Not necessarily. That’s where class actions come in
The point is that relief should be tied to proper procedure, not handed out universally by default. One judge shouldn’t decide national policy based on one plaintiff unless the case is structured to justify it
No. If a ruling has determined that a government action has the potential to be illegal and must be halted for the suing party, it should absolutely be halted for everyone, because you're dealing with an action that's ambiguously illegal for everyone. It's not just the wronged party at the center of this issue, it's the capacity for the government to engage in illegal activity. Once you've identified behavior as questionable, you stop the behavior.
The "proper procedure" is increasingly out of reach for all but the richest or most numerous groups in our society (i.e. those equipped and qualified to launch a class action). It's justice on paper and injustice in practice.
They slow down the “forever lawsuit” problem by consolidating claims, reducing conflicting rulings, and giving defendants a clear path to challenge the case’s scope. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than unlimited nationwide injunctions from any one court.
This creates conflicting rulings, because now anyone who is party to a lawsuit has one precedent for them, and everyone else isn't.
If a state now sues the federal government on behalf of its citizens that a federal action is illegal, and wins, you now has a situation where a federal action is constitutionally illegal in one state, but is legal in another. How the hell is this consistent?
This doesn't consolidate anything. It removes the thing that forced consolidation - the ability of a court to issue an injunction and stop illegal actions from continuing - which forced the government to either give up, or appeal up. Now, everything is a legal patchwork.
That’s exactly how constitutional challenges have always worked. In our system, different circuits can interpret federal law differently until SCOTUS resolves the split. It’s not ideal, but it’s how precedent gets built.
Nationwide injunctions didn’t “force” consolidation. Often, they often blocked it.
We need to follow the process as designed.
This ruling restores pressure to actually appeal and get clarity at the appellate or Supreme Court level.
I’ll admit it’s slower but it’s slower by design. Less patchwork this way.
What if the executive prefers not to appeal their losses because they see a patch work as better than a permanent nationwide loss? Because that seems to be exactly their strategy here.
As I have been saying, courts aren’t not the only avenue to resolve. So what if their strategy is to not appeal? Find another way. Vote, change immigration law, apply political pressure, demand change through democratic means
But certainly don’t use one course of action
Finally injunctions were not envisioned by the Founders. Foreign concept along with circuit court. Only fairly recent
SCOTUS has been packed, voting districts gerrymandered, the national guard has been deployed against protesters, journalists are being shot with rubber bullets and threatened with legal action, and elected representatives are being charged with trumped up crimes.
The other avenues are also being obstructed.
And Republicans certainly didn't mind nation wide injunctions when they were used to block much of Biden's agenda. Or violent attempts to stop the transfer of power. Or pardons for everyone involved in attempts to stop the transfer of power ...
Hard disagree. I have replaced hand written reports that were total nightmares to reason about and maintain with fairly trivial activerecord implementations that were quite literally hundreds of times faster.
Activerecord may not give optimal solutions but it can get close enough for a lot of workloads, and complicated sql can become a complete bear over time.
We are not defending obesity, we are advocating for a balanced view, while you are busy with your little crusade.
My suggestion is to look at old black/white tribal photos of natives. They do not fullfill your beauty standards, but they lived normal sustenance lifes.
And yes, the woman and men have bellies. Not huge ones, but noticeable ones.
Same thing in the animal kingdom.
The dominant monkey in a harem, besides the normal hormonal dominance meat-mountain bloat, usually has a belly.
Our beauty standard is met by animals in distress, being pushed into marginal territories. Healthy is, somewhere in the middle, not on either side of the isles of madness.
If you are overweight, you need to take responsibility and change your lifestyle.
Of course, everyone instinctively knows this even if they want to use mental gymnastics to explain why it is OK. Alcoholics, drug addicts, etc are defensive too and have many excuses at the ready for why their behavior is acceptable.
In the end, however, reality will hit hard and five dollar words aren’t going to save the obese and those with unhealthy lifestyles from sickness and early death.
Not true. Bears live about 25 years. 35-40 years in captivity. I don’t think they’re normalizing obesity upthread, they’re merely pointing out that in nature accumulation of significant quantities of subcutaneous and visceral fat is normal, as are periods of starvation that we no longer experience.
Correct - I wasn't trying to normalize obesity upthread, at all.
Bears are an example that shows very clearly it's normal for animals in nature to become very much "not lean" to survive, and the drive to put on fat stores is probably much broader in nature than animals that hibernate to survive winter.
What's unique about humans is that we've engineered our environment to the point that most of us no longer suffer long stretches of being unfed or underfed to strip the excess fat stores off of us.
Some people are clearly better than others at fighting the behavior evolution has programmed into them. It's not good for them today, but at the same time that drive for survival is what kept their ancestors alive.
Of course we don't, but then again I think bears were just thrown in as an (extreme) example. As I read the thread before that, the point was that most animals' weights vary on an annual cycle, fattened up during summer-autumn and slimmer after the winter. Which seems fairly uncontroversial to me.
Warehouse lady might also have added value by turning 5 pallets of low-value junk into one pallet of slightly more value plus 4 pallets of low-value junk.
If pallets normally bring say $100 each but by letting the stroller lady consolidate the strollers into one pallet that she'll pay $250 for, everybody won.
Except for all of the customers who ended up with less valuable pallets assuming they expected more quality items to be there. If they knew exactly what quality they were getting and paid less then I agree it’s a win for all.
If you're just buying pallets of random returns, removing one category of items from that random pallet may not even devalue the pallet for that customer either. Heck, it might even make the pallets more valuable to have less variety in them (after all, the stroller-only pallets became more valuable when they are stroller-only).
Cherry picking pallets is a big deal and all the warehouses try to say they don't, but everyone does it. The only one I went to that was legit, had people line up outside when a truck arrived and everyone bid on the pallets as they were coming off the truck. Not surprisingly the value I got out of those pallets was 10-20x more than from other pallet warehouses.
All of the other places are cherry picking and reorganizing pallets to elicit higher bids and tend to run their own parallel retail / resale operations. It's probably necessary though because the guy selling directly off the truck went out of business last year.
I maintain those pallets might be more valuable to other sellers with other stuff instead of strollers. If I'm running a business selling small stuff in flat rate postal boxes, and I don't want to deal with being a stroller mechanic, having broken strollers out of my pallets (and having other stuff instead) is actually a positive for me.
You're going to have a hell of a time getting very many objects out of a mold meant to hold concrete for an interesting lawn ornament. Especially when in the hands of a renter who's probably by definition never used the process.
I dunno, some light searching reveals that they lots of latex moulds for lawn ornaments are for sale on Etsy. It seems like these things are out there.
> Well, chemotherapy destroys/reboots the immune system
That's a pretty gross oversimplification. Chemotherapy isn't one thing, it's a whole range of cocktails of drugs given in different combinations and doses for different specific cancers (even different sub-types of cancers).
They do generally weaken it, but most chemo doesn't "destroy" the immune system at all.
Antigen-specific immune responses against cancer cells usually involve clonal expansion (aka rapid division) of immune cells once co-stimulation has been achieved. This is often hindered by chemotherapy, although in the best case scenario, if the chemo is effective then it can lead to antigen uptake by local immune cells (epitope spread) which leads to a cascade of immune activity to clear the tumors.
I know that I am oversimplifying. However, generally chemotherapy works by killing rapidly dividing cells, such as cancer cells, hair cells, bone marrow progenitor cells, and immune cells at the tumor site. So yes, it does often functionally destroy/reboot the immune system. If you know of a chemo combo for solid tumors which doesn't lead to neutropenia or other functional immune depletions, please let me know.
Right, I'm not arguing the basic mechanism here. I'm just saying that every course of chemo does not completely wipe out your immune system, either. Dosage and cycling of the chemo matters, and even then your body reacts differently from cycle to cycle. Chemo is scary, but not because it completely kills your immune system every time.
My cousin and I had different cancers. Both of us had cisplatin. At the dose I had, my hair was gone. He hardly lost any hair and wasn't even that sick.
We also have drugs to offset the immune problems by sending your bone marrow into overdrive. My first cycle of cisplatin knocked my ANC to effectively zero. I was given additional meds on subsequent cycles and didn't have that problem again. (Said drugs are expensive and give you a special kind of bone pain that's hard to describe, so are apparently not given unless you have problems).
Chemo drugs are brutal. I was just reading a study the other day that some testicular cancer survivors treated with cisplatin will have measurable, reactive cisplatin in their blood plasma 20 years after treatment. The stuff really is poison.
> I asked them if my gas would be shut off. They said no, they do the work while the gas is still on!
My understanding is that most "last mile" gas lines are pretty low pressure and low flow. On purpose, so that if theirs a leak they aren't releasing massive amounts of gas into the atmosphere in a hurry, so the concentration doesn't raise to dangerous levels.
Then when they are working on the lines and in those pits to make connections, they have detectors to tell if there's a dangerous build up, and ventilation to ensure it doesn't happen anyway.
The system generally being low pressure is why sometimes during really cold periods when demand is high, the gas company has to adjust field regulators to increase flow so that demand can be met. They normally run at low enough flow that if everyone's furnace and stove and water heater all run at once, the lines would effectively run out of gas.
For some anecdotal comparison on the pressure on the main lines on the other hand: Recently a gas main near me sprung a leak. It sounded like a low flying jumbo jet right overhead while I was over a kilometer away. The pressure on those must be absolutely bonkers.
I know "Kansas is flat" is a popular trope, but it's not even that accurate.
Depending on how you measure, lots of states are flatter than Kansas. Florida is the flattest state by nearly all measures. Illinois is crazy flat as well.
My current (Brightspeed) and previous (Spectrum) ISPs have nominally "supported" IPv6. Except ... not nationwide, there are regional differences in how it's done and how well it works. And nobody can tell me if my specific location is supported or how to configure my equipment to use it.
On one hand, that gives me hope that we're getting closer to near-universal ISP support. On the other hand, it's been like this for so long I question if it'll ever improve.
So every person wronged by the government should sue individually?