HN user
thecoelacanth@gmail.com
It is insane that the people responsible for policing drugs get to decide what drugs are illegal. That's like letting the police decide if something is a crime or not. It's completely antithetical to democracy and the rule-of-law.
People who are empowered to enact violence on behalf of the state must be held to a higher standard than random citizens.
Anything other than absolute adherence to the letter of the law is completely unacceptable from any part of the government.
That's more like having jurisdiction over the diplomat's property in the country than having jurisdiction over the diplomat themselves.
By the time violins existed, then you are already 100+ years into the modern era and much of this article no longer applies.
Centralized states were becoming much more common and developing much more administrative capacity. Literate bureaucrats were much more easily available. Economic surpluses were much larger. Directly recruiting, equipping and paying an army became much more practical than it previously was and the other methods described here were no longer as necessary as they previously were.
These Calvinball judges would never let logic or consistency control their decisions to that extent.
Still "subject to the jurisdiction of". US law doesn't currently have a law allowing them to be conscripted, and it would be very ill-advised to do so and it would cause a lot of diplomatic backlash, but it certainly could pass such a law if it chose to.
Sparta is quite possibly the pinnacle of horribleness for civilization, which is why I think they emphasized that it particularly was a slave society (80%+ slaves and a majority of the remainder were non-citizens).
It's a fool's errand to try to prevent criticism to that extent. It's mostly harmless and functions as a release valve for people's frustrations and helps to stop them from doing something more extreme than just complaining.
It's also possibly illegal to stop them. Employees in the US have a legal right to talk to each other about their working conditions and employers are not allowed to stop them. Most companies aren't above violating that law, but they want to save that for actual union-busting, not to stop people from sharing memes.
It's pretty obvious that they are referring to a specific person and which specific person they are referring to.
I'm aware but I don't see how that changes those devices being the most open 3D printers.
As always, the real money in a gold rush goes to the people selling shovels.
Isn't Voron/Soval more open?
Fortunately insolvency in this scenario mean that they will only be able to afford to pay around 3/4 of promised benefits.
Closing that budget gap is a problem that will need to be dealt with, but it's not impossible to fix and it's a fairly long way away. There are a lot of proposals going around for how to fix it and those will become more politically palatable as it gets closer.
That might have as much to do with their insane system for choosing a Doge, which many historians think did a lot to force compromise and reduce corruption.
They took the full council, selected a random subset, had that group choose another group from the full council by voting, then repeat that random selection followed by voting another few times ending with a final group who voted to select a Doge.
This appears to be using "government" in American English sense, where "government" refers to anyone who works for the state in any capacity, including courts, not just the executive.
That depends how you define "densely populated", but certainly most car trips are near where people live and work, not in wilderness camping areas you are describing.
The ratio itself is less worrying than how fast the ratio is increasing. It was under 80% in 2019 and under 40% in 2009[1]. (This is excluding debt the government owes itself, which I believe WSJ is also doing).
[1] https://www.pgpf.org/article/how-much-is-the-national-debt-w...
Obama also cut the deficit by more than half. It didn't get all the way to a balanced budget because of how bad of a mess Bush left to clean up, but it was moving in the right direction.
You're describing places that have few people and hence few car trips. Most car trips, even in the US, take place in densely populated areas.
The point of public transit isn't to handle 100% of all trips. It's to handle the most common trips in a more efficient and scalable way.
They literally did pass a law outlawing it in 2012. Enforcement has been very poor, though.
This is a problem that has always existed in presidential systems. The US is extremely unusual in having made it work for this long.
If anything it's the opposite. Extremely low interest rates drove housing prices higher by making it easier to afford a higher price.
That's obviously not true. Camera evidence is used as evidence of crimes all the time. Security cameras would be utterly worthless if they couldn't.
Right to face your accuser in that context means that you have the right to cross-examine relevant witnesses about how that camera evidence was collected and applied.
Regardless of what the Trump administration will tell you, that's not it's name. The executive branch is not empowered to unilaterally change the name of a department.
Marijuana is one of the most effective things we have for some types of chronic pain and nausea.
That's nonsense. DC has gone from 297k housing units in 2010 to 369k housing units in 2024[1][2].
Developments generally involve more units than what they are replacing.
[1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/i...
[2] https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest...
ALA defines a “ban” as the removal of materials from a library based on the objections of a person or group. A “challenge” is an attempt to have a library resource removed, or access to it restricted, based on the objections of a person or group.
Under that definition, it doesn't seem to me like it would be possible for a "ban" to happen without also being a "challenge".
Using the cost to print instead of the full cost of production is very misleading. Someone needs to write, edit, typeset, market, etc. the books.
Most books don't sell a ton of copies, so there usually isn't a lot of profit left over after those costs.
That's not really the reason. Even in a civil case, the first amendment certainly would apply to whatever laws allow the civil case to happen.
However, the first amendment is not absolute. Defamation is still a thing in the US. The first amendment creates a higher bar than many other countries (especially for public figures, but the victims in this case aren't public figures), but it is still possible.
It is. It's incredibly obvious that building more housing increases the amount of housing available.