• 2 Posts
  • 65 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 8th, 2023

help-circle

  • I don’t know if there is any single takeaway here, this story is just fucking ridiculous on every single level.

    1. They bullshited themselves into a search warrant based on typical cannabis “investigation methods”.
    2. In a state where recreational cannabis use is legal.
    3. Persisted in the search even after their main argument for it, high energy usage indicating a grow-op, fell away when it was clear it was indeed a medical facility.
    4. Made the motherfucking “Gun flies to MRI” TV trope a certified reality. This is a thing that verifiably happened now.
    5. Instead of getting help, used a sealed (!) emergency shutdown button…
    6. …which damaged the machine. And released thousands of dollars worth of helium gas.
    7. Forgot their loaded magazine on the ground.

    This can’t be real. I’m fucking dying over here. Please let there be bodycam footage of the cop speaking in a high pitched voice after. (I know the helium was probably not released into the room, but one can hope I guess)


  • android auto

    First I heard of this, but since it seems to be just some software that runs on the hardware of car manufacturers it seems rather unlikely. But very theoretically possible, if the car manufacturer was using default process scheduling in a CPU constrained machine and now switches to real-time scheduling in an update. But that was possible for years before this news, the code has just been mainlined to the default kernel now. If the car manufacturer cared about that they would probably have done it already with a patched kernel.







  • I think the problem might be your PostUp/PostDown lines have an in-interface (-i) but are missing an out-interface (-o) for the forwarding. Try this:

    PostUp   = iptables -A FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -A FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ens3 -j MASQUERADE
    PostDown = iptables -D FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -D FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o ens3 -j MASQUERADE
    

  • If Trump is elected to a second term it will be a disaster and there is no ambiguity as to the nature of Trump for he has already declared civil war against the will of the American people.

    And please show me where the fuck I ever doubted that. Do you not know who Sulla was? Did you not read me saying he fought a civil war and was the first general to march on Rome? Like right above the section you quoted out of context?

    What I said is Trump might not turn out to be the one to kill the republic but the one to irreparably damage it instead. Think for example him getting elected to a second term and then dying a month into it without achieving much of his dictatorial agenda.

    You are an idiot.

    That I am, given that I am still arguing with you.



  • Wow, ok. User name does not check out.

    Jokes aside though I feel attacked and my defence mechanism is to braindump, so consider what is to follow to be on you.

    you should shut the fuck up with your ‘well actually’ de facto dictator apologia

    As I was trying to make clear with the implicit disclaimer at the beginning of my comment and the explicit disclaimer at the end of my comment, that was not my intention. What I was trying to do was expand on the historical context as @Soulg@sh.itjust.works already pointed out (thanks btw). I am well aware that the term dictator has lost its connotation of “temporary office” long ago, and it is today used pretty much in the sense of absolute monarchy.

    Rome didn’t have that many ‘dictators’ give up power

    The GP asked “how many do you know”, and essentially I replied “at least two but pretty sure it’s more” to that.

    But ok, you posit I test. Here is my counterargument. With knowing Wikipedias love for lists and a search you land here: List of Roman dictators.

    List starts 501 BCE, ends 44 BCE, with Julius Caesar by the way. I would eyeball its length at ~80-100 entries. That would amount to a dictatorship once every five years roughly.

    The article helpfully explains a few Latin terms it uses, among them “abdicavit – abdicated, or resigned”. Ctrl+F says 7 occurrences, minus the one explaining it that are 6 mentions of the term, so my new guesstimate would be there are at least 6 dictators (in ancient Rome) who relinquished their office willingly. And I would bet you could get that number higher if you dig into the details, and start looking at term limits and stuff.

    So all I’m saying is essentially the dictatorship was an office that was regularly employed for nearly 500 years by an ancient state, and was then abused to bring about the destruction of its system of government. Remind you of anything? Like the presidency? Trump?

    the vast majority of societies with authoritarian dictators are dysfunctional

    Like those that exist right now? Not only the vast majority, all of them are dysfunctional and I never doubted that. Seriously you are preaching to the choir here. I was literally at court today because a number on a piece of paper was too low, and I couldn’t pay to get a newer piece of paper. Luckily the case was dismissed, so I’m pretty fond of the rule of law and separation of powers at the moment, but also equally aware of the monopoly on violence the state claims for itself and how fragile that makes it.

    I sense that you are angry, and most likely afraid, and I empathise with that. And due to that level of distress I would assume you are from the US. I’m not sure what to tell you except trying to resist the slide into dictatorship the best you can. Caesar was assassinated, and Hitler only narrowly escaped assassination several times is all I’m saying.

    again: shut the fuck up.

    Yeah, no, you little dictator. :P


  • Cincinnatus.

    Yes, thank you!

    Yeah I guess it is quite possible, likely even, that his story was embellished in history, and it was certainly abused later as you say. But to my layperson’s knowledge at least, every instance of historically recorded dictatorship before Caesar was relinquished willingly. I also think it quite possible that for a long time there was enough social pressure around such an office to keep it temporary, especially if it was indeed mainly directed against external threats like invasions.

    My interpretation is that Sulla set a bad precedent for abuse of the office in domestic politics, Caesar used that precedent to try and kill the (senatorial) republic, and Augustus dealt the finishing blow.

    But all of this is an etymological tangent in answer to a rhetorical question anyway. With the drift in meaning Trump basically said he wants to be king, and he might still get his second opportunity to be become Caesar.


  • How many dictators have you ever heard of that gave up power?

    I get what you are saying and agree, but it is kind of noteworthy that basically every dictator before Caesar did that. Famously there was some retired consul or something in the early republic who was granted the dictatorship, saved Rome from seemingly assured destruction in combat, and then immediately retired back to his farm. Always forget the name… But even people like Sulla, who used his dictatorship to wage a civil war and is to my knowledge the first Roman general to march troops into Rome, eventually resigned their dictatorship. It was originally never intended to be a permanent position, which is why Caesar claiming it for life was such a turn of an era.

    I guess what I’m saying overall is Trump might, even if elected to a second term, still turn out to be the American Sulla instead of the American Caesar if you catch my drift.

    Disclaimer: Non-American here. Dictatorship bad. All of this is bad.


  • Yeah but like I said, if you promise some other form of compensation on the level or above what they lose in benefits, you will still find people willing to follow these illegal orders. Hell you could find people willing to follow illegal orders even before this ruling, but now that the presidents right to give illegal orders is explicitly enshrined in constitutional jurisprudence this pre-existing problem is much worse. I doubt those people will care about a dishonourable discharge, on the contrary it will make them martyrs to “the cause” and they will be worshipped for it. And it remains to be seen how all this would play out in court, I guess it’s quite possible for the defence to argue that if the president has immunity for giving orders, their subordinates have immunity for following those orders.



  • All good points if true. However I will say that to my limited understanding a crime under a specific law having been pardoned, that same law can then not be used to prosecute this crime anymore. Meaning states would have to find a different (preferably state) law under which the same offence is punishable.

    And that is all disregarding other issues like packed courts, republican controlled states, the vagueness of double-jeopardy in this regard, and the general chilling effect a presidential pardon would have on prosecutors to even press charges in the first place.

    The loss of benefits is easily circumvented by promising a golden parachute along with the pardon, so I could still see a lot of fanatics doing the crime “for country and freedom” or whatever they tell themselves.

    Overall this seems like a potentially dangerous erosion of checks and balances that is easily abused when put in the wrong hands. As the dissenting opinions in the ruling openly state.


  • Ok yeah fair enough, that sounds reasonable. But to my knowledge the UMCJ is a federal law, not a state law, so how does that line of argument factor in there? You cited that as an example of checks and balances that would prevent people from following illegal orders, but it being a federal law still means the president could circumvent it with the official order plus pardon combo, at least if my understanding of this new supreme court ruling is correct.


  • IANAL, but there is the presidential power to pardon. So the president could in theory give an illegal order (as long as it is an official act they have immunity) and promise a presidential pardon once the order is fulfilled (therefore extending immunity to the perpetrator). Meaning the president can entirely circumvent the UCMJ.