ricecake

joined 2 years ago
[–] ricecake 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I feel like if we get to that point, we've given up on the constitution. "He can't run for president because he's term limited, but he's still eligible to be president, therefore we can make him vice president so the president can resign and he can be president" is such an abuse of the term "eligible" where you turn "cannot be elected but otherwise good to go" into "eligible to be in the highest elected office in a Democratic government".

If the way it's written isn't clear cut enough then the court would find a way to say anything wasn't clear cut.

[–] ricecake 8 points 1 month ago

Yup. Disliking the guy is no reason for academic dishonesty though. He gave 70/30 odds. The key part about odds though is that they're basically confidence ratings.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/

He was wrong and surprised, along with basically everyone else.

Guy came up with the method basically everyone uses to combine and aggregate polling data now, which is far more accurate than previous methods. It's weird to say he's an idiot.

[–] ricecake 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

D'oh. I only thought the rest of the comment and then submitted as it was because I needed to go find the text to copy.

And from the 12th amendment:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

You can only be elected president twice. If you serve more than two years of someone else's term you can only be elected once. If you can't be president you can't be vice president.

So if you're elected once, then serve as VP and the president goes away and you serve as president for 2 years and a day, you've already been elected once so you can't run again, and you can't be VP because you can't be the president.
If you've been elected twice you can't be VP, so you can't get any extra time that way.

[–] ricecake 2 points 1 month ago

His argument has legal inconsistencies. It's been soundly rejected by every authority with any say in the matter, so ... You're entirely correct. If his argument were to be accepted, then he couldn't be president.

A legal argument being rejected also rejects the parts that would harm the person making it, as well as the parts that would help them.

It's like a person in prison yelling that they're innocent. You can say what you want, but the decision has already been made.

[–] ricecake 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

It actually does.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

(Edited to add) And from the 12th amendment:

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

You can be elected twice and you can serve for no more than 10 years total.

[–] ricecake 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's like people forget why the NLRB exists: the government being present to meditate and force management to the table keeps them from having to bring in the military when the police can't suppress the workers.

We've been there before. The sliver of union protection is what's been keeping the old ways of negotiating from coming back.

[–] ricecake 4 points 1 month ago

Paranoia in the sense of being concerned with the ill intent of others, not the sense of an irrational worry about about persecution. Much like how the intelligence community itself is said to have institutional paranoia.

[–] ricecake 115 points 1 month ago (9 children)

While they created a set of patches that would implement the security features that selinux provides, what was actually merged was the result of several years of open collaboration and development towards implementing those features.

There's general agreement that the idea that the NSA proposed is good and an improvement, but there was, and still is, disagreement about the specific implementation approaches.
To avoid issues, an approach was taken to create a more generic system that selinux would then take advantage of. That's why selinux, app armor and others can live side by without it being a constant maintenance and security nightmare. Each one lives in their little self contained auditable boxes, and the kernel just makes the "check authorization" function call and it flows into the right module by configuration.

The Linux community was pretty paranoid about the NSA in 2000, so the code definitely got a lot more scrutiny than the typical proposal.

A much easier way to introduce a backdoor would be to start a tiny company that produces some arbitrary piece of hardware which you then add kernel support for.

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/drivers/input/keyboard - that's just the keyboard drivers.

Now you're adding code to the kernel and with the right driver and development ability you can plausibly make changes that have non-obvious impacts, and as a bonus if someone notices, you can just say "oops!" And not be "the god-damned NSA" who everyone expects to be up to something, and instead be 4 humble keyboard enthusiasts with an esoteric set of lighting and input opinions like are a dime a dozen on Kickstarter.

[–] ricecake 32 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You wouldn't phrase it like that. Android is based on Linux, and selinux is part of the Linux security subsystem. Android makes use of selinux features, among others, for security sandboxing.

[–] ricecake 12 points 1 month ago

Crawling doesn't imply not being able to walk. Like, I'm fully an adult and if I'm on the floor I'll scoot to something rather than standing if it's not too far.

[–] ricecake 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think part of it's that not all propaganda is bad.

There's probably a term for it, but I'd draw a distinction between "opinion" propaganda and "aspirational" propaganda.

One tries to change your opinion of something, like "cops are good noble and always do the right thing".
The other encourages the viewer to live up to some ideal. It's entirely possible for that ideal to also not be great, but even then "I should be" is better than "they are".

A lot of PSAs and things from the ad council fall in the later category. Like the billboards that basically say "real men are present and emotionally available fathers to their children" or "good parents teach their kids healthy diet and exercise by example”.
They're openly cases of the government trying to change public opinions or attitudes (which arguably makes them better examples of propaganda than a lot of commercial television), but they don't feel as objectionable.

"This honest and kind man who always tries to do good and help those around him to the point that it overshadows him being a physically perfect human is the embodiment of the emblematic American man" is more in that aspirational category.

[–] ricecake 48 points 1 month ago

What soap do you use to wash your chicken?

Washing the chicken doesn't fix the problem you're concerned with though. If it did you could wash the chicken and then just eat it raw.

The bacteria is inside the chicken, potentially, where you can't possibly remove it by washing. That's why you have to cook it.

Cooking kills the bacteria, and if you have to cook it then the only thing washing will do is spread any surface bacteria around to other surfaces and gives you wet chicken.

view more: ‹ prev next ›