Florida: shithole of shitholes.

My only qualm with that is that if you select an algorithm, it needs to be selected, which means that the people in control of that selection can decide what’s non-partisan in the selection criteria.

I’m more in favor of defining properties that districts must have and then selecting a districting commission by lottery. Make it so you can’t be fired for being on the commission, and pay people 20% over their wage for the time they’re on the commission.

If an algorithm has an outcome that seems flagrantly incorrect, you can’t subpoena it and ask about its reasoning. The courts are already geared towards handling complaints regarding how a commission handled its responsibilities.

Don’t forget 1812 either.

Right. The goal isn’t to make it so no one has more than anyone else, it’s to ensure that everyone has enough and no one has so much more than anyone else that they can mess up society on a whim, and that people aren’t being exploited.

You want there to be a reward for hard work, creativity, innovation and all that. Just actually proportional to the value being added as opposed to what they can get away with.

I don’t begrudge a person who has worked hard and had something they started become successful a more-than-comfortable and early retirement. It’s when they just had money and used it to make more money, or showed up did little and got fired with millions of compensation that I’m really bothered.

Sure. They’re also historically terrible at being actual police. One groups job is to enforce the law and the others job is to apply force.
A soldier invariably has more training into the rules surrounding the application of force, but they have a significantly higher baseline level of violence than the police do. It’s unusual for the police to wear full armor and carry automatic rifles. In fact, one of the largest concerns about the organization of modern police forces is that they are becoming increasingly similar to the military.

The military is better at following their rules, but their rules include how to decide the number of known innocent civilians that are acceptable to kill.
We like to pretend that the people we train to dehumanize their opposition to increase lethality and who have a track record for sometimes stupendous civilian death rates will, when deployed domestically, not view the civilians here as the opposition, have a keen awareness of their personhood, and generally not act like every other time the military has been deployed against their nations civilian population.

We have rules against the military being used domestically for a good reason.

The generals quite realistically cannot stop him, short of an active coup.
The launch process is based on authentication, not authorization. As such, people who are not present are asked to verify various authentication codes. The details of the order are often not even visible to the person in question.
This allows for training exercises that are indistinguishable from a real launch order until the people in the bunker turn their keys and the readout tells them that no launch has occurred.
The selection process involves finding people who say they’re willing to kill a billion people without questioning it, screening out those that want to so you just have the ones who follow orders and don’t care, giving them snuggies, locking them underground for long enough that they’re not certain about world events, and occasionally handing them a loaded gun with orders to point it at the world’s head and pull the trigger before they find out if it’s a blank or not. If they even hesitate you replace them.

The orders are pre-cached and distributed after being vetted by lawyers. The soldiers are then trained that the order are pre-approved as legal so questioning the legality isn’t valid.

The only safeguard is for one of the few people who both know the order and is responsible for verification of identity to just refuse to validate the code.
In this case, that would mean relying on Hegseth to object.

Do you think soldiers are different than cops? Do you think someone who somehow has less law enforcement training than a cop will do the job better?

It’s a freak out because they’ve been called milks for an exceptionally long time. “Milk” has never exclusively meant the product of lactation in English. It’s always referred to something white and more opaque than not.

http://www.godecookery.com/goderec/grec31.htm

As another reply mentioned, we specifically have recipes for almond milk from before modern English.
It’s hardly a new thing, just something gaining popularity.

We have specific regulations to prevent consumers from buying the wrong thing within reason. Because most people assume milk means cow milk in the US, that’s what the standard of identity for milk refers to. We don’t need legislation specifically saying that plant milk can’t use the word because you already can’t pickup two jugs labeled “milk” and be unsure if they’re the same thing. Same as goat milk, sheep milk, milk of magnesia, 2% milk, whole milk, skim milk, vitamin D milk, lactose free milk, chocolate milk or strawberry milk.
Hell, “muscle milk” is only technically barely a milk product, absolutely isn’t milk (two milk derived proteins that using prevents a product from being labeled cheese and relegates it to “cheese product”), and would be stupendously unsuitable for cooking. No one complains about it, nor how it contains no muscle at all.

I’d find concerns of consumer protection a lot more credible if they had insisted that other animal milks couldn’t be labeled as such, or at least objected to things like “coconut water”, “rose water”, “cactus water”, “birch water”, “maple water”, “water chestnuts” or “watermelon”. Consumers are evidently only confused by plant milk though, which also prevents them from reading the name of the product. Works fine for other animal milks though, and anything that isn’t milky.

Milky way, milk thistle, milk weed, milk tree, dandelion milk… The list goes on. Oh, and don’t forget cream of wheat or tartar, for when your milky substance is also thick.

Eh, I’m not nearly so optimistic. They also got terribly worked up over the word “milk” and labeling plant based burger “burger”.

It’s more about bending over backwards to protect the meat and dairy industry from facing any possible missed revenue opportunity than protecting their actual bottom line, and more importantly about demonstrating their continued utility to the industry.
Kinda like how they’ll work hard to prevent gun regulations that no one is actually proposing because the perception of the possibility of a threat is unacceptable.

It’s definitely worthy of severe remorse. I can’t go so far as to hope for failure though, because too many perfectly good people would be ruined by that.

What you take away from my message is up to you.
The sad reality is that a large portion of the country is very conservative and there’s only so much you can do within the system to stop the system from expressing the will of the people in it.
That the system failing people seems to make people move towards an ideology that makes the system fail more people is frustrating.
Most people aren’t in favor of fascism, but a slow drift into fascism is preferable to every systemic reform that could do anything to stop it in most people’s eyes. “Of course someone in Wyoming shouldn’t get more votes than someone in California, but if we actually do that then politicians might pay more attention to the place with more people to the detriment of the place with less”.

If I had a magic word that would solve everything and make people wake up and remember that our biggest prosperity has always come when we’ve invested the most into science, infrastructure and our society at large I promise you I’d tell you.

Vote as left as can make a difference in every election. Sometimes this will mean voting for someone who’s identical to the Republican on 99% of issues because they’re the only other candidate who can win.

Protest when the opportunity presents itself. This won’t stop them, but it will show some people that they’re not alone in being pissed and freaked out by all this.

If given the opportunity, make life suck for anyone who voluntarily associates with the admin. Sometimes that means taking a moment to share some unsolicited citizen feedback at their job or when you see them at random businesses, and sometimes it means taking their money for a coffee order and then dropping the ticket on the floor. Just make someone’s day a little worse, and make sure they know it’s not just because you don’t like them, but also their choices and beliefs.

Help people around you who might be negatively impacted. The nature of the help is something you’ll have to figure out in the moment.

If the situation becomes dire enough, remember why the second amendment exists and exercise your rights. Or flee to Canada, which is a valid option. People are worth dying for, a country isn’t. And anything worth dying for is certainly worth living for.

Unfortunately, because they won the election and got the congressional votes too, there’s very little that can be done inside the confines of the law. Right now they are operating inside the broad outline of the law, so it’s harder to justify extrajudicial response. When that changes, that changes.

One of the other interesting things in the US is that different states can have different laws for meat standards, as long as they meet or exceed USDA minimums. They can’t, however, advertising that fact because it’s a violation of interstate trade.
So in the US, a legal hotdog ranges from a blend of the trimmings above and what can be removed from the bone with a power washer, up to “hot dogs must be made only of the product of primal cuts with no trimmings or waste meat”.

Eh, “refuse” makes sausage sound worse than it is. In the modern world anyplace with a food inspection system will typically see sausage made from cuts of meat that are perfectly edible but don’t meet the grading standards likely to sell on the shelf , or the excess pieces of muscle left over after breaking primal cuts down into smaller pieces. No one wants to buy USDA certified Meh grade steak, or a palm sized wedge of uneven thickness. So they get sent off to make hamburger, sausage, and various canned or commercial meat products that don’t need to be pretty.

Processed meat also includes much more benign seeming foods, like sandwich meat, ground meats, and bacon. We’ve known for a while that eating meat, and more so red meat, is a risk for colon problems. Red meats are more likely to be processed and therefore cheap and salty.

The new thing the study adds is that there isn’t a lower bound. For a lot of things there’s a quantity that isn’t associated with any issues, and it’s only when you go above that limit that the risk goes up.

Totally agree on hotdogs, but if someone ate a slice of standard toast for breakfast every day I wouldn’t say they ate a lot of toast.
Point being, I don’t think the frequency can be considered independent of the thing.

They maybe could have phrased it better as “consumption of as little as 2 ounces of processed meat, about one hotdog, a day…”.
A hotdog is a relatable unit of measure for an amount of food, but a hotdog a day isn’t normal. A hotdog one day, a deli sandwich the next, and so one though isn’t preposterous.

Why would they not pay tax? They’re living here, working here, buying things here. Those are where we collect taxes.

When your rational for “your parents came here illegally, so now you have to live in a country you’ve never known and don’t speak the language” is “someone might not be paying taxes”… You’re being cruel to no purpose.

What constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” is also defined by the laws of countries. That doesn’t mean that we don’t determine that some punishment is a human rights violation. Likewise, deciding to punish someone for the behavior of their parents is violation of human rights.

First, you actually can get citizenship from where you were born as well as by blood. It’s pretty common. They have dual citizenship. Done.

Your example is not as persuasive as you think. If I’m a nation, of course I need to care for the babies that live within my borders. Are you a monster?
I’m gonna have to tax and get help from the the parents, but that’s pretty normal for a nation to do.

Countries exist for the people that live there. If you live here the country is for you.

“Laws are how they are”, so why shouldn’t your government get to torture you? Just stating where you draw the line doesn’t make the line valid.

It’s commonly held to be a human right to not be stateless. Why is it a human right to have a country, but not a human right to have your home be that country?

Why are people in general not deserving of citizenship in the place they call home?

That’s a fair point of discussion. I stand by what I said as a valid response to the claim that government bestows a right, but no, it’s not as universally agreed upon in as I implied.

I’d argue that regardless of if a right is a fiat of nature or claimed by the people, that the right is still outside the government. People have the right to this and that, and the government can choose to infringe, respect or protect them, but they didn’t create the right.

I cannot face palm hard enough. You actually lack reading comprehension that hard.

That section does not imply that I think morality and the law are identical. That’s me believing that you do, and making an assertion that your beliefs would lead you to the indefensible position that the Holocaust wasn’t a human rights violation.
Also before I realized that you were being pedantic in ignorance, as revealed by you defending the notion that the Holocaust wasn’t a human rights violation.

I choose to interpret that you’re ignorant of philosophy, and now also not fluent enough in English to actually properly engage in this type of conversation, rather than think you’re a person who sees nothing wrong with the Holocaust.

In summary: “human rights” are a philosophical and ethical concept discussed under that and other names for thousands of years. That concept has clear implications for the law, and so the term is also used in a legal context. Most people refer to the philosophical context because morality is above the law.

Seeing as I no longer have confidence in the ability of this discussion to go anywhere due to communication impediments, I’m done. Have a good day.