UwU

UwU 4hr ago

Wait there's a 'new comments' tab? How do I enable this view?

Context

UwU 4hr ago

The order needed to be clarified with respect to the "effectuate" part, but it seems they upheld the "facilitate" part. The administration had the same interpretation. At 11 seconds, the WH press secretary said:

The Supreme Court made their ruling last night very clear um that it's the administration's responsibility to facilitate the return not to effectuate the return

If you don't agree with this interpretation, that's fine, but it's disingenuous to frame it as the district court rebelling against SCOTUS when it is using the same interpretation as the White House.

Context

UwU 19hr ago

Here's what the SCOTUS opinion said, emphasis mine:

The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.

Kind of vague, right? Maybe the SCOTUS meant the Government should only facilitate the release of Abrego Garcia, not to facilitate his return.

However, this was the wording of the original district court order that the SCOTUS deemed to be proper in the "facilitate" sense:

Defendants are hereby ORDERED to facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armanda Abrego Garcia to the United States [...]

It seems like the SCOTUS decision basically said the order to "facilitate" was proper, but the "effectuate" part needs to be clarified.

Now, the new order from the district court no longer talks about effectuate, but instead focuses solely on the facilitate part, namely:

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that beginning April 12, 2025, and continuing each day thereafter until further order of the Court, Defendants shall file daily, on or before 5:00 PM ET, a declaration made by an individual with personal knowledge as to any information regarding: (1) the current physical location and custodial status of Abrego Garcia; (2) what steps, if any, Defendants have taken to facilitate his immediate return to the United States; (3) what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return.

Granted, the SCOTUS ruling was vague, probably intentionally so for political reasons and to get all 9 justices onboard, but the district court did not pull this interpretation out of its ass, and it's not directly opposing the SCOTUS.

Context

UwU 1d ago

Does that even matter? The executive branch can make the determination that he's ineligible for asylum no matter the actual legitimacy.

Context

UwU 1d ago

What I don't understand is why Trump doesn't just do the malicious compliance thing of bringing him back, let his AG vacate the deportation withholding order, and then immediately send him back after he gets his day in court. Presumably Trump is planning to send additional deportation flights to El Salvador, so him hitching a ride shouldn't require additional resources. It also assuages the fear of US citizens since the Trump administration can't unilaterally strip anyone of citizenship, and it takes the wind out of the sails of his enemies.

Win-win-win for Trump. But I guess it makes him look weak in the short term, or however long the courts drag it out. On the other hand, the facts are fairly clear cut and dry if he loses the deportation protection, so I can't imagine it would drag for too long. On the mutant third hand, maybe the length of a court case is something I shouldn't ever underestimate.

Context

UwU 3d ago

Ah damn, I did not expect that. I stand corrected.

Context

UwU 3d ago

Are the people who called Trump supporters "a bunch of deep-throating cock-slobberes" in the motte with us right now?

Context

UwU 6d ago

I see. Thank you for the context. It's certainly more palatable to me that he was considered inadmissible at the port of entry rather than hunted down by ICE. For the reasons I outlined in my previous post, I still think it's not a good thing in this specific case to keep him out, but the policy seems reasonable on its face. I'm not informed enough to know whether his scenario is the 5% case or the 50% case, so I'll refrain from passing judgement on the policy itself. Though even if his case is the 5% case, I would wish the bureaucracy to be flexible enough in corner cases such as these to admit those with minor crimes long in the past and have since been reintegrated with their community.

But this highlights an additional problem in the original post. The one example for deporting illegal immigrants depicted neither an illegal immigrant nor deportation in its typical sense.

Context

UwU 6d ago

I do not find this convincing. As mentioned below, Alfredo Orellana isn't an illegal immigrant; he's a permanent resident, and it seems like you already knew this. While permanent residents can be deported under certain circumstances, they possess a legal status that illegal immigrants do not. Conflating these two categories is muddying the waters when discussing immigration policies and deportation, to say the least.

I also don't find it to be good and necessary to deport him in this case. For Orellana, the offense cited is attempting to scam a store out of $200 eight years ago. This was a relatively minor crime, as it was not violent and I don't think it rose to the level of felony (but I could be wrong, not a lawyer). Also, if the only crime the government cited is from 8 years ago, then I think it's very likely that there are no serious more-recent crimes to levy on him, and, given his employment and (claimed) benefit to the community, he's probably rehabilitated. So, should an 8 year-old, minor, non-violent offense be sufficient grounds to deport a legal resident who has since rehabilitated and established a stable life? I say no.

Of course this is all just based on NYT's reporting, and I'm not able to find any other source of information to corroborate it. If it is discovered later that Orellana is actually a drug dealer with a very long wrap sheet, I'll change my mind.

Context

UwU 8d ago

Ah okay, thanks for the links. It seems like the stuff surrounding AI safety/censorship policies, which was indeed bad. I just saw it framed differently when it happened, where OAI and Anthropic were the proponents/beneficiaries instead of Microsoft and Google.

Context

UwU 8d ago

"We are giving Microsoft and Google an AI monopoly, and we are going to regulate the rest of you out of business. Plan accordingly."

When did this happen? I don't doubt it could be something Biden has done but I've been following AI quite closely and I've not heard this.

Context

UwU 11d ago

The reason it's not relatively simple is because states, and more importantly corporations, don't use TOTAL_TARIFFS_PAID / TOTAL_VALUE_OF_GOODS as the basis of evaluating tariffs.

Yeah, but I don't think the details add much in the context of this conversation.

We're not talking about a specific corporation deciding whether to ship one more container load based on marginal costs hitting a quota step. We're talking about the justification for blanket "reciprocal" tariffs, i.e. zeke's point about hypocrisy "fuck you for doing the very thing we do." It seems to me that the overall effective tariff burden is the relevant stat when discussing whether the existing tariffs justified the kind of blanket tariffs currently being enacted, simply because the burden of the new blanket tariffs will approximate how that stat is calculated. If that stat is actually about 1% then that's a defense against the hypocrisy claim.

Context

UwU 11d ago

Trump's tariffs would be a story anyway even if the left somehow did it. The order of magnitude is simply not comparable.

Context

UwU 12d ago

It seems to me that is the secondary effect and prices rising is the primary effect.

Context

UwU 12d ago · Edited 11d ago

And Yunseo Chung, who was on a student visa and accused of an actual crime though at this point it is not clear if this is a pretext or not.

As far as I can tell, Yunseo Chung held a green card and has been in the country since she was 7. This is reported by many news sources and I've yet to find one that disputes this. She was arrested for a misdemeanor "obstructing governmental administration" as part of a protest.

This is what I have a problem with. For illegals, we can make the argument that they were breaking and entering, they were squatters, they broke the social contract so we can deport them with minimal due process. Fine. For immigrants on visitor visas like students or tourists, we can make the argument that they are guests, and it's fine to deport them with minimal due process because they have lives back home. Fine. I'm not okay with this being applied to permanent residents. For Yunseo, she's been living here since she was 7, it's literally uprooting her from the life she's ever known to a foreign country she may not have a connection with. And for what? A misdemeanor arrest? If she was illegal, it's an easier pill to swallow, but she followed the rules, and she's authorized to be a permanent resident here in the US. I understand the law is set up so Sec State can deport anyone he wishes, but I believe it is unjust to do it on such flimsy rationale in this case.

Further, I don't believe this will be ultimately beneficial for red-tribe, but this is just my theory. From a cursory search, there are about 13 million green card holders in the United States. Some of them lean blue and some of them lean red. Before this administration, there was an understanding that permanent residency status was "generally safe" and there were very limited circumstances where you could be deported. Thus the practical difference between green card holders and citizens were small, and the ones going for citizenships were motivated by their love for America (among other things), which made that set of people lean red. But now there's a new motivation. If green card holders who lean blue believe they are more likely to face arbitrary or pretextual deportation, this provides a strong motivation of self-preservation for them to seek citizenship. Gaining citizenship as a green card holder is almost trivial compared to an illegal or a visitor gaining citizenship, so we can expect to see an increase in blue-leaning eligible voters in the future.

Context

UwU 14d ago

I don't think the incidental discovery thing is quite as important as a court specifically prohibited the action to be taken. If a court ordered a kidnap victim to not be separated with her kidnapper, then my first inclination is that this is fake news and to dig into the court documents to see what really happened. Similarly in the hypothetical that a court is prohibiting the government from stopping a massive terrorist attack for whatever reason.

Context

UwU 15d ago

I actually think if there's a court order preventing the government from taking the black guy's phone, and the government knowingly grabbed it anyway, then the government should return it back to him. Yes, even if it seems counter-intuitive.

It's similar to the fruit from the poisonous tree doctrine; yes, the evidence is true and overwhelming that the criminal did it, but we let them go anyway because the government obtained the evidence illegally. Also very counter-intuitive. We KNOW the fucker did it, it's bad that the government illegally obtained the evidence but that's in the past, and we have the evidence now, why can't we use it to lock them up? I assert it's the same reason as in this case. It incentivizes the government to take the expedient "the-ends-justifies-the-means" approach which negatively impacts innocent people.

Context

UwU 15d ago

I can agree with most of this and I believe you are internally consistent. My worry is that there's a negative incentive here. There's nothing to disincentivize the government to do the wrong thing in your framework. I believe the US government should be compelled to reverse its actions if it accidentally removes someone who has the authorization to be in the country and ships them off to a foreign prison (regardless of whether the government can be compelled to do so in the current legal framework). Otherwise, the government is not disincentivized to commit more "oopsies" in the future, and it becomes much more likely to incorrectly ship people to foreign prisons, causing tremendous individual harm to people who may not deserve it.

Context

UwU 15d ago

I actually agree that these measures are pretty draconian, but its hard to feel like "due process" is a major concern.

It'd be MUCH, MUCH easier to get Due Process if these folks, you know, followed the process and entered the country via the channels established to keep track of them and grant them status to be here.

"I intentionally skipped the procedural steps that would have established my right to stay in the country, but don't you DARE skip the procedural steps that would delay my inevitable removal from the country" is not a winning argument, I daresay.

There's a lot of people in between US Citizen and illegal immigrants, like green card holders, legal immigrants and temporary (legal) visitors. Tens of millions, in fact. Where do they stand on the "Due Process" scale? Because even if you are right and US Citizens do have legal recourse, the non-Citizens legal immigrants sure don't.

Context

UwU 21d ago

I haven't tried Claude 3.7 for creative writing but it's definitely better than the existing DeepSeek-V3 from my limited experience with it, so feel free to test it out. It's a lot less repetitive at longer context lengths which actually makes it usable for creative exercises. The original DeepSeek-V3 was likely more optimized for multi-shot prompting for factual queries, which made it strictly follow the reasoning, tone and structure of earlier examples. Good for factual determinations but not so good for being creative and non-repetitive.

Context

UwU 21d ago

"Another day, another LLM" is definitely correct. Deep Seek also released their newest variant DeepSeek-V3-0324 yesterday. DeepSeek-V3-0324 is a significant improvement over DeepSeek-V3 and even beats Claude 3.7 Sonnet in many benchmarks, and not to mention, it's open weight! I guess it's less sexy since it's a text-only model and we already have highly capable ones that are generally interchangeable for most purposes, but I'm excited to see the future DeepSeek-R2 that'll be based on this improvement.

Context

UwU 21d ago

Some unordered reasons:

They call themselves OpenAI and yet nothing is open. They don’t publish research or release open source or open weight models.
They positioned themselves as a non-profit to get clout and talent and later reneges.
They charge an insane amount compared to other companies to price anchor because they want the SOTA models to only be accessible by elites.
They hide the thinking traces from their thinking models and ban people who try to figure out their methods with prompt engineering.

And then tack on “they hold back revolutionary features until their competitor releases their own”

Context

UwU 21d ago

Damn, if it’s better than Gemini then it looks like you were right and they were sitting on that capability. It reaffirms my opinion that OpenAI is the most insidious AI company out there.

Context