ritswd

Same.

Oh my, fine, have my upvote!

100% agreed with everything there, except for the last paragraph, because it’s a question I've asked lawyers before (about representing a clearly losing case). What I was told is that a lawyer’s job (unless they’re paid on commission like personal injury lawyers) is not to win the case, but to accurately represent the case so the whole system works as fairly as it can. Basically, it’s to make sure that people don’t get a punishment because “the king decided so” without the actual situation being looked at, as used to be the case. So, when you represent a pure scum bag who clearly eats babies, it’s fine, because when they get locked up, you did your part in making sure they get there because they did what they did and for no other subjective reason.

Obviously “representing accurately and fairly” doesn’t work when Trump intentionally misleads his lawyers and puts them in legal hot water, which is the point you make higher and which I wholly agree with. Why would a lawyer want that kind of risk for themselves?

Hah, yeah, that’s a good point. Right now (at least in Beehaw), it’s “Local” though, which feels like the worst of the three.

It’s going to be a challenge to figure out who gets what half of the burrito.

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that this is not the actual problem that is keeping lawyers away.

Many freelancers are ok to get paid and do their best work for customers who will then destroy that work and shoot themselves in the foot. It’s frustrating, but as long as you get paid, after all it’s the customer’s problem. Lawyers are the same, you can find a number of them who won’t mind.

But here my understanding of what happened was that Trump made his lawyer sign a document where he personally committed to have checked everywhere and there were no documents left, all the while Trump was lying to him and there absolutely were hidden documents. So if that lawyer had kept defending Trump, it could have come across as him being in on the lie to the feds, and being liable to the same crimes.

A lot of lawyers will be glad to take hard-earned money from frustrating clients, but won’t be keen to get themselves in actual legal trouble.

Apparently, here: https://lemmy.world/c/3dprinting

I also struggle to see the issue here. People will subscribe to the various communities across instances, and they’ll quit the ones they don’t like, thereby making the best ones rise to the top, just like it works across subreddits of the same topic.

I guess the concern is discoverability? On mobile web, Beehaw’s homepage show “Local” (not sure if just Beehaw or all instance). It’s true that it’d be good if the default was “All”, so discoverability isn’t fragmented.

I think this is the main thing for me. I’m less shocked by Reddit’s decisions (it does make some sense that they need third-party apps to die, even though they could have done it a bit more sensibly), than by this one guy’s deeply disingenuous handling of it all. I can’t stand dishonest obnoxiousness at that level. I think if they admit wrongdoing and fire the guy, I might go back even if they don’t change their other plans.

Although I’ll be honest, for now I’m in the Lemmy honeymoon period, so right now I wouldn’t, I’m enjoying it too much here (and I don’t have time for 2 of those!). But if the honeymoon wears off and they fire the guy, I might.

Yeah, it’s all a game of chance. My feel is that the combination of legislative risk + risk that those funds would not match at all their plans is low-ish enough, lower than it was or I thought it was a few years ago, that it threw me over the fence now. I was firmly against getting 529s until recently (mostly because of my annoyance with scammy colleges, which is most colleges).

Ultimately I fully agree with everything you said. They will build their own projects and ambitions, and our role as parents is to build around to support those ambitions, whatever they are, that is what makes kids successful. In fact, my sudden interest in the 529 is exactly to that end, to be sure they get opportunity if their ambitions happen to be aligned with what 529s are helpful for, while being sure that it is not too harmful if they’re not aligned.

So what if they’re not aligned and they can’t use those funds in meaningful ways for their goals? Well, right now they can transfer it to a Roth; or transfer it to any family member. Those rules can change, but they’re more likely to be that way a while than they were a couple of years ago when those rules weren’t yet a thing; and even if they do change, I feel it is reasonably to expect that there will be similar-ish ways out, hopefully. Otherwise, they can use some of the funds to buy various roughly educational things, like computers and similar expenses. And otherwise, if it’s really terribly unaligned and the law changed so much that those funds are locked as heck, there’s always the possibility to cut our losses, and take them out paying the 10% penalty; but hopefully that won’t be needed, who knows.

Oh, yeah, I’m glad you’re bringing that up, thanks; my state (Illinois) allows to deduct from state taxes up to $17k per year per account in donations, which ain’t bad, and is in fact more than I’d be willing to put in, I think. Which is useful, because it goes to show that even though I’m confused and feel like I have no idea what a good amount is, I do actually have some idea of an upper bound I probably wouldn’t go over.

Yeah, that is a very good reminder. I’m definitely worried about being dependent on them someday, I really do not want that to happen. Thanks for highlighting how front-and-center that is.