Would a parent be allowed to send their kid in with a pack of smokes, and expect their kid can smoke them inside the school?
No?
Because it effects others and brings down the overall ability for the learning environment to succeed. Same deal with phones. If it makes the environment toxic to success, there should probably be some prohibition within those grounds. This isn't banning phones across the board, or banning them for kids. It's banning them within a location, like how firearms are banned inside courthouses.
I look forward to a possibility where the dumb terminal is less centralized in the cloud, and more how it seems to work in the expanse. They all have hand terminals that seem to automatically interact with the systems and networks of the ship/station/building they're in. Linking up with local resources, and likely having default permissions set to restrict weird behavior.
Not sure it could really work like that IRL, but I haven't put a ton of thought into it. It'd make our always-online devices make a little more sense.
Someone I know is in a similar situation. She doesn't have the "naturalization documents". She has a passport, a ssn, and became a citizen before she turned 18.
Will ICE get it right? or will she be put into a prison for months with poor conditions, with an administration that does not want lawyers involved, with little ability to be found or call out for help?
This site likes to do the cowardly take of avoiding politics as long as it's advantageous. I'm going to look into these companies that produce this tech, and memorize the company names. If a resume ever passes my desk with a significant time at any of these companies, it's going to be a "no" from me. That's the small bit of power I hold.
Hands on the ground don't read the laws, they only bring people before the person who actually knows them.
So no, ICE goons will do the basic thing -- check how white the person is, if not white enough, ask for documents, if documents are not convincing enough to them, snatch the person and let the more nuanced decisions to be made by those who can read.
Now if the person above them isn't agreeing with interpretation of the law that was used to issue those documents, it's sitting in the jail waiting for a judge time.
Administration view is that if you're not citizen, you don't get due process[1]. Even if you're a citizen, if their system says your not, you'll never get brought in front of people who know the law. Why due process only works if everyone gets it otherwise the government will say your a class that doesn't get it even if you aren't.
This isn’t new under Trump. But it’s entertaining watching everyone pretend it is.
Obama had similar rules around standing deportation orders and how quickly they could be executed once an alien was in custody.
If you’ve stood before a judge, argued why you should be allowed to stay and lost, you have a standing deportation order. That’s due process. Nothing has been denied.
It makes for a great talking point but is a pretty shallow analysis of what is going on or their historical relevance.
“This temporary restraining order was not served to ICE until AFTER the criminal illegal alien was removed….Following his heinous crimes, he lost his green card, and an immigration judge ordered him removed in 2006. 20 years later, he tried a Hail Mary attempt to remain in our country by claiming he was a U.S. citizen.”
Available reporting indicates that judge ruled on Thursday, and that DHS deported on Friday. Moreover, available reporting also indicates:
> DHS and ICE did not respond to questions from The Associated Press seeking additional details on the timeline and how officials receive federal court orders.
So they aren’t clarifying anything. Odd.
And don’t forget back in March, when the administration publicly asserted that oral orders from a judge carried no authority and that they would only heed written orders.
When you put those two together, one wonders: perhaps DHS is playing fast and loose with timelines again.
Why on earth would you treat anything they say as if it were truthful or reliable? They have lost the right to be treated as trustworthy by default.
Are you suggesting a government agency is just making things up in official communications?
If that’s the case you must also assume the deportee is lying as well? Between the two it’s the deportee who has the bigger incentive to make things up.
If we’re going to go with those assumptions there is no point in even discussing it because neither of have any facts to base an argument on.
So why should I believe anything they say these days? They are blatantly lying, in ways that are manifestly obvious to anyone that is willing to look. We don’t owe the presumption of good faith to people who time and again have been publicly caught lying - and worse, who haven’t even tried to correct the record.
Half of your sources are other government officials. That kind of runs counter to your argument that you can't rely on government official statements to be true, no?
And let's look at the Reason article. "Martinez also was taken to the hospital by ambulance, and the criminal complaint against her only mentions two cars, not 10."
Ok, so the DHS "lied" about being boxed in by 2 not 10 cars. That seems to miss the forest for the tree no? The DHS agents were still boxed in - normally threatening federal law enforcement officers is illegal, no?
While Obama, Biden, and Trump all had cruel deportation policies, the previous two didn't have 5-figure bonuses for a deportation.
Additionally, the performative method of how they're looking for deportations, its random, violent, and meant to send a message of powerlessness and fear.
The point is fear and cruelty. As was Family separation under Biden, the cruelty is accelerating.
Except that to all appearances, most of the time ICE isn't actually bringing them before people who actually know the law: they're throwing them in concentration camps.
Or even when they do end up before someone who knows the law, and that someone says "no, this is illegal, you have to set them free," they say "nah, we can do what we want" and put them on a plane to another country unrelated to the hapless detainee.
They put a whole lot of children onto a plane in the middle of the night to deport them. This was only stopped because laywers got wind of it and a federal judge intervened almost immediately on the weekend.
They are trying to bypass any review by being fast and creating facts that prevent US judges from any effective action as once people are outside US jurisdiction they have very little power.
And immigration judges are not actual judges, they are part of the executive.
you’re responding to a comment which states detainees are being sent to concentration camps, places like the deplorably named Alligator Alcatraz. i don’t think we should conflate that as deportation.
>Will ICE get it right? or will she be put into a prison for months with poor conditions, with an administration that does not want lawyers involved, with little ability to be found or call out for help?
Better yet -- whisk her out of the country and then claim that she no longer has standing to sue.
Basically any "legal option", aka trying to legally fight illegal actions, requires letting people get hurt, or killed with no recourse while hoping some judge makes a decision and these people actually follow it.
You as an individual are defenseless against an incorrect and badly trained officer. This goes for local cops, federal cops, the twitter racists they brought in for ICE, etc.
Even if you oppose this with all your heart, if you're semi-intelligent you know the Admin is looking for an excuse to execute greater powers, so any kinetic action against the poorly trained, illegal actions of the state will only cause greater harm.
The worst part about this, is if we allow the slow "legal" process to take it's course, even if all this is proven illegal and thrown out, people released, etc, nothing will happen to the people who brought it on. Those who have the power to hold accountable only reached the position of power by being amenable to others in power. We likely wont have trials against the individuals picking mothers and fathers up off the street for a bonus, we wont have trials against the people who offered the bonuses either. They'll disappear and come back when the times are more kind to their sick world view of violence and cruelty.
The fun part is the Supreme Court has steadily eroded away any avenues for recourse. ICE can harass, abuse, even kill people with zero justification and any lawsuits will be thrown out.
This logic always bugs me because no one truly lives in a vacuum. People are flawed and generally need help from a community. A small community can't really fight back a well endowed company like gambling companies. The whole(stated) reason android is losing unsigned side loading is because grandmas in SEA are sideloading gambling apps.
It's obvious to me that gambling is generally a vulnerability in the human psyche. For many, it short circuits something in their brain and forms genuine addiction.
It's actually insane to me to use this vulnerability as a tax base to fund roads and schools, because regardless of the funds, your incentives will still be perverse and those incentives will dictate that more people need to be losing their money to out-of-state firms because a small portion of it might fund roads and schools.
The incentives basically state: "A percentage of our population must become sick and addicted to risk and reward in order for society to function". Is this not basically the concept of Omelas?
I read the Omelas story differently but maybe is the same. It's just a predatory dominance play. Some people get the dopamine hit from dominance, so for them it is a double win- their stuff is funded by others and it is the "weakness" of others (perceived by the dominant) that produces the funding. Having and eating the cake, etc.
I'd have to look for it. At the very least, the pilot program is happening there, and I've read on here it's a big scam to have sideloaded gambling apps take people's life savings.
The thing about assembly is, in a limited context it's not that hard to understand at all.
Value goes into register, do some math on register, compare register to immediate, etc.
The difficulty comes the more code you add. The same thing happens in nearly any language. A single file python script is easy, the complexity in a mature async python app is hard. It's easy to add some numbers and val >> stout in c++, but managing all the dependencies and build chain is hard in a million line program.
It's no different, but assembly is neat because you can isolate the complexity via inlining and just step back and tell the computer exactly what to do.
The loudness of cities is generally a product of cars.
Very busy areas of cities without many cars are fairly quiet.
Tire noise, exhaust noise, horns, etc all make a ton of noise. Living near a highway in the suburbs is probably inherently more noisy than many cities.
I like to think about the time around 1900 when the population was far far higher than today, but there were no cars. Horses don’t make the same noise.
Of course there was heavy industry in that day so that would be loud and filthy.
I guess it would depend on where you were. If you're in a high traffic area full of horses wearing metal shoes stepping on cobble stones and handcarts with metal rims rolling over cobble stones, it could probably get pretty loud.
I bet it could get pretty quiet, even with the density.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” - Jean-Paul Sartre
Sure is interesting how they begin to diverge around the time the US-backed Paul Magloire coup'd the sitting president and prioritized tourism via cruise ships over education.
Yeah, if you're trying to explain the difference in outcomes between Haiti and the Dominican Republic today, appealing to poltical events in Haiti in the 1950s when that economic divergence began to happen has a lot more explanatory power than appealing to poltical events in Haiti in the early 19th century (including the two decades or so when Haiti itself had colonized the DR).
My own understanding of 20th century Haitian poltics is fairly limited. I don't know if "prioritized tourism via cruise ships over education" is a fair characterization of Magliore's policies in Haiti, or, assuming it is, that this constitutes a good casual explanation of the Haiti/DR economic divergence. I'm frankly skeptical - lots of places that are not Haiti have tourism as a major, government-supported component of the economy, and nonetheless are capable of providing some kind of useful formal education to their populace and have better economic outcomes than Haiti. I suspect the story in Haiti is a lot more complicated than this. But sure, if there's a specific education policy that the DR did implement in the 1950s and that Haiti under Magliore did not, that explains DR's greater economic development today, feel free to make the case.
I'm generally a fan of Cuba so take whatever I say with that in mind, but to me the big difference was Cuba was able to make a cleanish break from the big neighbor to the north while Haiti always had a US hand reaching in, possibly to avoid Cuba II.
While Cuba is pretty poor(and we can talk about embargo in those respects), they generally met their revolutionary goals. They got the mobsters out of Havana, who previously had massive sway in the government alongside the American ambassador. They massively improved literacy, put tons of effort into health for their citizens(prior to the revolution, a majority of cuban children suffered from foot parasites among other things), and did a relatively forgiving land reform to remove the big land-owners from power(ie Land reform in Japan post WWII by the US was considerably harsher policy wise iirc).
As far as a country with a huge trade embargo against it, they've done pretty well and built up allies around the world.
If Haiti followed a similar path, we'd see just as many complaints over their governance, but from a totally different angle.
As for DR, I think its still debatable. From the 30s to the early 60s, DR was under a dictatorship that was fairly brutal. After that, a democratically elected president was couped with US support, then essentially a man described as a puppet for the previous dictator was put into power for another 12 years. Perhaps the relative stability + having a ruler with US approval is enough to explain the relative success.
I think any time a country is kicked in the shins for being a little too democratic, there's going to be a period of rebuilding. That period gets longer each time they get kicked in the shins, with the more intelligent folks leaving each time, until they're left with the people you don't want leading a country. A self fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
I'm not sure why you're talking about Cuba. But since you bring Cuba up the fact that the Cuban economy is doing better than the Haitian one and quality of life is better in Cuba than in Haiti, despite the American trade embargo on them for the entirely of the late 20th century, is evidence against the proposition that Haiti's contemporary problems are primarily a result of the 19th century French impositions.
> As for DR, I think its still debatable. From the 30s to the early 60s, DR was under a dictatorship that was fairly brutal. After that, a democratically elected president was couped with US support, then essentially a man described as a puppet for the previous dictator was put into power for another 12 years. Perhaps the relative stability + having a ruler with US approval is enough to explain the relative success.
Haiti was also ruled by brutal dictators in the mid-20th century, and was receiving aid from the United States for much of this time. So this can't in and of itself be an explanatory factor for why Haiti is so much worse off than the Dominican Republic.
I mean you scratch a lot of commentators on colonialism anywhere in the West and deep enough you will find an apologist.
While there might be structural issues in Haiti, a colonial apologist starts with simplified one sided history -> The colonizers civilized the country -> the people deserved it -> The better side won, survival of the fittest
What I have seen is that unlike the Star Trek post scarcity world visions, all discussions are stuck at some sort of national or ethnic identities at one end or a very simplified oppressed vs oppressor ideology at the other end which prevents discussing many ideologies based on their teachings through a modern civilized lens.
It does not look like the divisions would ever improve because we are now moving into a post labor world and the asymmetry is probably a feature that defines geopolitical clout and power and no one has the incentive to think bigger.
Star Trek is a sci-fi franchise written mostly by American liberals with a specific vision of what society ought to look like hundreds of years in the future (and who are generally not interested in exploring in detail more material questions like, how precisely does the world become post-scarcity). Haiti is a bad place to be right now in real life.
The colonialist apologist case with respect to Haiti is something like: rich white nations are already spending money and other resources providing humanitarian aid to Haiti, because the human need there is real and the native Haitian government is not capable of governing in a way that would fix these problems. If those same rich white nations were actually formally in charge of Haiti in a neo-colonialist poltical arrangement, they could govern it better and improve the lives of the average Haitian in a material sense. It's not directly related to the colonial history of Haiti, which is over 200 years in the past at this point.
I personally think there are serious issues with this argument, but it's not completely crazy to suggest that the revealed preference of many Haitians is to live under the governance of rich white countries, especially in light of Haitian immigration to the US which was a major issue in the 2024 US presidential election.
This conversation is silly. The lovely Haiti watchers who ignore historical contexts and the effects of a couple centuries of foreign involvement in their sovereignty has no effect in regards to modern material circumstances.
The only things that matter, according to those who love to shit on Haiti, is their apparent inability to self govern. This inability must have come from nowhere, or is genetically innate to the people.
It's crazy how every country who has had it's sovereign legs kicked out from under them multiple times just ends up being a failed state. Total mystery!
> It's crazy how every country who has had it's sovereign legs kicked out from under them multiple times just ends up being a failed state. Total mystery!
It's not the case that every country that has had its sovereign legs kicked out from under them multiple times just ends up being a failed state, and this is an important observation if you're trying to come up with a theory for why Haiti is in the state it is in. As the sibling comment mentions, a number of countries that today are peaceful and prosperous places to live, the sorts of places Haitians might want to immigrate to rather than live in Haiti, are countries that earlier in history were badly defeated in war and conquered - this descibes the losing WWII powers such as Germany, Japan, and Italy, it describes countries subject to some kind of colonial influence until well into the 20th century like Vietnam, South Korea, China, India, and many other places. Most of these countries are doing fairly well today, certainly much better than Haiti, which hasn't been directly ruled by a colonial power since the beginning of the 19th century.
Germany in particular was badly defeated and occupied twice in the first half of the 20th century and had crippling debt obligations imposed on it by (largely) France, and is nonetheless a much much better place to live today than Haiti is. This is a fact about the world that needs to be explained.
reply