AirBreather

FOSTA-SESTA is at the heart of it, as I understand. I don’t want to elaborate much more because I don’t know nearly enough about the situation, but adding this search term helped make it make a little bit of sense to me.

Edit: not that I’m lumping these different ideas together, but that the prudish folks could theoretically use this legal framework to throw allegations that Visa/MasterCard would rather not have to defend against.

From the article:

Trump’s opposition to DSTs is not new: the Biden administration felt they disproportionately targeted US businesses and threatened 25 percent tariffs if they were not removed.

I’ve bought a few of these before (no affiliation) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CCL7TJ48

Edit: this is a link to 1.5V rechargeable batteries, which I commented before OP’s edit acknowledging them.

Another older blog post saying the same: https://sandimetz.com/blog/2016/1/20/the-wrong-abstraction

deleted by creator

Feels like there ought to be a term… it’s kind of a mix between “vicious circle”, “feedback loop”, and “echo chamber”.

James, while John had had “had”, had had “had had;” “had had” had had a greater effect on the teacher.

deleted by creator

https://xkcd.com/1589

Pretty much just now, they rebranded to Legcord

Anything’s possible, but…

I have a feeling that the people who are just smart and capable enough to pull this off without any prior legal training or experience are also smart and capable enough to realize how incredibly bad an idea it would be to try in the first place.

If you’re going to fight the case on principle, then it is a no-brainer to hire at least some sort of legal representation. In terms of expected value, I imagine that it’s practically buying free money, at least up to a point.

The 8th amendment has a clause that disallows “excessive bail”. In Stack v. Boyle, the Supreme Court found this to mean “that a defendant’s bail cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant’s presence at the trial.” So it follows that IN THEORY, bail is SUPPOSED to be set at an amount that is consistent with the defendant’s financial resources (including, it would also follow, increasing the amount for more wealthy people to ensure that it has the same proportionate effect on the defendant’s decision-making process).

Of course, that rule is just a bunch of meaningless words if nobody enforces it… and guess what, the main way to enforce this is by bringing a suit against the government alleging that they violated the rule. So IN PRACTICE (speculation warning here, I’m just some guy), I would imagine that they just set bail schedules at a level where anyone who can afford to pay won’t be able to win an “excessive bail” lawsuit, and anyone who can’t afford to pay it will also probably not be able to afford the cost of that lawsuit.

And something tells me that we aren’t likely to see a wealthy person suing the government for not setting bail high enough for them.

deleted by creator

How could this happen to me

The term is Heisenbug

I could of course say this as well. It’s clearer with additional punctuation like “I could, of course, […]”, but I don’t think the comma-free version is technically incorrect (anymore, if it ever was).

New Zealand was not Kung Fu fighting

Attempts to prevent this phenomenon involve using what is called the “wait calculation” to predict how long to wait to launch an interstellar journey.

Once the lifetime appointees have been dealt with in whatever way, the Court will have nine members, each appointed one after the other with two years in between, with the next-most-senior member’s term expiring every two years to keep the number stable at nine.

J K and L are shortcuts that work no matter what element within the player that your keyboard focus is on.