It makes complete sense to show this. Visitors from other countries are often shocked when they shop here because they see the price of goods on the shelf and then get to the checkout and find out they're having to pay more because taxes are added on top of that price. The reason for doing that is to make it painfully obvious how much tax you're paying.
A tariff is just a tax placed on the other end. It makes complete sense to see all of the government middlemen getting a cut when you're simply trying to purchase a product. The idea is people should be demanding more from the taxes that they're paying or being more involved in the electoral process to get people into office that provide them the representation they want. It hasn't really worked with taxes that get added on, so I suspect that this will have a short-term outcry and then it will become the new normal.
We collectively have such short-term memories that the new normal becomes something we accept and do not question anymore.
Your last statement is correct. They are just emboldened by the current political environment. Any law enforcement has a problem where all they see is criminals all day everyday, now we know they aren't always criminals, but that's their view point. There should be sufficient checks and balances to ensure that due process is still upheld. What we're seeing now is the lack of checks because law enforcement feels they will never be held accountable for violating due process. This, while likely not a direct order of the president, it is an environment that his rhetoric has fostered. Even in the cases where the supreme court has said, unanimously, that people have been deported improperly this environment causes those in positions to correct it to ignore the courts.
I support the general idea of expedited deportation of those here illegally, those without valid documents to be here, I don't automatically have a problem if there is greater restrictions on entering or issuing new visas, but I have a major problem with violating due process and these kind of mistakes that's are a result of lack of due diligence.
The courts need to get more heavily involved here. It's easy to blame the president but short of some directive telling people to violate the law the blame is misdirected (until it's election time). The blame needs to be on those individuals doing this thing or seeing it and ignoring it. This is where the courts need to totally strip away default qualified immunity, especially for immigration officers. Because qualified immunity allows them to just say they were following orders without them having to evaluate if what they are doing is legal or not.
I believe if qualified immunity was gone a lot of this nonsense would stop. They would make sure that anyone who was deported was meant to be deported.
I have a friend who is here legally awaiting an asylum hearing, been waiting for 5 years. They were stopped by police for a valid reason and, from what was described the police had probable cause, but the charge itself is very minor. Because she's documented waiting asylum they contacted immigration, for no reason. There was no probable cause to think she was in violation of her immigration status, but they still contacted them and they requested she be held. So now she detained and there's probable cause to do so but it's immigration so they can.
This is where no qualified immunity would make these officers think twice. They know they have no probable cause to continue to hold her beyond the initial charge. Without qualified immunity they would understand that continuing to hold someone after a judge has allowed their release means that they would lose their house their life their future. So I really think we need to end to qualified immunity across the board. Have the people who are supposed to protect us and be responsible for their actions.
Without qualified immunity, no one in their right mind would want to work in law enforcement. LE would become an easy target for malicious litigation where the cost/effort to defend would, itself, be the weapon, regardless of whether or not the lawsuits were won.
LE personnel would have to get insurance, like doctors, which would be crazy expensive and, considering their pay scale, unaffordable.
I don't like some of the implications of qualified immunity, but I understand why it's there and needed.
I think the only real solution to LE abuses is criminal accountability and prosecution. We already have the laws and processes in place to make that happen. It's hindered by the tribal nature of the human condition and I'm not sure you get around that very easily, at least, not at scale.
"Qualified Immunity" comes from the fact Americans have independent judicial branch and can directly bring law enforcement into that judiciary. In most countries, any action against law enforcement for their official duties is limited to government/department so they have large scale defense anyways.
> LE personnel would have to get insurance, like doctors, which would be crazy expensive and, considering their pay scale, unaffordable.
So pay would have to go up?
There'd probably also have to be something where if they were following department policy, then the officer (well, their insurance) can turn around and demand reimbursement from the department.
I completely disagree. It still blows my mind that Law Enforcement Officers are the only group of people for whom ignorance of the law is an acceptable defense.
Qualified immunity, as it is today, is far too broad. Because literally any action that an officer takes that has not been specifically ruled on by the courts is a defaulted as being immune to prosecution. Even when that officer is knowingly violating department policy even when they're reasonably aware they are a violating the law. They still retain qualified immunity.
It's nice to live in that dreamland that we can resort to criminal prosecutions for officers who violate the law that does not happen as often as it should. As part of their job, what they are trained to do, is to be able to evaluate a reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Yet you regularly see officers violate those standards with impunity. The problem is when someone violates your rights by arresting you without sufficient probable cause there is nearly no recourse for the average person.
If immigration took you and held you for 2 weeks, how disruptive would that be to your life? Would you lose your house, your job, more than that? If it was found that they had no probable cause to for an arrest what realistic legal recourse do you have, and how many years would it take for that recourse?
So if you want to maintain qualified immunity because you believe it's a requirement for these people to do their jobs then where is the balance to that? Because right now there is no balance. If you don't want officers to be held directly responsible or to have to pay for expensive insurance policies somebody needs to pay because without a financial incentive things don't change. What about something that puts a strict financial incentive on getting things right at the first time. Obviously this would be a burden that the taxpayers share but when the taxpayers realize they're shelling out money for people who are not diligent in their work that will change very quickly. If someone is arrested and the courts find there was no probable cause for the arrest. How about $10,000 a day for every day that that person was held. That puts a meaningful financial burden on getting it right. Because then it becomes readily apparent which officers are problematic and which ones are not.
The situation we're in right now is not working and there doesn't seem to be any plans to fix it. Because literally my friend where there is no probable cause for them to be arrested and held by immigration is being held by immigration. Like most people they live month to month. So if they're not working nobody pays their bills nobody pays for their apartment. If they're held for 2 weeks or a month or God forbid even longer before they're let go where is the actual financial recourse because they lost everything in their life? Because your suggestion doesn't solve for that problem and provides no incentive for immigration to follow the laws or even follow the courts.
Because the interesting thing is with the original arrest they would have been released the next day on their own recognizance. Police that do not care about the constitutions or due process or the rights of individuals proactively contacted immigration and immigration requested that she be turned over to them. No reason given and there's no reason for the police to have suspected that a person with all the proper documentation and identification is in violation of any federal immigration law. So tell me honestly what is your solution if it's not to strip away qualified immunity and if it's not to place a heavy financial burden on these agencies in some way that directs back to the individuals that are willfully violating people's rights?
I can actually buy a car, I can't buy a font. You want to trick me into believing I can buy that font but in reality I'm buying some nebulous license to use it. I have no right to repair that font I have no right to alter that font I have no right to take the font that I have and resell that to another person.
So idiotic comparisons are still idiotic. If you actually sell it and give me the rights of ownership like I get with a car then we'll actually talk.
That's a strange issue to have a government mandate. No one was compelled to type those programs in if they didn't want to. I came from the time of seeing those in magazines, and most I never bothered to type in because it wasn't that interested in what they did. Some I did type in because it's a good learning experience especially when you have to go back and debug where you mistype something.
If governments try and restrict this, which is effectively a manual instruction method for achieving an outcome how many other manual instruction methods for achieving an outcome would also get inadvertently restricted? I am quite curious at the basis for the question around the legality of it because that strikes me as very odd, and I'd really like to know the thought process.
The EU already regulates the charging port on your mobile phone. Typing in a lengthy program is far more inconvenient than dealing with a less‑than‑ideal port.
That's comparing two quite dissimilar things. The charging port on your phone is about standardization and interoperability between devices and with external devices. Governments typically have to do this because the industry fails utterly to do this even though it always benefits the industries to have standardization. You can simply look back at a plain telephone, those interfaces have been standardized and regulated. Electricity is also another thing that has been standardized and regulated. This breaks up monopolistic ecosystems and encourages innovation by having this standard in which many things can operate on. In some cases the industry comes together and forms a working group and agrees upon standards and everything is great in some cases, like Apple and they're charging port, they staunchly refuse to come together in a common agreement and this is really where governments need to step in because it makes it better for everyone. It always boggles my mind that companies actively work at harming their own future business growth.
I am really not sure how typing in a program that has been written on paper relates to any of those things that require standardization for interoperability.
My question was less about could they do it because governments can regulate all kinds of crazy things. It was more about why this would even come up as a thought and a proposal in your mind. Because the marketplace would actually solve for this problem all by itself. Distributing a program on media has an increased cost to it as opposed to just printing it out on some paper. Back in the day when these things were popular, if a given program was popular enough someone would write it down save it to a disk and distribute it for a nominal fee.
You still haven't answered my question. You're just kind of avoiding it at this point. Maybe because you don't have an answer or maybe because as you logically think through it it becomes kind of a strange position to even think about.
I think this person has a very narrow definition of database. Also it doesn't lie to you It attempts to give you an answer for your query. The problem is this person seems to believe that the only portion of the query that is relevant is the question they're asking. Who and why they are asking are just as important as what they are asking.
So when you understand that DNS, in many cases, evaluates not only the question but who asked it and why they asked it then it becomes clear why the answers can be different. All of those things are inputs into your query even when you do not understand all of the inputs. This is not lying to you. Because a lying is an intentional deception. This is simply DNS trying to answer the question in the best way possible to get you to the outcomes you want.
The lack of details, the description of them being a black albino, and the cash app link. That should tell you all you need to know.
Sure it could be legitimate, because quite literally anything is possible, but 3 to 4 months without pay and they haven't talked to a labor lawyer and doesn't have a detailed blog post about what's going on. Just a cash app link. That puts the likelihood of it really being legitimate very close to zero.
People have tried to build BitTorrent clients to do this. As far as I know they never took off. The primary problem is you oftentimes don't get people who want to share back or who have firewalls or other connections that don't allow them to share back. So you end up with a few people who end up seeding everything out. The second problem is in order to watch a streaming protocol things need to arrive in order. It is totally possible to do with BitTorrent and request the blocks in the order that you want but you may not always be able to get them in the order you want.
In general people aren't tolerant of lag and spinning circles and other such things when they're trying to watch streaming content. If you're fine with just watching it a little bit later might as well queue it up and left the whole thing down load so it's ready when you're ready.
Popcorn Time did this and it worked great. Starting a torrent wasn't instant, but once a buffer was built up, it streamed just fine.
Popcorn Time got taken down pretty hard because they became too popular too fast.
A commercial solution could have a seed server optimized for streaming the initial segments of video files to kickstart the stream, and let basic torrents deal with the rest of the stream.
The biggest issue I've seen with these is the networking limitations in a browser - there might be hundreds of seeders for a video and using a normal streaming torrent video player works well, but as torrent clients in the browser need to use WebRTC / WebTorrent, there might be just 0-5 seeders supporting it. I don't see much adoption for WebTorrents before the widely used standard Bittorrent clients support the protocol.
what about having something reasonable for lag, like 30-60 seconds would that make a big difference or you think it would just eventually degrade too?
Also do you think there's any way you can prioritize seeders in such a protocol? like some kind of algorithm that the more you share the more you're prioritized in getting the most up to date packets.
The main reason I would think it would be useful is 1. since streaming sites seem to lose a lot of money and 2. sports streams are really bad, even paid ones. I have dazn and two other sports streaming services and they still lag and are only 720p
> what about having something reasonable for lag, like 30-60 seconds would that make a big difference or you think it would just eventually degrade too?
I think you would probably need something more in the neighbourhood of 10 minutes to really make a difference. If you could make a stable p2p live streaming app with the number of peers all watching the same stream in the hundreds and only 30 seconds latency, i'd consider that pretty amazing.
> Also do you think there's any way you can prioritize seeders in such a protocol? like some kind of algorithm that the more you share the more you're prioritized in getting the most up to date packets.
If we are talking about a livestream (and not "netflix" type streaming) then i don't think seeders are a thing. You can't seed a file that isn't finished being created yet.
If you mean more generally punishing free-riders, i think that is difficult in a live stream as generally data would be coming in from a different set of peers than the peers you are sending data out to, so its difficult (maybe not impossible) to know who is misbehaving.
Amazing, almost as if male and female evolved this difference naturally over time. Because it's really curious that many other female mammals go into a very obvious heat cycle but human females do not. Strange to assign a term like sexist to describe biological evolution.
She's a bitch, she's a lover
She's a child, she's a mother
She's a sinner, she's a saint
She doesn't feel ashamed
She's my hell, she's my dream
She's nothing in between
I know I wouldn't want it any other way
You don't say what kind of internet connection you have, but most likely it's due to extra noise on the line. Home phones ring because they send ~100 volts AC down the line.
I've worked on allot of pots lines and haven't done that in 20 years as its all fiber back-hauld now.
The only time I'd send power down a copper line is to fuse it back together so I didn't have to dig it up and replace it and that's super rare now as I'd just put in a order to have it replaced with a 12 pair fiber run.
A tariff is just a tax placed on the other end. It makes complete sense to see all of the government middlemen getting a cut when you're simply trying to purchase a product. The idea is people should be demanding more from the taxes that they're paying or being more involved in the electoral process to get people into office that provide them the representation they want. It hasn't really worked with taxes that get added on, so I suspect that this will have a short-term outcry and then it will become the new normal.
We collectively have such short-term memories that the new normal becomes something we accept and do not question anymore.
reply