But in reality, if I invent a machine to make it a lot easier to do tasks A & B... that also creates work of maintaining & improving & distributing that machine. And it may also open up a new field where task C is a thing we want to do, which wasn't possible before because A & B were such a hassle.
That's related to what always bothered me about Keynes's famous "technology should've given us all lives of leisure by now" idea. I feel like that comes from a magical view of technology where once you have it, 1. it takes care of itself, and 2. the set of things you want done won't change.
This is minor but: the example of the form you had to print out and bring in for someone to type it back in - that shit doesn't happen because someone made up a job. It happens because putting a fully integrated system online takes work to build & maintain, and they didn't make it a priority.
By the time she was convicted, she had already resigned and her career was toast - rightly so. Between that and the whole "not being in a conspiracy to subvert democracy" thing, it's not really hard to see how she'd get a lenient sentence.
The Wikipedia article on Lewis describes what she got busted for: basically, faking some letters of support to try to get sympathy during an ethics investigation for some self-serving use of staffers' labor. Sleazy, but petty, affecting only her own reputation.
It's worth mentioning that it's *not* the same charges Peters was convicted on - just one of the charges matched, conveniently the vaguest and least maicious-sounding one. Polis knows that of course; his phrasing is very dishonest.
I really can't imagine a worse patient to have. He's probably not competent to make decisions, but nobody's allowed to say so; he's vindictive & will try to cause you trouble if you piss him off; and any care you're trying to provide, officials will lie and say it's nothing & that he's a superman.
You just said "impeachment for lying under oath" immediately after saying there was no point in having them testify at all because they lie. You've answered your own question. Getting the lies on the record matters.
Of course there are some conditions that could make that unfeasible. But it would also be 100% in character for Trump to just be like "nah I don't want anything that stays in, it doesn't matter, I'm not really that sick."
If you had a regular peripheral IV in your arm, then yes they would draw blood from your other arm or hand, but I'm talking about a central line which can be used for both infusions and blood draws without any additional punctures.
By 2024 the Covid spike was over, with crime rates lower than they were before Covid... with the sole exception of car theft. Unless you're saying that the specific stats in the linked article are wrong.
...so I can easily imagine him refusing a central line because 1. it'd be like admitting he has a serious ongoing health issue and 2. he thinks it looks weird & gross.
As a former oncology nurse, when I see the "he must be getting IVs/blood draws in his hands all the time" posts, my first thought is "huh? if someone is going to need that many ongoing infusions or blood draws, you would just put in a central line." But then I remember that Trump is insane...
But in any case, the post that you feel was misleading was posted by... The Atlantic. So Kalman-Lamb is correct to say that "they think we are the dumbest people who ever lived." He didn't say Rosenberg was necessarily the one who thought so.
He also pretends that the anonymous Obama staffer calling BN "chickenshit" in 2014 meant that the Obama admin thought BN *should* declare war on Iran but that he was too "timid". No one honestly thinks that is what they meant.
The headline is accurate in that Rosenberg does claim Netanyahu's history was of "conflict avoidance". Rosenberg just pretends that the criterion for that is only "did he actually initiate a war with Iran before."
I'm not a lawyer but I would be amazed if "a mistrial based on misspellings" is a thing. The law is not a robot - a motion for a mistrial has to present an argument for why the errors mattered.
Being an American who grew up in the 80s & 90s, I've seen my country threatening to go to war with Iran for pretty much my whole life, and up till today I took some comfort in that being one of the disastrous things we had managed not to do. I'm sorry my country is so sick and dangerous.
I feel very lucky to be near a big park in SF whenever I see critters. Lots of coyotes, some cool owls, and occasionally hilarious clusters of raccoons.
And sorry for the wordiness - editing is hard for me, but also, this stuff is inherently confusing
I did think there was a chance I had misread your very first comment, where the phrasing was a little more ambiguous, but then you followed up with "without Section 230 social media sites will be *quicker to ban people* so they (the social media site) does not get dragged into the lolsuit"
Which is untrue in *any* legal analysis of 230 that I've seen. If it's not what you meant to say, and you know all this, great - I'm not out to give you shit. But I did want to push back on that because it's a thing lots of people are already confused about.
Anyway, you told me to reread your comments, which I did (& I had already reread earlier, since they seemed so off that I wanted to make sure I wasn't jumping to a wrong conclusion) and you clearly did say that platforms had an incentive to ban more before 230, and to ban less after 230.
...that I think make a strong case that nothing remotely resembling what we think of as user-generated web content would've managed to grow without 230 - that it was impossible as long as there was any legal chance for an online forum to be considered a "publisher" of user content for any reason.
I should say I'm in no way a legal expert. It's certainly possible that I've got things wrong, and I know you can find plenty of explanations out there that sum it up differently. But I have also seen plenty of arguments based on both legal analysis and the history of what led up to the law...
But practically speaking, "don't block anything at all and you're fine" was not really an option that companies could feel safe with. Other federal legislation specifically required them to block some content, and nothing prevented states from also doing so. 230(c)(2) was written with that in mind.
To some extent it's an unanswerable question in hindsight, because the whole field was so new. The arguments leading up to the passing of the bill were all hypothetical - some thought we'd have no comments without it, others thought we'd have too many.
"No moderation meant no liability" is not really true in any reliable way - it was a thing people had argued, and one lawsuit was won on that basis, but it was far from being a settled precedent. If that were the case then *only* section (c)(2) would've been needed and not the rest of it.
The situation *without 230 at all* is that there is simply no protection for the platform no matter what. The situation *with 230, but if it didn't include (c)(2)*, is that they would only feel safe if they didn't ever use moderation powers.
Truth Social is free to ban any criticism of Trump. Bluesky is free to ban hate speech. I can run a platform where you have to like cilantro. That does not make any of us liable the way a publisher is, because of 230.
