It’s generally seen as okay on a similar level to undercover work. They do it for Investigation reasons, the torrent was already uploaded before they joined, their monitoring serves a legitimate law enforcement purpose, and they’re authorized by the copyright holder (themselves) to do it. They didn’t put the movie or whatever out there themselves.
Their methods are fine, they literally just pirate the stuff themselves, see which IPs connect to them, then connect those to an ISP and notify them. The main reasons you wouldn’t get notices are getting lucky, not seeding much, not torrenting things that are being monitored, or having an ISP that doesn’t care much.
The single notice from the streaming site makes sense, pirate streaming sites are usually honeypots or heavily monitored.
Fair point.
I was definitely too focused on the narrow “did they rule on birthright citizenship” question and missed the bigger picture. You’re right that this is way more than just procedural, it’s a massive shift in executive power.
The fact that federal judges can now only issue piecemeal, state-by-state rulings essentially breaks their ability to actually check presidential overreach in any meaningful way.
I think I got too caught up in fact checking the specific headline and missed how big Trump’s win actually was here, just not in the way the headlines suggested. Thanks for the correction.
100% on both counts.
The forum shopping issue you’re describing is exactly the problem. Trump’s team can now basically pick and choose where to implement policies that have been ruled unconstitutional elsewhere. It creates this patchwork where your constitutional rights depend on geography, which is obviously fucked.
And you’re spot on about the cowardice. The Supreme Court absolutely should have ruled on the constitutional question first. That’s the actual substantive issue everyone cares about. Instead they took the cop out that gives Trump more power without having to make the hard call on whether his order is constitutional.
Honestly it looks like classic Roberts Court behaviour: make big changes to how government works while pretending you’re just doing technical legal housekeeping. They know damn well that ruling on birthright citizenship would be messy and politically explosive, so they found a way to help Trump without having to own the constitutional implications.
Your point about this cutting both ways (like with mifepristone) is important too, but the timing here makes it pretty clear what they’re really doing.
Looking into it this whole thing is way more complicated than the headline makes it sound. The Supreme Court didn’t actually give Trump permission to end birthright citizenship, they just made a ruling about how courts can block federal policies nationwide.
Basically what happened: Trump’s birthright citizenship order has been blocked by multiple federal judges who said it’s probably unconstitutional. Instead of arguing the constitutional issue (which he’d probably lose), Trump’s team asked the Supreme Court to limit judges’ power to issue nationwide blocks on policies. The Court agreed 6-3, but they specifically did NOT rule on whether ending birthright citizenship is legal.
So now Trump’s celebrating like he won, but really all that changed is the procedural stuff. The constitutional problems with his order are still there: the 14th Amendment is pretty clear about birthright citizenship. Lower courts still have to reconsider their rulings, and immigrant rights groups are already filing new lawsuits.
It’s more of a tactical win for Trump that might let him try to implement parts of his agenda in some places, but the fundamental legal challenges haven’t gone away. The Truthout article is at least a little hyperbolic imo.
What exactly is the grift of suggesting Foss over Google? You think he’s getting kickbacks? And if you just mean the “grift” of getting paid for YouTube videos… I mean, if people are watching it and it’s good information is that really a “grift”, seems like just getting paid for giving good information. Better than the majority of YouTube.
The “mysterious” they is HerelAm, the person I was replying to you ninny.
You’re literally arguing nothing right now. THEY took the position we should have brackets defining the order in every single equation or otherwise have them as undefined TODAY. It doesn’t matter when they were invented. Obviously it’s never been written like that. They are the one arguing it SHOULD BE. I said that would be stupid vs following the left to right convention already established. You’re getting caught up in the semantics of the wording.
What you inferred: they’re saying brackets were always around and we chose left to right to avoid bracket mess.
What I was actually saying: we chose and continue to choose to keep using the left to right convention over brackets everywhere because it would be unnecessary and make things more cluttered.
And yes, that IS a position mathematicians COULD have chosen once brackets WERE invented. They could have decided we should use them in every equation for absolute clarity of order. Saying we should not do that based on tradition alone is a bad reason.
The “always been the case” argument could justify any legacy system. We don’t still use Roman numerals for arithmetic just because they were traditional. Things DO change.
Ancient Greeks and Romans strongly resisted zero as a concept, viewing it as philosophically problematic. Negative numbers were even more controversial with many mathematicians into the Renaissance calling them “fictitious” or “absurd numbers.” It took centuries for these to become accepted as legitimate mathematical objects.
Before Robert Recorde introduced “=” in 1557, mathematicians wrote out “is equal to” in words. Even after its introduction, many resisted it for decades, preferring verbal descriptions or other symbols.
I could go on but if you’re going to argue why something shouldn’t be the case, you should argue more than “it’s tradition” or “we’ve done fine without it so far”. Because they did fine with many things in mathematics until they decided they needed to change or expand it.
Pakistan could back Iran while India backs Israel. It has the potential to escalate.
Yeah I don’t think I’ve ever taken a 12 minute poop in my life.
It could always play it if you reminded it of the board state every move. Not well, but at least generally legally. And while I know elites can play chess blind, the average person can’t, so it was always kind of harsh to hold it to that standard and criticise it not being able to remember more than 5 moves when most people can’t do that themselves.
Besides that, it was never designed to play chess. It would be like insulting Watson the Jeopardy bot for losing against the Atari chess bot, it’s not what it was designed to do.
I get why you’d ask, but I don’t think so. Seems to just be a case of English as a second language to me.
deleted by creator
Fine I deleted it. But it worked so whatever don’t need opinions now anyway. I was just asking for advice, it’s not like I was trying to pass it off as my own comment or something.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Your final sentence is the point. We didn’t have 1000s of nukes worldwide back then. If no one will dare to stop Russia attacking Ukraine with any meaningful amount of force under threat of nuclear war, why would anyone attack USA?
What about North Korea? Everyone knows what’s going on there isn’t right, but I don’t see the world banding together to overthrow their government and change things.
I think the 100 men vs bear meme is pretty relevant here as well. It’s one thing to say IF every country bands together they can take on USA, it’s another thing entirely to say you could get the world to all agree to that at once. And whoever makes the first move would likely be decimated.
And you’re right, if USA is backed entirely into a corner, Trump is crazy enough to press the nuke button. All it takes is him getting a few high up fanatics to go along with it. So the bear is also wearing a dead man’s switch.
I’m well aware but the people that have the ability to influence that couldn’t care less. It’s kind of like worrying about a nuclear war at this point, if it happens we’re all pretty much dead, and 99% of us aren’t part of the decision to launch them.
I’ve done/do as much activism on climate change that I can in the last 20 years. It’s basically as pointless as petitioning those in power to dismantle their nuclear bombs. No one in power is interested.
Yeah if the Boston massacre was enough so would this be.
It’s one piece. You tell me I want to spot cars one thing they have is wheels, I’m not going to immediately assume every bike I see is a car. But taken with other signs it builds a pattern.
Honestly I’ve found the best way to spot LLM is just use it an absolute crap ton. You’ll start to be able to spot it the way you can recognise the style of an author or director.