arsv
5d ago
Hence, all persons means all persons. The jurisdiction clause was only put in because the government had already recognized certain exemptions prior to the amendment's passing:
Also literally everyone outside of the United States, obviously those were not US citizens. "All persons under US jurisdiction" was a neat way of describing both the citizens-prior-to-the-amendment and the ex-slaves, with a single phrase, as one group.
Irrelevant for the birth-right citizenship debate, I should have clarified that.
It is meaningful, but it's there to address a completely different issue. The debate is about whether the US has anything to do with the babies born on the US soil, but the amendment is about people for whom it's already been decided. It's downstream from the decision.
It does imply that it is possible to get US citizenship by being born in the US (as opposed to going through naturalization process), but not that being born is the only requirement. And that's what the whole debate is about.
arsv
6d ago
The question, now, is who is subject to jurisdiction.
I would read the whole sentence like this: all persons who are born or naturalized in the United States, and as such subject to the US jurisdiction, are citizens both of the US and a certain state within the US. Or put another way, all people subject to the US jurisdiction are citizens both of the US and of a certain state within the US, regardless of how they became subjects to said jurisdiction (through naturalization or by birth right).
Something else has to decide who are subject to jurisdiction, it's a precondition. Both for naturalization and for birth right pathways. Then, for those who did pass the subject-ness test, this statement claims that they are also considered to be "citizens" of two distinct entities.
So my take would be that the answer to this question is in a different place altogether. This passage is just irrelevant. But I'm not a judge or a layer, and it's the US law, so yeah.
arsv
10d ago
the best selling movie you’ve never heard of
At least some people here clearly have.
https://www.themotte.org/post/1689/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/299405
On the action side, it's also a lot more extreme than what you'd expect in a typical American Kid's movie. The movie does not shy away from some of the effects of the action that's shown.
I'd say it's a very American thing, and to a certain extent somewhat recent. While Disney has been known to sugar-coat and soft-pad stories for decades, even in the US more serious takes were not exactly out of question up to the edge of 00s probably. Which was accidentally (or not) about the time anime started taking off in the west.
Superb review by the way.
Death is also not shied away from. Outright death is not shown on screen, but there are definitely sanitized and implied scenes of death.
Don Bluth has entered the chat lol.
arsv
14d ago
Lemurs come from a sister family to the group that includes humans. Which is to say, we not that closely related, about as close as cats are to dogs if I'm looking at the right numbers. It doesn't kill the argument, there are snouted primates and tree-jumping primates which are much closer to humans, but it does make lemurs specifically a poor supporting example for the argument.
Our closest common ancestors did look vaguely lemur-like apparently, but it also was quite a long time ago.
arsv
15d ago
G. Friedman, The Next 100 Years (for no particular reason other than I just finished it)
...puts it more like natural enemies, for about as long as he thinks Russia will be a major factor in international politics. Which won't be very long in his opinion. From that point on, it just won't matter much for the US. At no point in the next century does he predict Russia being particularly friendly with the US, not even as an ally against a common enemy.
arsv
16d ago
Wikipedia has a whole page on the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_Queen_Victoria
De novo mutations do happen. Your idea would require her mother (who was in her early 30s at the time) to cheat with a hemophiliac man for whatever reason, but life expectancy for hemophiliac men in the early XIX century was abysmal, and guy she was rumored to have an affair with was quite healthy. If anything, her cheating with a younger guy would actually lower the chances.
arsv
17d ago
Timing, mostly. There was presumably a window when the administration could have done something to mitigate the spread of a new disease but didn't (see the original question). Within that window, it was already too late to do anything realistic about the gays. Ten years prior, before anyone in the US knew anything about HIV or AIDS, yeah maybe. By the time the healthcare system started noticing the first wave (mostly gays coming down with late stage disease) the infection was already spreading beyond that particular group.
Reminder that HIV infection has a latent phase measured in years.
arsv
18d ago
to publicly call upon homosexual men to refrain from (...) b) donating blood?
This is backwards I believe. The problem was not with homosexuals donating blood. The initial association with homosexuals delayed the realization that the disease is in fact not specific to homosexuals and should be expected to pop up among the general public. The vast majority of blood donors are not homosexual, but it took too much time to realize that all of them are potential vectors and should be treated as such.
a) having unprotected sex with strangers altogether
Nil; also, mostly irrelevant. Here again, it's not the gays as such. It's the failure to admit that the disease is not limited to them. Which is turn would require talking openly about their lifestyle making them a perfect breeding ground for a new STD and consequently a public health hazard, very much a CW topic at the time.
arsv
23d ago
Taking "qualified" literally: proven ability (experience) to function as a HQ officer, at the very least.
In civilian terms, he's a foreman turned TV host who's been appointed to be a CEO of a multinational corp.
arsv
24d ago
Nothing says his behavior was unprofessional. He just said things which are "inappropriate" as described by who knows whom based on whatever definition of what's appropriate. Most likely not even in a professional setting, if I'm getting the "deleted pseudonym" part right.
arsv
26d ago
conferred with all of the intel of the American Empire
You mean he asked the guys who are about to get Tulsi Gabbard for a boss after putting her on shitlist? And whom Trump generally disrespects? I can only imagine how eager they are to work full throttle for the occasion.
If I were Trump, I would be asking people from my shadow cabinet, or whatever passes for one. But those people do not wield the full intel power of the US right now, and haven't for at least four years.
the population isn’t exactly in hiding
In an active warzone? With your upper estimate of roughly 1-in-5 dead?! Yes the civilians wll be hiding.
It’s the Lancet...
Lancet means civilian medics, which in Gaza means palestinian authorities, directly or indirectly. See recent discussion about UNRWA. Trump's data, wherever it came from, it's not from the palestinians almost for sure. You risk getting large error, possibly large than the effect you'll looking from, just because it's not the same source. Palestinians, I would guess, have incentives to over-count. External observation, which you assume Trump relies on, will likely undercount.
arsv
27d ago
Bold move to assume all unaccounted for are dead. There's "known to have left" (100k), there's "known to have died" (around 50k in this case apparently), and the rest are "fate unknown" who can be in either group. And that's assuming the initial numbers (2.3M and 1.7M) are correct and comparable in the first place.
arsv
1mo ago
The only other option is having said helicopters fly over all the residential and administrative stuff in the area. "Along the river and under the planes" is likely the least-bad choice, not because it's good but because the other options are worse.
The real question is why there's a military helicopter base in Washington DC, but there's probably a reason for that as well.
arsv
1mo ago
The plane is not at fault most likely, it had the "right of way" and wasn't really supposed to be looking for stray helicopters coming in from weird angles in what is supposed to be a controlled airspace.
It's the helicopter that ended up where it shouldn't be, due to the crew failing to see the airplane, miscommunication between the helicopter and the ATC, or the ATC screwing up badly. The preliminary independent analysis (aka internet talk) seems to hint that among other things, the ATC did most likely screw up.
arsv
1mo ago
What CDU did is pretty much the only sensible answer to the rise of AfD. Parties like AfD only get votes because there's an issue or issues that the established parties stubbornly refuse to tackle. A major party agreeing to take on the issue kills the reason to vote AfD. Conversely, taking a CW stance on the issue like the left side typically does means keeping AfD high in the polls.
Not sure if it will affect the upcoming elections much, too late and too sharp of a turn, but in the longer run, if the stance is not reversed, AfD will likely fade away. Unless it will manage to pick up another issue to replace immigration.
The interesting question is the long run, beyond a few years. There's a reason why Germany needs immigrant workforce.
arsv
2mo ago
Is there proof that Georgescu knew ...
If I'm reading it right, it doesn't matter if he knew or not. The law in question seems to be https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/73672, in particular Chapter IV (Capitolul IV).
Do campaign finance statutes include provisions for cancelling elections if money is underreported?
The brief statement mentioned an article from the constitution which says basically "the elections must be held according to the law" and the law (above) says "blah blah blah prohibited". Looks like there are no specific provisions for this particular case, and it's up to the court to figure out what to do now.
My understanding is that the court decided that the election was not held according to the law, and therefore doesn't count as a valid election, and the country needs a valid election to elect a president. With no explicit shortcuts, the country now has to go through the full election procedure. Again, that's just my reading of the situation so far. The full statement from the court should, I guess, state the logic of the decision, maybe. Shrug emote.
Because tbh it just kind of seems like he didn't think he was gonna win, either.
Seems to be so, yeah.
arsv
2mo ago
only that Georgescu's campaign recieved improper (illegal?) assistance from Russian media operations.
The legal cause for the cancellation seems to be undeclared campaign funding.
At least that's what I'm getting at this point.
arsv
3mo ago
Think again, motherfucker! For, immediately, on the front page (no account)
How does that actually compare to Twitter at this point in time? There's no "front page (no account)" on Twitter anymore, you have to log in to do just about anything and once you're logged in, it's your personalized feed.
And I think this question goes a bit deeper than it might look. Bluesky does try to show you a representative slice of the overall community there. Sure it's probably tuned or curated or whatever, but it's clearly designed to look like it's representative. Twitter, on the other hand, takes effort to not let you know what the userbase in general is like. And it was one of the first things implemented after Elon took over.
and wondering if perhaps Bluesky would be better?
It sure can be different. My feed is something like 90% German right now /s
arsv
3mo ago
Getting into doomer territory, ... They (the car makers) might also get public transit banned
Not sure why he's making a distinction between self-driving cars and public transit. Self-driving cars are a form of public transit. They are not private vehicles, they owned and operated in a way that's quite similar to busses. In a way, a self-driving car is just a better bus.
There are issues that are specific to self-driving cars due to their personal nature compared to conventional mass transit, which are mostly related to privacy. It's much easier to track you in your "personal bus" than it is in a bus with 20+ other people. But he barely touches on it, and also, conventional mass transit would be quickly losing much of the advantage in that respect anyway due to technological progress in surveillance technology.
The US? Probably not, the US has been quietly maintaining status quo amid open discussion of very much not peaceful actions in case China would actually attempt to enforce the sole legal government part.
arsv
3mo ago
Putin ready to end Ukraine war
Putin has been ready to end the war since day 1 of the war, and likely before day 1 as well.
Having one side surrender is a definite way to end a war.
Hamas calls for end to war
Hamas would be happy to end the war any day since about October 8, 2023.
It's very nice when you do what Hamas did on Oct 7, get a slap on the wrist and just walk away.
China wants to work peacefully with us
China would certainly want to stay at peace with the US while, for instance, invading Taiwan.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to not be on the receiving end of a trade war, tariffs or sanctions.
Especially when you are doing something that should get you sanctioned.
The part missing in all of these is some kind of a trade in return, for instance China dropping all claims on Taiwan.
Trump's actions ensure "the war" will keep on going, in one form or another. Russian expansionism is not going anywhere any time soon, and Trump just gave it a boost.
Leaving aside less charitable explanations, Trump is more likely trying to put pressure on the EU, using Russia as a lever. His opinions on the EU are well known, and the challenge from the Russian side will likely be serious enough to lead to major shifts within the EU, potentially in a way that's appealing to Trump or Trump's circle.
More options
Context Copy link