This is absolutely a "trend" (been going on for years now) in nightclubs in Berlin. Almost none of them allow photography of any sort, and will sticker up your phone at the entrance to remind you.
When you are taking photos or even thinking of doing it, you are not living in the moment.
When I go to clubs in other countries, the difference is really stark. People aren't actually dancing and don't look like they're having fun.
I agree with you that guns are a an insane problem. However, that shouldn't discourage us from solving other unrelated problems when the solutions present themselves.
I'm not following your logic here. He is not allowed to use Signal for his work. It sounds like there were some measures in place to block lots of "normal internet" (for any number of good reasons), which would include Signal. He then deliberately circumvented those measures so he could use Signal.
Deliberately circumventing security and policy protocols is a bad thing in itself.
The article premise is that he used dirty Internet connection to access Signal. My argument is that is the only known way to access Signal as far as we are all aware. Because as has already been stated, it’s only approved for unclassified communications only per DoD policy. I don’t know what’s secret in his communications because we don’t know what the government has designated as such.
My image prompt is just to have them make a realistic chess game. There are always tons of weird issues like the checkerboard pattern not lining up with itself, triplicate pieces, the wrong sized grid, etc
I don't follow this example. You could still have an account delete the email while generating a record that an email was deleted. Why would you need an account that doesn't generate deletion records?
The US is not the best friend of UN. Out of the WHO, menaces the ICJ, vetos that go against the democratic countries and a few times match russia. Trump out of the climate accord. Trump quit UN rights council, Trump cuts UNRWA funding.
You may agree with some, but there is a pattern.
I am waiting for it to leave the FAO. Not hoping, waiting.
Your snark misses the fact that the program has been funded by the US for 25 years and the decision to not make it a UN project has nothing to do with the current administration.
Trying to cut it immediately instead of saying "ok, it needs to become a joint international effort starting on (a date months ahead)" is the issue with the current administration. Running it is fine, handing it over is fine, suddenly making a huge mess is not.
I am confused about what UN has to do with America shutting down services whose primary goal was to protect American infrastructure, government and companies.
Some UN nations are quite happy about this, because it will make it easier to access what they want in US.
Maybe it was the US that wanted it under their own control, and could enforce that via the soft-power it had. :)
Anyways, I have to agree with the others: this is not the real issue. If you wanted to change the governance on that point, you can transition these things orderly.
Like Doge, the messaging is to hide the real intentions. It doesn't take much effort to see that the actions do not really match with the messages, but if the media would not even do that bit of analysis and would not bring the disconnect front and center, then yeah, it is a winning strategy.
Well the way it should work is that executive orders are not laws and should not be treated as such. They’re supposed to be memos about how executive agencies should interpret the law. Somehow though, as congress has languished they’ve been accruing more and more power
Congress largely relinquished that power by creating bills that establish rule-making executive agencies rather than writing the rules themselves. That leaves congresspeople free to do things like trade stocks and raise money for their respective parties. They claim they would be too busy to read all the rules they would have to pass, but (1) that's the point and (2) they pass massive bills they don't read anyway. This version of America is fundamentally broken, but it seems to be the nash equilibrium of the system given greedy congrespeople and a greedy executive.
Requiring Congress to get involved every time a regulatory agency needs to adapt to new circumstances or new technology would leave us at the mercy of unscrupulous corporations who can and will "move fast and break things."
No; Congress relinquished their power when Congressional Republicans chose to become "the party of No" and just prevent anything from happening under Obama. That's when executive orders started to become much more common.
I think you need to read some history, because what I'm talking about happened in the 1930's-60's, when Obama wasn't even born yet. The regulatory agencies are ponderous and slow, too. They are just unelected so they can do unpopular things without it impacting their careers.
Executive orders are the latest extension of the trend of do-nothing congresses. They have been growing exponentially over time.
> They are just unelected so they can do unpopular things without it impacting their careers.
Yes, this (to an extent), but more importantly, they're also experts. The people hired at these agencies aren't politicians, they're professionals.
Seems to me most congress people can barely tell their ass from a hole in the ground these days. Do we really need them chiming in on what medicine is okay and what isn't?
I'd call that the rule of law. If Congress is unable to perform that duty, it falls upon themselves to resign their position in favor of an fairly elected candidate who will.
It sounded like you were going to disagree, but then I think you arrived at the same place more or less. Congress, on net, isn’t doing what it needs to be doing. Is that not a critical problem? If the executive who takes up that slack is Trump, suddenly people notice what a problem it is. But, it is not about Trump specifically, but rather an ongoing and systemic issue with our two party system, and it will predictably escalate due to partisans in Washington and their unwavering supporters.
I was emphatically disagreeing with their first sentence. The idea that Congress shouldn't be delegating its power to regulatory agencies was a fringe one until very recently, with the obviously-corrupt SCOTUS ruling ending Chevron deference.
Delegating power to regulatory agencies also has nearly nothing to do with Congress's recent gridlock and ineffectiveness, or the spate of executive orders that has prompted.
> The idea that Congress shouldn't be delegating its power to regulatory agencies was a fringe one until very recently
Between about 1985 (Chevron) and 2010 (the populist movements in both parties), this idea was at its nadir of popularity. For the entire rest of US history from 1776-1980 and 2010-2025, a distrust of a large executive branch was very popular, and pretty much bipartisan most of the time. Just because you do not remember a time when this idea was popular, it does not mean that it was a fringe one only until very recently.
Congress is designed to be gridlocked. That's its natural state. We are now learning why it's a good idea to have a relatively ineffective government.
No in fact I'd say we are learning why its bad to have ineffective goverment. It lets people believe any blowhard thats claiming to be able to get things done. And its easy to do stuff when you don't care about destroying things or making things worse or following the law
I think my mileage varies a bit. I was an Obama/Clinton supporter, and I have always felt strongly that the legislative branch was… less than efficient. Delegating away the hard non-glamorous stuff is incentivized and nothing changes because the DC system as a whole just works that way. Both parties want less accountability and more power, but citizens need the opposite. There has to be some reasonable amount of legislation coming from the legislature or what are they there for other than grandstanding, fundraising and performative outrage?
When a law is passed that says "Do what the executive agency says.", then it makes executive orders that control that executive agency on the level of laws. Even with some limits in the original law, the executive order becomes like a law at least within those limits. But it isn't a law, meaning that some protections based on laws aren't offered. So now we run into an issue where we have things that aren't laws that effectively work as a law as far as the common man cares. The only simple fix I see for this is to require that all laws must clearly define what is and isn't illegal without any regard to another system's interpretation of the matter (but as with any simple fix, it is never that simple).
There are two gases that need to be exchanged when you breathe. You need to get rid of CO2 and you need to get O2. When you hyperventilate, you purge CO2, but don't really change your O2 content.
This matters only because CO2 is what triggers your desire to breathe, but O2 is what causes you to actually pass out or not. So what happens is that you might pass out before you realize you need to come up for air.
reply