is as important as everyone is making it out to be

  why?

  1. the president already has these powers, except it has been in a gray legal area up until now. it is essentially writing down active policy. the president had presumed immunity for official acts before this

  2. it creates a framework to determine whether or not a president is acting in his official capacity. this power gets thrown to the courts.

  what this does is it gives the legislative branch a check against the president. i support more checks against the president because i think the executive is too powerful in general

  now, i understand the viewpoint that should the courts want to, they could rule everything the president does as “official” and therefore the president is effectively immune should the court politically be aligned with the president.

  however, i would repond that is the courts are politically aligned, they would have inevitably ruled in the same manner should this case have come up 10 yearse from now.

  this case, while important in the sense that it officially reinforces this precedence, it doesn’t functionally change anything going forward

  ---

  now that i’ve written out my reasoning, if you disagree with any specific points, feel free. i’m not an expert i’m a layman with a mild interest in constitutional law. i’m more than happy to admit i’m wrong. i’m not a conservative so please believe me i’m not partisanly motivated to see one side or another here. i’m going off of my own independent interpretation

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The justices of the supreme court ruled that Trump was immune and effectively above the law while being president. What is now stopping Biden from bringing a gun to the next debate?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Pt1:appeal to authority means nothing to me, and it shouldn’t to you, because experts and authorities can be wrong just like anyone else. i care about the merits of the argument, as everyone should

  and for that, we need to critically think and analyze reasoning on its own merits.

  so let’s actually read the court opinion, which you can easily find on the supreme court website if you’re actually curious.

  Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts

  so essentially - that’s exactly what i said. president has immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. what is the court’s reasoning?

  Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”

  It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power.

  So, the court’s opinion is that when a President is within his constitutionally defined powers he cannot be held criminally liable. Otherwise, for example, virtually every president for the last few decades could be held criminally liable for some crime. I brought up the examples of the classified document mishandling previously, but there are many more should you go looking.

  Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the President’s immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Framers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers

  So, not everything a president does falls within this immunity bubble. How do we decide what is official and what isn’t? Well, first we look at the seperation of powers outlined in the constitution. You know, the stuff you were taught in elementary school. 3 branches of government. What is within the scope of the executive branch, president has authority over.

   The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472 They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” Appreciating the “unique risks” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.”

  Essentially, the argument is: the President should not be afraid to act because of fear of criminal prosecution. For example, if something like killing a political leader of an enemy state is deemed critical to national security - he has the ability to choose this course of action without fear of being charged for murder. If we did not allow for this, the president’s office would be weaker. The opinion shares many court cases and items of the constitution that reinforces this authority the president is granted.

  At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

  So he can actually be prosecuted for specific acts if the proseuction can show that it doesn’t impede on the use of his constitutionally appointed powers.

  As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct.

  Again, like my previous comment - unofficial acts do not hold immunity. Items outside of his legal presidential powers are not protected.

   The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view.”

  So, how do we determine what is “official” versus “unofficial”? Well, the courts decide. However, as the Supreme Court is intended by the constitution to be a “final destination” the process must start at the lower courts and work its way up to the Supreme Court.

  So essentially, the decision states a) president has immunity for official acts, b) does not have immunity for unofficial acts, and c) it presents a framework and process for determining the difference between the two

  the decision was ruled 6-3

  ---

  so what did the dissenters say? well here’s justice Sotomayor

  Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President

  They are saying that the argument that the president neesd to act “bold and unhestitatingly” as specified by the constitution is not enough reason to warrant immunity.

  the next couple pages, which i won’t quote here for brevity, outlines the crimes that Trump committed circa Jan 6th. None of this has anything to do with the argument above, but has more to do with how Trump blatantly broke the law during this event and lists several examples

  The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution.

  self explanatory, we’re going back to the topic at hand

  The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.”

  i disagree with the statement “completely insulate presidents from criminal liability”. as we showed before, there is a framework for prosecuting presidents should they act in a manner outside of their constitutionally protected powers. the next statement, of course, is just a rehashing of the decision. president has immunity for his “core presidential powers”

  a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution.

  this is patently false. if they act in an unofficial manner, they do not get immunity. the courts have the power to determine acts “unofficial” and prosecute him

  The Constitution’s text contains no provision for immunity from criminal prosecution for former Presidents

  well, this is up for debate and interpretation. it’s been widely recognized that presidents have immunity for official acts. this has been the accepted situation for very long time. if you want to read about the history of this precedence: …findlaw.com/…/article-ii--presidential-immunity-…

  that article from way before this court case, goes over both the constitutional basis for the precedence as well as supreme court cases that reinforced the precedence

  so while the constitution does not explicitly state that the president has immunity, it can be implied that these powers arise from both the powers and responsibilities vested to the office of president

  the dissenting judge says as much in the next statement

  Of course, “the silence of the Constitution on this score is not dispositive.”

  essentially saying - the lack of explicit mention does not by itself necessarily mean the opinion of the court is incorrect.

  they then make the argument, which i will summarize for brevity, that a) the framers of the constitution provided for limited immunity for legislators and b) state constitutions at this time period had immunitities

  therefore, the framers would have been aware of this and would have explicitly mentioned this if they intended this. therefore, they argue it was not intended by the framers of the constitution

  my statement is - this is a valid argument. perhaps the framers not only did not intend for immunity, they left it explicitly unmentioned because they did intend for the president to have immunity.

  however i believe this statement alone is not enough to justify a dissent with the opinion. mainly because there’s a lot of things that framers intended or didn’t intend that we have modified since. i don’t think i have to elaborate here.

  then the dissenter goes on

  Aware of its lack of textual support, the majority points out that this Court has “recognized Presidential immunities and privileges ‘rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.’” Ante, at 10 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 749). That is true, as far as it goes.

  essentially saying - yes, the majority points out the established precedence that the Supreme Court has on this topic, and they are correct in using that as an argument

  Nothing in our history, however, supports the majority’s entirely novel immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

  however, nothing in the precedence applies explicitly to criminal prosecution. essentially saying - the precedence holds for presidential immunities but not from criminal prosecution.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The justices of the supreme court ruled that Trump was immune and effectively above the law while being president. What is now stopping Biden from bringing a gun to the next debate?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Acts done in an official manner are immune. So for example if the president orders assassination of political leader of another country (what Trump did with Iran’s Suleinami (I’m probably butchering name)). Protects president from prosecution for murder or whatever if there is evidence it was done in the interest of the state.

  Another example is something Biden / Trump and even Hilary are guilty of. The misuse or mishandling of classified materials. Since they are acting in an official manner, it isn’t a crime like it would be if a normal citizen mishandled the documents.

  Acts done in an “unofficial manner” are not immune. So let’s say a Mr President does some insider trading while president to enrich himself personally. That presumably would still be illegal and he could be charged.

  So who decides what is official and what isn’t? The courts. Lower courts make a determination and presumably it would go up to the SC if necessary.

  It’s an interesting question. For example- Reagan’s Iran-Contra episode. Where his administration was smuggling cocaine in order to get money to covertly supply weapons to Iran. Would that be official or unofficial?

  I think people need to realize the president has had broad powers to do a lot of dubious things for decades. This doesn’t necessarily increase or decrease his power, but creates a potential pathway to either prosecute or acquit him. Whereas before, it always stayed in the legal gray zone (in Reagan’s Iran Contra)

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨China is attempting to mirror the entire GitHub over to their own servers, users report⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  First, this conversation has little to do with fair use. Fair use is when there is an acceptable reason to break copyright. For example when you are making a parody or critique or for education purposes.

  What we are talking about is the act of reading and/or learning and then using that information in order to synthesize new material. This is essentially the entire point of education. When someone goes to art school, they study many different artists and their techniques. They learn from these techniques as they merge them together in different ways to create novel art.

  Everybody recognizes this is perfectly OK and to assume otherwise is absurd. So what we are talking about is not fair use, but extracting data from copyrighted material and using it to create novel material.

  The distinction here is you claim when this process is automated, it should become illegal. Why?

  My opinion is if it’s legal for a human to do, it should be legal for a human to automate.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨China is attempting to mirror the entire GitHub over to their own servers, users report⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  What’s the limit? This needs to be absolutely explicit and easy to understand because this is what LLMs are doing. They take hundreds of thousands of similar algorithms and they create an amalgamation of it.

  When is it copying and when it is “inspiration”? What’s the line between learning and copying?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨China is attempting to mirror the entire GitHub over to their own servers, users report⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I have no problem copying code either. The question is at what point does it go from

  1. I’m reading code and doing research

  To

  2. I’m copying code

  How abstracted does it have to be before it’s OK? If you write a merge sort, it might be similar to the one you learned when you were studying data structures.

  Should you make sure you attribute your data structure textbook every time you write a merge sort?

  Are you understanding the point I’m trying to get at?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨China is attempting to mirror the entire GitHub over to their own servers, users report⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Well let’s say there’s an algorithm to find length of longest palindrome with a set of letters. I look at 20 different implementations. Some people use hashmaps, some don’t. Some do it recursively, some don’t. Etc

  I consider all of them and create my own. I decide to implement myself both recursive and hash map but also add certain novel elements.

  Am I copying code? Am I breaking copyright?

  As for forbidding patents on software, I agree entirely. Would be a net positive for the world. You should be able to inspect all software that runs on your computer. Of course that’s a bit idealistic and pipe-dreamy.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨China is attempting to mirror the entire GitHub over to their own servers, users report⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  If I look at a few implementations of an algorithm and then implement my own using those as inspiration, am I breaking copyright law and circumventing licenses?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Microsoft really wants Local accounts gone after it erases its guide on how to create them⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  It depends how you define effective. Of course the consumer would prefer a free market with competition and low barriers to entry. This is the most egalitarian system, where money (and therefore power) gets distributed almost democratically.

  It’s a liberal democratic version of capitalism. It’s the version of capitalism that works. Not perfectly, but it rises people out of poverty and is more or less egalitarian, relative to the alternatives.

  Authoritarian capitalism is where you still have the large private sector except you don’t have the political freedoms. Think China post 1970s, modern Russia, Singapore.

  The government essentially rewards companies that support the power structure. They get privileges and a say at the table. It creates a sort of incestuous relationship between the government and large corporate entities.

  The US is moving towards this system as wealth inequality and corporate influence rises (more strongly under Biden than Trump, might I add. Probably to do with pandemic). More $$$ = more power. More power, more influence within the government. Creates a cycle where it’s a “buy your policy” type of democracy.

  Slowly our political freedoms are being eroded. Mass surveillance, the CIA and Pentagon are now allowed to spread propaganda on US soil (they were not allowed to before early 2000s), erosion of democratic institutions through populism. For example “fake elections” and events like Jan 6th. We are starting to censor and ban outside views (“misinformation” bans from Covid, the banning of TikTok, Google & Facebook & reddit & Twitter regularly manipulate the information people receive and cooperate with the government)

  Only some crazy number like 20% of people approve of Congress in this country. The democracy is falling apart and some new system is forming.

  As China is opening up their private market to become more like us in terms of finance, big capital, corporate rights, etc. We are closing down our political system to become more like them in terms of the loss of political freedoms, censorship, etc.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Microsoft really wants Local accounts gone after it erases its guide on how to create them⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  You know how China has a strong centralized government and cooperates with their big companies? Government says jump, Huawei says how high?

  We have a similar system. A strong centralized government that cooperates with the big companies. The primarily difference is that on the spectrum of

  Government power <-----------> corporate power

  The US leans more to the right.

  Really what’s interesting is both the US and China are slowly converging onto a point in the middle. Zizek said something like this some years back… authoritarian capitalism is unfortunately the most effective form of capitalism.