2, Mice aren’t humans, and routinely, things that happen in mice do not happen in humans. It is not at all indicative of anything and can really only be used as a hint better than nothing for looking into similar effects in humans.
You don’t need to change your diet, and you certainly don’t need to replace it with sugar.
Eh, IIRC there’s research that if you eat incredible amounts it’ll likely be bad for you. But it’s a lot and the equivalent amount of sugar would be way way worse.
Eh, IIRC there’s research that if you eat incredible amounts it’ll likely be bad for you. But it’s a lot and the equivalent amount of sugar would be way way worse.
The implication here is that aspartame is often used in products that have these sugars present. Chances that aspartame is in a product without sugars is exorbitantly lower.
I want to be super clear if anyone finds this and thinks maybe…
No, there is no evidence of artificial sweeteners causing harm. There is no conspiracy, and after many many studies over decades, nothing has been found. If there had been, then the artificial sweeteners would have been banned like the ones you’ve never heard of because we all banned them for causing problems.
If you drink regular soda today, you should absolutely look at replacing that with a diet varient without sugar. From everything we have learned over decades, it’s absolutely safe.
Seemed fair to me, youre using strong words like “absolutely safe”, even though there are known reactions to various sweeteners and they arent “absolutely” safe, as per the link I cited above.
A few people are replying with links (of various relevance) but you are just saying “no” and claiming you’re being “super clear”. Some of the replies are directly contraindications of the claim:
If you drink regular soda today, you should absolutely look at replacing that with a diet varient without sugar.
Your counterpoint is saying they are “absolutely safe”. I don’t know whether you are right or wrong. It’s not anywhere near my field, but I can say I don’t find your rhetoric convincing.
Edit: I fucked up and pasted the wrong quote. I changed the quote to the one I meant.
You do not need to find my rhetoric “convincing.” One person posted one link, the link was to a meta study that concludes that artificial sweeteners have no evidence that they cause harm.
I am being clear, I am not using confusing language, and I’m stating one thing, over and over. I’m doing this because other people are muddying the water with poor claims, and I do not want anyone reading this thread to come away with the idea that maybe the artificial sweeteners are bad. There is no evidence. Again, I’m being super clear. There is absolutely no evidence, and they are absolutely safe. There is no evidence that suggests they are not absolutely safe.
This place is full of nerds like you and me, and they like to be pandantic. I’m being clear, and using phrases like “absolutely safe” is the correct terminology when we know of no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Again, artificial sweeteners are as far as we know, and we have studied them a lot, absolutely safe and you should consider replacing your sugar intake with them or reducing your sugar intake entirely if you can. Sugar is a large cause of health problems.
My point is that you are just some voice on the internet. When I say I don’t find your rhetoric convincing, I mean that the only evidence you offer is rhetoric. And that is not convincing regardless of how clear you are speaking.
the link was to a meta study that concludes that artificial sweeteners have no evidence that they cause harm.
This is how the meta study concludes:
Results from prospective cohort studies suggest the possibility of long-term harm in the form of increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality. Further research is needed to determine whether the observed associations are genuine or a result of reverse causation and/or residual confounding. Further research is also needed in children and pregnant women, the latter for which prospective cohort studies currently suggest possible unfavourable effects of NSS consumption on birthweight and adiposity in offspring later in life.
The scientists who produced the study seem a lot less convinced than you.
You’re using overly broad language. Multiple family members and myself get brutal headaches from aspartame. While that’s certainly not life threatening damage, it is fair to call that a harmful effect. I am not better off with many products switching to aspartame as a sweetener.
Yes, it is just an anecdote, but it’s enough to show that absolute statements don’t usually hold universally. Please stay open to the possibility of nuance.
I can’t tell what this is supposed to convey. They asked for a study. You give a bare url to an abstract with the quote
there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance, or if they are linked to other long-term health effects at intakes within the ADI.
Are you agreeing with the post you are replying to?
They asked for a study. You give a bare url to an abstract with the quote
Perhaps you could download the entire meta study that is linked next to the abstract and go through it? And why does it matter whether I’m agreeing with the post?
From all the years of reading about artificial sugar studies, it’s clear to me that there could be a risk but it is complex and varies from person to person, I find it misplaced to shout that there is absolutely no risk involved. To quote the study:
Result of this review largely agree with those of other recent systematic reviews, in that replacing sugars with NSS in the short term results in reductions in body weight, with little impact on other cardiometabolic risk factors, but is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality in the longer term.
Perhaps you could download the entire meta study that is linked next to the abstract and go through it?
No, I am not refereeing a paper because some commenter links it in a web forum. Why would you think that’s even close to what anyone should do in this environment?
So let me get this straight, someone asks for a study, I provide the study of studies, which you misjudge originally for being only an abstract, and then when I correct you and tell you it’s a study, suddenly it’s not good enough. What do you actually want?
I want conversation. Bare links are not that. Looking at the link led me to believe you providing evidence for the quack who was professing absolute safety.
Scientifically, I agree with you. I was asking the “absolute safety” commentor to provide context to studies to lead one to that conclusion. I would have been happy to read the same from you.
You have a lot to say for someone who is happy to slap a url down and move along. :)
Probably people who are a bit sketch about the “even natural sugars” bit, since that removes a TON of otherwise healthy food options. Minimize added sugar, sure.
There’s nothing inherently bad about sugar. It’s just energy. If you intake more energy than you burn it’s getting stored for future use (you get fat). The same goes for almost anything “unhealthy”. Manage your energy intake and almost nothing is unhealthy.
You are correct, the caveat “added sugar” or added sweetener in this case is the important bit.
Fructose doesn’t have the same health effects of sucrose for some reason and the sugar you eat in fruit and veg come with fiber which helps keep our blood sugar from spiking.
I was shocked to learn that dates, which are basically candy, have a pretty reasonable glycemic index.
Fructose doesn’t have the same health effects of sucrose for some reason
That's because fructolysis has a slightly different pathway and fate as compared to glycolysis, which results in far lower efficiency of conversion. Meaning glucose gets converted into more calories than fructose does.
Your lemon curd is full of thickener (egg yolk) and sugar (honey) too.
What thickener did they use? Soy lecithin? That’s the same thickener as found in your egg yolks.
What sugar? Just regular sugar? That has a similar glycemic index as honey.
Concentrated lemon juice is just lemon juice without the water. Was there also water in the recipe?
Sounds like your stomach trouble was due to something else. I’m not saying the lemon curd you bought was good quality, but it probably wasn’t much different than what you make. And those scary ingredients are the same as the ones that you already use.
those scary ingredients are the same as the ones that you already use. lol. They used xanthan gum and white sugar.
Scary? Try this:
Honey is an antioxidant, antibacterial, antifungal, and anti-inflammatory that also lowers triglycerides, and does not cause joint pain like white sugar does.
there’s little research to show sugar dangers to be more than correlation
fat people eat a lot of sugar. fat people also eat a lot. eating a lot is how you get fat, drinking calories just happens to be a fast track to getting fat. diet soda happens to be physiologically like drinking water. fat people drink diet instead of sugar coke thats already 200-1000 calories of their day GONE with very very minimal change.
then those fat people supplement the lost sugars with more food and they gain weight. then you get studies showing GUYS DIET SODA CAUSES WEIGHT GAIN (in fat people)
but no its not the sugar its not the macros its YOU eating too much and you can eat less to lose weight that’s just simple science. body types, “nuance”, “bad metabolism”. none of that shits real it all stems from shitty dietary choices and lack of muscle.
all of this to say unless theres medical issues or medical intervention your weight and body type is 100% in your control should you choose to take control
self control is a thing everything is addictive in some facet refined sugars just happens to trigger a stronger dopamine response than other things.
but in the end of the day self control is necessary nobody can control you except you. so dont blame sugars addicitiveness for being overweight if you are. its solely an overeating issue.
I feel like you underestimate addiction. “Self control” is what’s needed to not start smoking; but it takes something stronger to quit smoking, I think – a more refined willpower than simple “self control”.
And sure, it’s something a person could cultivate and train on their own with time and focus. But so are most other things. “Why aren’t you good at drawing? All you need to do is practice every day! it’s simple.”
Just in case you missed it, we discussed below that that's the 15% daily recommended amount for a human. That they gave to the mice. A creature several hundred times smaller.
When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA’s recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.
Can you cite your sources? This excerpt from the published article suggests you’re wrong:
The FDA recommended maximum DIV for aspartame for humans is 50 mg/kg (33). Based on allometric conversion utilizing pharmacokinetic and body surface area parameters (43), the mouse equivalent of the human DIV is 615 mg/kg/d. Therefore, the male mice received a daily aspartame dose equivalent to 14.0%, 7.0%, and 3.5% of the FDA recommended human DIV, and the females received a dose equivalent to 15.5%, 7.7%, and 3.9% of the human DIV.
So 15% for a 60 kilogram human, on the lower end, would be the daily recommended amount for a 9 kilogram creature. A mouse weighs around 0.025 kilograms. So, that amount for the mice is for something 360 times larger.
Obviously it's more complicated than that with differing metabolisms and the like, but as a rough estimate, wow. That's a lot.
I’m baffled by your willingness to elaborate at length about this, but not read the article where this is explained. Misinforming everyone in the process.
When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA’s recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.
Not to mention that the gene pool of these lab mice is super small. Source: my brother is a PhD biochemist and lectured me often on this shit when I said, “hey, look at this study!”
Such a small groups are fine for initial investigation, they have enough of a size to be acceptable statistically for most of the performed studies. I don’t think they’d get approval from ethical committee overseeing animal experiments without initial study like this to conduct something on very high groups.
The small gene pool is done on purpose. The mice are supposed to be as close to clones as possible so that you can have control populations and be confident that the results weren’t affected by certain genes and mutations in the test population.
The size of the gene pool isn’t really an issue though because they can be bred however it’s required for tests. They have quite a lot of control over the genetics of those lab mice.
Testing for a cure for diabetes? They can produce mice that are almost guaranteed to develop diabetes that you can then try to cure.
I am a relatively recent transplant from the red place, I can tell I ain’t in Kansas anymore, actual good information being up voted so cool.
Aspartame is, because of all the claims against it, the single most studied food substance known, and it seems to somehow keep coming okay. There are a lot of studies with really bad methods that were a smear job attempt but science doing what it does they were labeled for what they are and disregarded. Is it possible to be allergic and a reaction to be anxiety sure, but that is not on the food.
The use of “sentenced to life” here is one of the most blatant click/ragebait headlines I’ve seen in a while. And looking at the comments, people are eating it up.
He has not been sentenced to life. He’s in a hospital until deemed fit to release, because he’s destroying property, injuring people, and declaring a desire to return to crime.
Yeah, it’s funny when it’s Rockstar, less so when it’s your social media or bank. If he can’t bring himself to at least commit to saying he won’t do something illegal just to get through court, then his lack of self control speaks to someone who’s going to do some shit and wind up arrested again.
If the staff can get him to calm down enough to stand trial, he’s out.
Also, remember he was already put on bail once:
A mental health assessment used as part of the sentencing hearing said he “continued to express the intent to return to cyber-crime as soon as possible. He is highly motivated.”
The jury was told that while he was on bail for hacking Nvidia and BT/EE and in police protection at a Travelodge hotel, he continued hacking and carried out his most infamous hack.
Despite having his laptop confiscated, Kurtaj managed to breach Rockstar, the company behind GTA, using an Amazon Firestick, his hotel TV and a mobile phone.
The dude hacked Rockstar while in police custody for hacking other companies. They were transporting him and stopped for the night. They locked him inside a hotel room after clearing out anything that he could potentially use to hack. But they missed an Amazon Firestick in the back of the TV. Using that and his room phone, he hacked Rockstar, then when he was caught he told police he’ll do it again as soon as he’s released.
Yeah, the dude is compulsive. It’s an obsession for him.
Yeah isn’t this the part of the movie where he gets recruited from jail by James Bond or something? That’s literally a plot point in at least one Mission Impossible movie, isn’t it? Lol
Kurtaj still managed to carry out an attack on Rockstar Games by using the room’s included Amazon Fire Stick and a “newly purchased smart phone, keyboard and mouse,” according to a separate BBC report.
I really really hope someone gets the video of the stop released. That’s the only way there’s ever any accountability in these cases. Even then it can be an uphill battle.
The US has already spent millions on search and rescue (it surpassed 1.2 million even before the wreckage was found).
Anyone else love that the ultra rich can book quarter million dollar trips on ridiculous vehicles and then still cost the taxpayers millions.
If you are wealthy enough to book a trip into space or to the bottom of the ocean, then you need to be paying (in advance) for whatever resulting expenses might come out of that…or be required to carry the insurance that will cover it. It’s stupid that taxpayers have to pay for this and that the Coast Guard is STILL AT IT…racking up more costs.
Pilots must fly a minimum number of hours, regardless of what is going on in the world. Adding a mission (such as search and rescue) to those flights is trivial because the man hours, fuel, and maintenance are already allocated.
They may have added to the plans but a lot of the cost is already paid when these things start.
That’s a single narrow example and does not accurately account for the taxpayer cost of doing this.
When it’s reported that the government estimates the cost to be 1.2 million (and that estimate was as of some date back in June - source: en.as.com/…/missing-titan-submarine-how-much-does… ) I understand that to mean over and above what their daily/weekly/monthly/quarterly/yearly predictable/normal expenses are.
Nothing in that article implies it’s over and above their normal budget. It doesn’t say either way and the Washington Post article it referenced is paywalled.
Besides this being a large part of why we have the coast guard in the first place, this is a way for them to test their training in a real world mission and see how it works and how it doesn’t.
People don’t get this about military exercises and spending. They would already be doing those things and spending that money. Might as well use it when the opportunity arises.
Also, there’s a pretty good chance that data from the imploded submarine can go towards making future submarines safer. But it’s harder to get that data without recovery
It’s not a new unproven technology, there’s no “data to help future submersible”. They CAN make it safe, they’re ADVISED to make it safe, they’re PROTESTED to make it safe.
But they CHOOSE not to because it’s cheaper.
Everyone in-the-know knew it was bad and unsafe and will probably ended in tragedy. They speak up, they protest, and they got punished by the one in charge.
I mean kind of… it’s like trying to make a kamikazi plane safer. Literally everyone with a shred of knowlege knew it was going to fail and told him, he just did’t listen.
Not the guy you replied to, but… Yeah? There’s not a lot of valuable data in that wreckage to be gained. At least not any data that wasn’t already anticipated, known about, or already tested prior. Like the previous guy said, a multitude of experts said it was a bad idea. People who worked for the company and spoke up about the issues where fired.
The entire internet mocked the situation because the man had the hubris to think he knew better than decades of scientific and engineering testing and safety of the materials being used. Many engineers even sent letters to the guy telling him to not use certain materials because they are and have been known and proven to fail at the types of pressures, temperatures, and environment he wanted to take them too.
The only valuable data that I can even image being in that wreckage is figuring out what exactly failed first, the window that wasn’t rated for that pressure. Or the carbon nanotube hull that engineers already knew would fail since carbon nanotubes are not good at repeated exposure to stress and microfractures and breakages.
There really isn’t that much data to be gathered here that hasn’t already been tested and proven multitudes of times before. Except maybe seeing how well the game controller held up if they can even find it
In some cases that’s exactly what happens. This was a known scenario and the failure was predictable.
It would have been different if they followed all industry standards and the sub still failed - that would produce valuable data that could contribute to making our understanding of the science, as well as prevailing industry standards, better.
In cases like this you can gather all the remains and data you want, and analyse it, but only if you want to confirm what we already know - reproducing observations and confirming hypothesis is an important part of science, but everything costs money, and at some point you need to triage the studies you want to put money into.
They can still learn something from the materials by looking at how it failed (mostly because the frequency of tests of larger objects at these pressures is limited), but there’s not likely going to be anything surprising, just another data point to help calibrate some material science formulas
Obviously it would fail, yes, but where the failure started and how it propagated can still be interesting. There’s a reason new car models get crash tested, you still want to double check the simulation results. Submarines don’t usually get crush tested because they’re built with huge safety margins instead, bigger margins than you can put in cars
There is no technically beneficial reason to using carbon fiber in a submarine hull. It won’t happen again, and it shouldn’t have happened in the first place.
It’s like making a car out of Swiss cheese, it’s just pointless.
Do you think the only place it would be useful is for other submarines? It’s still materials science. Any place those same materials are used could in theory benefit (again, probably not anything notable, but data on how it behaves in extreme circumstances can be useful anyway)
It sounded to me like it was more of arrogance (‘I know better than everybody else’) than cost cutting. Although the part about not getting the design certified was probably for cost cutting and time saving reasons.
Defense counsel should probably remember that after a certain number of improper actions, they’ll be defending their status to stand before the bar as well as defending Trump.
Look, we’ve never seen someone try to get out of trial so much they get a default judgement in two different states, causing them a judgement of ~1.5 billion dollars. They certainly didn’t have a lawyer who thinks dropping his pants and saying the nword is a funny standuo bit, and no one has told him Grape Job Norm.
Said lawyer also didn’t decide to defend Proud Boys and lose said case as well. So not following the rules and doing whatever you think is established precedence that works, imo.
People in the past have stood up to the cops for much less. They would stand up to them evicting people from their houses and all kinds of stuff. Now they literally get away with murder with almost nothing being done to them.
The justice system generally allows everyone a chance to defend themselves. People aren’t removed immediately for the same reason they aren’t executed immediately.
I’m talking about firing. Not imprisonment. And yes, if you fuck up big time, it’s completely fine to be fired on the spot. She issued a search warrant for a journalist, in complete violation of State and Federal law.
At will is simply the default, so it only applies to workers without an employment contract.
She is a government official, and most certainly has a contract that specifies termination procedures.
Keep in mind that at will cuts both ways, it allows workers to quit at any time without notice. The government really, really doesn’t want judges to peace out in the middle of a trial. So the contract provides penalties for both sides if termination procedures aren’t followed.
I'm sorry but this is really funny. Her "contract" is the state constitution.
Other judges shall be subject to retirement for incapacity, and to discipline, suspension and removal for cause by the supreme court after appropriate hearing.
Whatever her contract specifies has to be consistent with the constitution, but her contract covers a lot more than that. It’s not like she can look through the constitution to find her PTO policy.
Elected offical's compensation packages are codified, not contracted. This is a really bizarre rabbit hole you've went down.
§ 13: Compensation of justices and judges; certain limitation. The justices of the supreme court and judges of the district courts shall receive for their services such compensation as may be provided by law, which shall not be diminished during their terms of office, unless by general law applicable to all salaried officers of the state. Such justices or judges shall receive no fees or perquisites nor hold any other office of profit or trust under the authority of the state, or the United States except as may be provided by law, or practice law during their continuance in office.
The constitution and state law must be in keeping with any employment contract. That doesn’t mean there is no employment contract.
Without an employment contract, there is no penalty if an employee suddenly decides to quit. If you are at will (no contract), giving notice to your employer is merely a courtesy.
The government does not want judges to suddenly quit in the middle of a trial, for the same reason that hospitals don’t want doctors to quit in the middle of a patient appointment. Those kinds of employees need contracts.
Among other things, the contract specifies termination procedures. This may include a requirement to give notice and also limit the opportunity for summary firing.
An example of an employment contract for a judge can be found here.
It may not be a contract persay, but it does seem to support the idea that some amount of due process is required. I’d agree that there should be some option to more rapidly suspend a judge, but the constitution you quote says she gets a hearing before dismissal.
I wasn't really arguing that they couldn't dismiss them, just that the dismissal of an elected official being mediated by employment law is... an interesting approach.
What state and federal laws? Not trolling, genuinely have been searching and asking for an explanation. The probable cause seems clear from having read the warrant. I think the paper owner even admitted it’s employee broke the records law.
Sorry friend, but they’re right, you’re wrong and to dismiss them over a spelling error is arrogant and ignorant. The warrant was for someone at the paper allegedly illegally accessing someone’s driving record (1). Kansas has a law that protects driver’s records, but it has a carve out for journalists with a legitimate need to access that info (2). Even if that legitimate need doesn’t exist, this is a civil cause of action and not a criminal proceeding (3), so a subpoena from the aggrieved party would be appropriate and a warrant for the police to raid both the office and a journalist’s home is a massive overstep, obviously intended to punish someone before they’ve even been accused of a crime. The warrant has since been withdrawn by the county attorney, who directed that all seized materials be returned and all copies of seized data be destroyed (4).
It’s a federal law and there is no carve out for journalists. I linked the statute elsewhere.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. The warrant was part of a criminal investigation by police, not any civil lawsuit.
And you didn’t even read your own links.
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT Under the Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act of 1994, as amended (DPPA) (18 U.S.C. § 2721), personal information obtained by the Kansas Department of Revenue cannot be released unless the request for information falls within one of the exceptions within the Act. It is unlawful for personal information to be used for any purpose not permitted under the DPPA
In the analogous area of birth and death records, “reporters when investigating stories have a ‘legitimate research purpose’ … and are therefore to be allowed access to the vital records.” Campbell & Assoc. v. Sharma, No. 884-0076, at 22 St. Louis Cir. Ct. (Jan. 25, 1989).
Seems like I’m not the one who doesn’t read my links
Sections (b)(1)-(14) list the only rights of access.
What does a Missouri circuit court holding about vital records in 1989 have to do with anything? The case at issue was in Kansas, doesn’t involve vital records (which are already open under FOIA).
and yet us commoners are frequently arrested and detained without cause. Yes, police can and do fuck up peoples’ lives and make them sit in jail for days just to have charges dropped in many cases. You could whine and say it’s rare, but once is too much vs the rules they’re SUPPOSED to operate under.
The judicial system allows those with wealth to game it so they don’t have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Remember the affluenza kid who killed for people while driving recklessly? What about the other rich white male who literally raped a girl and got off because ‘it could damage his future.’
Meanwhile, poor black folk get executed for no-knock search warrants when the cops go to the wrong place.
Police know to be more lenient with people that have status (wealth.) That’s why we just got a recording with a pig laughing about a cop running over a pedestrian because she ‘was of low value.’
If you don’t notice how the justice system doesn’t serve you, you’re not paying attention.
I’ve been loosely following this story and I read the warrant applications. You seem certain this is outrageous. Could you explain why?
What was wrong with the warrant? The police seem to have had good probable cause. I’m a huge advocate for free press, but I’ve yet to hear a legal argument for what is so objectionable, here.
Sure. The warrant application states that the newspaper employee accessed some private government record via online portal, and then shared that record with police and the public. In order to access the record, the newspaper employee must have either impersonated the person whom the record was about (it think it was about a town counselor if memory serves), or else falsely certify that the employee had a valid legal reason to access the information. It’s the same certification I have make as a lawyer when doing a private background check, have to choose one of like fourteen legit reasons for requesting the info; comes from a federal privacy statute. The difference being I have a legit reason to certify when I’m doing a search, and I’m not accessing records directly from the government.
So either the newspaper employee committed identity thef or accessed a closed, government computer system under false pretenses, also known as hacking (unauthorized access).
Those were the two probable crimes set forth in the warrant. There is no journalist exception for crimes.
As I understand, the newspaper owner admitted that their employee falsely certified as to her right of access, but refused to give a statement or provide records.
The same officer who applied for the warrant is also the officer who initially received the document on behalf of the police. He recognized that it implicated the police chief in financial crimes, and referred it to internal affairs.
The only wrongdoing I could see is the appearance of conflict of interest, in that the department or prosecutor should have referred the matter to state law enforcement or law enforcement in a different county.
I don’t like police raiding reporters in any sense, and that’s what prompted me to read the warrant application, but after reading it I understand why the police, prosecutor, and judge all signed off on it. It seems legit.
There are 14 clearly defined rights of access. None of them apply to journalists.
I agree journalism is important and rooting out public corruption is a good cause. They should have requested the records by FOIA. Some records are exempt from FOIA and I have hunch these were such records. Congress passed the law setting out those fourteen reasons a person could have a valid legal right to the data, and fishing expeditions by well meaning journalists isn’t one of them, for good reason!
Don’t forget, the document was the proof of the corruption, before that, sounds like, it was allegation and conjecture motivated by a small town grudge.
I don’t know, assume the affidavit is true and the actions of the newspaper employee were illegal, is the raid objectionable for any legal reason?
Thanks for the details, genuinely. I’ve not fired up PACER myself here, as much as me a private non-lawyer citizen could really follow along there.
Personally, I side with the newspaper morally in this matter. I’m much more of a “if raiding a newspaper over peacefully attempting to uncover corruption in local governments because they lied to do so is legal than the laws need to change” kinda guy.
I know that’s pivoting. I also don’t have any good ideas on how to improve the laws. Personally, I don’t see any way of making a law that doesn’t become either a target of or a tool for abuse of power, and this really feels a lot like people in power using the law to help a friend in a way that most citizens would not have access to.
They should have issued a subpoena, like every other case. Also the judge ordered the return of seized items from the search. Not a good sign of confidence in their legality.
A subpoena is a demand to appear issued by a lawyer. A witness has to be subpoenaed to something. You subpoena testimony, usually by deposition, to a hearing or to a grand jury. A subpoena duces tecum is a subpoena to show up and testify and bring documents, too.
Government subpoenas are usually in connection with civil enforcement. In the criminal context, they are to compel a witness to a grand jury or to testify at a pretrial deposition or at trial after the suspect as been charged, or in the case of secret proceedings, when a grand jury has convened.
“We finally were able to obtain the probable cause affidavit that was supposed to support the search warrant. It was filed three days after the searches were conducted, which is a little suspicious,” Meyer said in a CNN interview Wednesday.
The affidavits authorizing the searches and seizures at the paper and the publisher’s house were signed by Magistrate Judge Laura Viar, and while her signature was dated Aug. 11, the court did not receive the affidavits until Monday, Aug. 14 — three days after the search was conducted.
The top prosecutor, who ordered the seized materials be returned, said themselves that “insufficient evidence exists to establish a legally sufficient nexus between this alleged crime and the places searched and the items seized.” There was never probable cause, no evidence that this alleged illegal access ever happened. There never should have been a warrant in the first place.
Not sure what you’re asking when you say “on what grounds”.
The warrant was issued without any evidence supporting it, which I thought I made clear in my comment.
I did read it, it’s linked within the article OP posted that we’re replying too, or maybe it’s a couple clicks away.
The fact that shit hit the fan seems like a red flag to me that things were wrong from the get go. Cops get away with misconduct every day, for it to make national news means they probably acted indefensibly inappropriately.
You’re saying the warrant was issued without supporting evidence because the affidavit was filed after the warrant was served?
I don’t know what the recording requirements in that court are. It may be that affidavits are submitted sealed and then not filed until after the warrant is served. That doesn’t seem out of the scope of ordinary to me.
I’m not sure it’s filing means the judge didn’t see it.
It’ll go down just like Ohio. They were told they needed to redistrict, they drew a map, they were told it was unconstitutional and to redraw it, they redrew it, it was deemed unconstitutional and they were told to redraw it, it was deemed unconstitutional and they were told to redraw it. They then were out of time and used the 1st unconstitutional map for the election.
Of course, which is why they (republicans) have been working so hard to dismantle free and fair elections. They know they can't win if things are fair.
If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.
You don’t even need AI for this, a very simple easy to audit algorithm could take care of it.
Hell, have it generate a few dozen versions that are all approximately as good, and let representatives (or even better, the actual people) vote on which to use
AI isn’t magical, you give it instructions to get an output. It also uses history to base its decisions on. Both of those things need humans to guide it, and those same people making shitty decisions now will just use AI to cloak shit in an the guise of unbiased computers.
The issue is that many states task the legislature with drawing the map. The legislature gets to pick who voted for them. If they make an unconstitutional one, they just have to draw more unconstitutional ones until there is no time left. If the Court tried to do it themselves because of the legislature’s failure, they can sue because that responsibility was directly assigned to them. They need to take that responsibility away from the legislature in their Constitution. This should happen in every state.
I should have said appealed. A judge will rule that their 5th map is also unconstitutional and they clearly cannot be tasked with making the map. So the judge makes one that would work or tasks a committee to do it. Republicans then appeal that decision because the constitution or a law specifies that the legislature creates the maps. They appeal up to the state Supreme Court.
What’s cynical about thinking Republicans who drew unconstitutional maps in Florida will pull the same shit Republicans in other states have gotten away with?
What else has ever happened? There has never been any sort of penalty for doing this, they just get away with it. What else is there to do but be cynical.
That one pisses me off so much. Democrats were working with them on a legal one. Republicans hummed and hawed that doing the assessment of it would put them over the deadline so instead they should just go with the last unconstitutional one.
Ohio doesn’t actually care if it’s policy is constitutional or not. The way school districts are funded was found unconstitutional back in the 90s.nothing has changed.
This doesn’t fix everything, but perfection is the enemy of progress. This is worth celebrating if you care about non-wealthy Americans.
In the face of overzealous judicial rulings and zero help from Congress, this policy helps over 800,000 struggling, older Americans resolve long standing debt that they made payments on for 20 or 25 years.
These aren’t free loaders or wealthy individuals. Nor are they committing fraud to accept disaster loans aimed at keeping paychecks afloat.
They are former students. That’s it. Something that the US covers for K-12th grade as one of its earliest ground-breaking policies. The rest of the developed world took that through college, the US decided to create a bloated system of indentured servitude instead.
No, this doesn’t stop new borrowers from taking on loans. And it doesn’t stop education providers from overcharging. These are real problems that deserve attention.
But it is still a step showing that at least some federal officials care to try to resolve the issues plaguing some of those who did nothing more than try to improve their situation and gain valuable training with far reaching benefits.
GI Bill students still taking loans to get through school, while working full time. Source? Am one. It’s absolutely outrageous, the cost of both school and living.
“The borrowers involved in the plans targeted for the new forgiveness include those with Direct Loans or Federal Family Education Loans held by the department, including Parent PLUS loans. Many of the borrowers affected are likely 50 or older. About 9.2 million borrowers fall into this category.”
No research done outside of reading the article, but this line makes it seem like it will be mostly older people benefitting. Although the 9.2M number seems pretty high to be people mostly 50+. If that is the case, it’s hardly a win for a generation most affected by student loan debt.
Steps are great and all, and I would never argue against a step in the right direction. However, at some point, we need to raise the bar of expectation on federal officials past the smallest step of advancement reasonably possible. At this point we’ve heard how “we’re taking steps towards true universal healthcare” for some voters entire lives and while many, tiny, steps of advancement have been made we’re not too much closer to the goal being sold to us.
Long ramble short, If people are content with just a step and not a solution, even an advancing step, the government will try and wait out this issue for as long as possible. It’s not unjust to demand more given their history.
I hear you. Much bigger steps are needed and hopefully the younger generations who have been priced out of housing, hit with insanely low wage growth, and took out student loans to cover much higher education costs will start to obtain benefits sooner rather than later. They deserve it.
It doesn’t help me, my wife or anyone that I personally know in my peer group. No, it’s not nothing but it’s not at all what we meant when we asked for it and it’s certainly not enough. It is just enough, however, to say “well, we tried” and add this onto their list of accomplishments for the upcoming election.
I’m getting pretty tired of having to settle for literal scraps because the Democrats “tried really hard”.
No, and I don’t really care, either. The same people tell me to “figure it out” and “that’s just the way it is”, but I’m supposed to let these guys off the hook? Republicans never seem to have to make this argument about their party, why do the Democrats time and time again have to bend the knee to these idiots…they don’t.
I’m just frustrated. I have been with my party for what seems like a long time now. It’s always the Republicans fault, and I’m just getting a little tired of hearing it.
Median rent right now is $2k. Rule of thumb is 1/3 or less of income spent on housing. So that's $6k a month. With comes out to 72k a year, pretty close.
All these articles act like workers have become so uppity and demanding but all they want is to live reasonably.
Here I am charging $675 a month. Damn! I should raise my rent. I’m kidding. I’m able to cover the house bills. No reason to raise the rent. But damn! $2 k wow!
Considering that Elon musk has made $208 billion dollars in the last 7 years that might have something to do with it.
That's enough money to give every single adult 18 years of age or older in America $1,000 and he would still have at least $40 billion left over, not to mention the 11 billion dollars he started with.
I can't fault a guy for doing (208,000,000,000/7 = 29.71 billion a year / ($7.25*2000 hrs a year * 50 years = $725,000 a lifetime) = 40,979 minimum wage earner's entirelifetimeearnings worth of work a year for 7 straight years on average, can I?
Haven’t read the article but the snippet says it’s the “amount to get someone to switch jobs.” I’m assuming this only applies to a small segment of the population but this news outlet is writing it as if McDonalds employees are demanding $80k salaries.
Yes, or say if workers keep demanding, inflation will rise as if we’re not asking for more literally just trying to keep up. Between rent, insurance, transportation, and groceries, we went from saving a ton every month and are now paycheck to paycheck.
My husband asked for 75 recently at an interview and was scoffed at and offered 60. We can’t budget enough to survive on that in our area. We want to be able to go to the doctor once in a while.
3 July 1979: CIA initiates Operation Cyclone, financing the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan.
25 December 1979: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
1989: Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.
1992: Democratic Republic of Afghanistan collapses; start of the Afghan Civil War.
1992: Operation Cyclone ends, after funneling thousands of tons of weaponry worth several billion US dollars to militant Islamic groups, including groups with jihadist ties.
Quotes from the voice mail she left. (what a fucking idiot to give a voice recording of this)
"You are in our sights, we want to kill you,"
"If Trump doesn't get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly, b---h. ... You will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it."
I didn’t say it shouldn’t be taken seriously. There’s a difference between saying someone is not being serious and saying they shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Also worth noting… even if we knew for a fact she had no serious intend to carry out her threat - like if there was a recording before and after she hung up the phone laughing about this “prank” - threats on the lives of government officials are crimes. It can influence their behavior. There is no situation where it’s not serious, just like standing up on a plane and yelling “I have a bomb!” is a crime and serious whether a joke or not.
I’m sick of slightly-not-threats in general. I’m always amazed at people for listening to a few interactions between police and crooks and figuring out exactly what they can say and get away with while leaving the victim with no uncertainty that they’ll be targeted. It seems like a majority of the population will happily scream at someone over something small. It’s no surprise that we are seeing escalations into real death threats, regardless of intent or seriousness.
This whole fucking handbasket seems to be in flames already.
So, mixed signal time, while not actually advocating for rape, it is usually not about sexual attraction, but more about assertion of power and intimidation.
So, in the hyperbolically sarcastic “literal” sense of fuck them, their looks are irrelevant.
People are playing by Reddit/echo chamber rules here. Anything that goes even slightly against the grain is jumped on and tried to silence.
FTR: I heard your intent and don’t think you said anything even remotely wrong. This is a human being who needs to be held accountable, but can also at the same time still require our help, even if it’s just simple human empathy.
Edit: but to answer your question… 5 more times should do it. :)
Serious or not, the target won’t know and the harm done by them is real either way. The criminal needs to be locked up and hopefully rehabilitated. If the latter isn’t possible, at least she won’t be able to follow through on the threats from a jail cell.
She's also been charged with the same time three other times just this year; and there's no mention of the number of times she just got a warning for pulling this stuff. In fact, she was out on bail for similar messages when she did this. This is not a person who is able to handle her emotions who is slowly getting driven over the edge by reich-wing media. She may not head to New York or DC to kill a judge as but she is absolutely capable of shooting a bunch of black people at Walmart or driving through a group of Hispanic workers.
Who makes threats over voicemail? How stupid is that to use your voice and phone number as obvious evidence to police if you were actually planning to do it? Imagine posting to Twitter about going to rob a specific bank in 2 days with your personal Twitter account, then posting a selfie with a name tag and facemask and gun in front of your actual house, hashtagging it #ThisIsAStickUp so more people see it. Anyone who makes semi public threats with identifiable information is either a complete moron and shouldn’t be taken as able to be dangerous in any capacity or was never really intending to do anything in the first place and is all bark and no bite. Not serious. Probably just planning to break stuff and yell real loud like on January 6. These people thrive off of intimidation. I doubt anyone would be that completely idiotic to document a murder spree.
Renting is the right choice for some people. Corporations have to obey stronger laws than mom and pops and are in my experience more likely to keep the houses updated.
The Mom and Pop owners have less resources to handle if you suddenly break your lease and leave due to crumbing conditions so it’s in their best interest to keep their properties updated.
Corporations often will ignore your complaints, and then just absorb the costs for a couple months until they can move in someone else into the same broken property. Corporations do not care when it comes to their properties, while individual owners do care because there are actual people behind them.
Also, regardless if “renting is the right choice for some people”, the housing shortage is due to corporations buying up single family homes with the express purpose of renting them, which pushes potential owners out of the market entirely.
Also too, mom and pop landlords often hold property as a means of retirement savings, so that when they go to cash out and finally retire, the house is worth something as opposed to a neglected pile. Obviously this isn’t true across all property owners that rent out, but it isn’t uncommon.
Just a single data point but as soon as a corporation bought my apartment complex they “attempted” to illegally increase my rent through hidden fee increases. They also “accidentally” sent me the wrong leases with the rents increased multiple times.
If I need to sue a corporation for something like this, it’s going to be a lot of time and effort for me but nothing for them so they can essentially get away with the illegality. Mom and pops it’s a lot of time and effort for both of us so it’s in both of our best interests to do things by the book.
Yes, renting is absolutely the right choice for some people. I completely agree. That is why I never said apartments shouldn’t exist or that people couldn’t own multiple homes to rent out. However, I think people who own multiple homes should be taxed higher on them.
Housing should not be a retirement vehicle. It should be a basic human right.
Also, I don’t think it’s true that corporations have to obey stronger laws than mom and pops. I’m pretty sure rental laws are just rental laws, and corporations just have lawyers who make sure they are following all applicable laws. I could be wrong, though.
This would be the biggest game changer for our country. Let corporations own all the apartments they want but keep them out of single family housing. There’s no reason for corporations to hoard and sit on housing, letting them sit empty and raising the prices of the occupied ones. Single family Housing should not be an investment opportunity for corporations.
Let’s bring down housing prices, and people will have a hell of a lot more money to spend on other things to keep our economy moving.
Then after that let’s do Healthcare and Education.
I live in a house that was sold at below market rates, under the condition that I will also sell to the next homeowner at a below market rate, there is a fixed equity gain each year to cover general home owner costs. I own the house, the city owns the land the house is on, HOA covers outside upkeep like roofing, window cleaning and driveway maintenance. This is known as a Community Land Trust.
There is no reason this method of housing can’t also be applied to folks that live in an apartment. Fuck corporations they shouldn’t own anything.
Just tax any home other than your primary residence at 100% of the assessed fair market value per year. Hell, make it 100000%. This includes apartments, condos, townhomes, mobile homes. It would solve a lot of problems real quick. Some “real estate moguls” might have to find a real job for once in their life but it will be good for them. I hear they like to hustle.
It’s never gonna happen. At most he’ll become bogged down in lawsuits and charges till he dies. But there’s no way they’ll ever allow a u.s president to set foot in jail
This stupid cuck is going to jail 100% if he does not win the next presidential election. Our legal system can be pretty fucked up sometimes but it’s not that fucked up, this guy literally tried to overthrow our democracy.
I’m not saying he’s not going to jail, but I am saying our system is absolutely fucked. This dude is free years after openly trying to overthrow our democratic processes. The most blatant example (Georgia) isn’t even one of the indictments he’s currently facing.
I was told in my local pub yesterday that someone with a criminal record can still be president. But I’m British, and drink with people who chat shit. The landlord in said pub also said that Oceangate was eaten by a megalodon, and landlords like to chat shit.
Someone who is literally in jail can become President, technically. What the day-to-day reality of that would be, I’ve no clue. But it’s technically possible, and we’ve had people (most notably Eugene Debs) run from behind bars.
Theoretically, on the federal charges, but not any state charges (such as the ones expected to be brought in Georgia)
Of course, a self-pardon has never been tested, and while the composition of the Supreme Court should be favorable to him doing so, it’s not guaranteed that they would actually be on board. There would be a constitutional crisis if he tried to self-pardon, and the Supreme Court ruled that he could not (which could be nearly solved by impeachment of either the President or various Justices, but that will not happen under the present dysfunction of the Senate)
Lmao the sheer projection in bringing ukraine into this when Trump literally blackmailed them and broke the law to try to score political points. Straight up traitor
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.