You've been in plenty of other threads justifying the murders of American citizens by government agents, so it's doubtful that any of your questions here are in good faith. Nobody owes it to you to pick out the nuance from coy questions that culminate at the same old nonsensical refrain that any of the major outrages here are due to "enforcing immigration law".
As a libertarian I strongly agree with this in isolation. But your follow up comment (now flagged) is chock full of the standard Republican social media dementia, so this original comment is actually yet another instance of lofty ideals being dishonestly abused to run cover for something even worse.
For all of the actual criticisms that can be levied at them, Democrats aren't the ones throwing our institutions onto the scrap heap, alienating our allies, or cheering on autocracy.
Obviously that "documentary" they produced on Melanoma, among the other bribes and ring-kissing.
And of course there is no substance to the approvals. This is basically the general shape of the problem with all of Grump's "policies." They purport to be fixing real longstanding problems. But rather than any kind of serious implementation structured to address the relevant details (source code publication/escrow, professional security review, testing, requirements around updates), they're merely simplistic yes/no hurdles for enabling autocratic corruption and graft.
It's just the same boring dynamic whereby every accusation is a confession. Come out swinging, and then the obvious parallels between the antichrist and Trump or even Thiel himself fall flat. Basically "no yuo"
I'd call the web interface on low-end managed switches a liability [0]. It would be interesting to write one's own 8051 firmware from the ground up [1]. It shouldn't actually be terribly hard to have some basic thing that accepts a binary chip config image from the network, right? The existing 512KiB flash ought to be enough for that. And since Realtek switch chips seem to be so popular, it could even be made generic enough to work across models. Then a user would just need a flash programmer.
My core network is Mikrotik gear with 10Gb uplinks, but it would be nice to use my old unmanaged gbit switches (Netgear GS108 mainly) with vlans rather than going nuts with more Mikrotik or having lots of homeruns.
[0] high-end ones too, for that matter
[1] the alternative I thought of first was setting up an Arduino as an I2C slave. But then you'd also want to switch the switch's power supply, and need an ethernet port on the Arduino just to connect to the switch itself.
It sounds like this would actually be good to decide now if the court were truly a "conservative" court - there is no legitimate reason for preemption to apply to labeling laws (even as broken as California's labeling law is), as labeling a product a certain way is not a mutually-exclusive action. But I expect the rank hypocrisy will win out, especially with the "culture war" backdrop of California delenda est.
> there is no legitimate reason for preemption to apply to labeling laws (even as broken as California's labeling law is), as labeling a product a certain way is not a mutually-exclusive action.
That's not really what preemption is about. A major point of having "interstate commerce" -- actual products crossing state lines -- at the federal level, is to prevent states from enacting trade barriers.
Suppose California disproportionately has more organic food producers and other states make higher proportions of food products grown with glyphosate. California then passes a law requiring the latter (i.e. disproportionately out-of-state) products to carry a scary warning label based on inconclusive evidence. Are they trying to enact a trade barrier? It sure looks like one. Meanwhile if the stuff is actually dangerous then it's dangerous in all 50 states, so the warning label should either be everywhere or nowhere according to the evidence, right?
Relatedly, having dozens or (at the city level) hundreds of different sets of rules is also a kind of trade barrier. Some small business in Ohio is willing to ship nationwide but every state has different rules, they might be inclined to cut off everyone who isn't in the local area since that's where they get most of their current sales, but that's bad. So then there is a legitimate interest in being able to say the rules have to be uniform if the states start trying to micromanage too much.
The better way to do this would be to only apply the interstate commerce rules to actual interstate commerce. So they could preempt California from requiring labeling on products shipped from Ohio, or require specific federal labeling on the things that are, but only California gets to decide about the things that never leave California. A lot of states would then say you have to follow the federal interstate rules even if you don't cross state lines, but it would be their decision and some might not.
More importantly in this case, a commitment to federal preemption allowed Congress to come to an agreement on a more ambitious set of federal regulations than would have been obtainable without it.
My point was specifically in regards to labeling, for which it's an awful stretch to call a trade barrier. If a label is "scary" enough to dissuade a potential purchaser, then it seems like the purchaser wasn't really informed about what they might have bought in the first place.
> So they could preempt California from requiring labeling on products shipped from Ohio, or require specific federal labeling on the things that are, but only California gets to decide about the things that never leave California
In my ideal world I'd slightly adjust the framing here. California law should apply to products that are being sold within California, regardless where they may have previously been (yes, that would be a complete repudiation of Wickard v Filburn's declaration that a butterfly flapping its wings is interstate commerce). A California distributor or retail store that gets shipments from Ohio but then sells locally should be required to follow California law about what they're selling, as those sales are occurring wholly in California. Also if Ohio and California can agree on something that differs from federal, then that should also take it out of federal preemption territory. But of Ohio and California cannot agree, and someone in California orders direct from Ohio, only then federal law should step in with preemption.
> Meanwhile if the stuff is actually dangerous then it's dangerous in all 50 states, so the warning label should either be everywhere or nowhere according to the evidence, right?
Only if other states or the federal government give that much of a shit about food safety, which is not a guarantee, both in theory and in practice. They might, for instance, care more about agri-profits than California does.
> So they could preempt California from requiring labeling on products shipped from Ohio, or require specific federal labeling on the things that are, but only California gets to decide about the things that never leave California.
That's just a regulatory-arbitrage race to the bottom. You'd just have out-of-state producers that don't have to follow any of your laws out-competing local ones.
It's the opposite of a race to the bottom. The federal government sets a single standard for the country. The same logic you're advocating is also the conservative argument for health care regulation --- that is, allow the states to preempt the federal standards so they can offer cheaper insurance by lowering standards.
That's exactly how it currently works, though. Different states can and do set different healthcare standards, above some minimum floor.
I'm not sure why you think there's a problem with that. (I mean, I think it's a problem for the residents of a lot of states, but that's their problem, that they have agency to fix, not mine.)
If the Midwest likes using paint chips as food coloring, that's not my problem. And it should still not be my problem if they elect some brain-worm addled moron to a federal office who goes and raises the federally permitted amount of paint in my food.
I think this and Lopatto's article are insightful and worth repeating... But they're missing the mark on genAI. GenAI is most certainly something wanted by the heavily-moneyed customers of the surveillance-spam-slop industry (aka Silicon Valley). It's not just governments who have the money to pay for it, rather businesses do as well. And this gets right back to the concept of "what normal people want" - not as a static thing, but rather as something that can be shaped and molded.
And of course anyone involved in fraud, whether legal or illegal - and by that token anyone selling services to help fight fraud. Infosec companies are loving this period.
As far as I understand it, the issue isn't the tariffs per se, but rather the outright threatening to physically attack Canada. Higher prices don't explain such a large drop, rather it is a concerted national feeling of needing to boycott the US as a whole.
One has to marvel at how the media keeps running cover for Grump, effectively normalizing his actions by talking about them through a lens of as if they are coherent policies that might somehow serve the interests of the United States. While at this point the only real question is whether the guy is an outright foreign agent, or closer to an argumentative recliner-bound invalid with foreign-agent handlers.
100%. Trump’s going to do his tariff thing and we all understand that. But the sovereignty threats were an outrage, and most of the Canadian response is motivated by a sense of deep betrayal.
> If they really wanted to bring back manufacturing, jobs, and compete with China, we'd give up the dollars special status
IIUC that was actually an explicit goal laid out in Ron Vara's book. It's obviously hard to tell where the line is between deliberate policy and mere narrative-chum for useful idiots to latch on to. But the impression I've gotten is that many of Grump's moves are in line with this goal, but fail to achieve it because the Dollar is so damn sticky (at least in the near term).
Also, the truth is that supporting manufacturing jobs to compete with China could always have been straightforwardly done by taking the surplus wealth gained by being the world reserve currency (ie being able to trade paper dollars for real goods), and directly spending it on subsidies for domestic manufacturing. But the policy over the past several decades has been instead to simply give away that wealth to Wall Street in the form of artificially low interest rates that create an asset bubble (ie the fake "fiscal responsibility" that the Republican party had been promoting)
reply