New horizons launched 9.5 years before it reached Pluto, and your average reader who has an interest in Planet 9 will likely know it took New Horizons about that long.
15x means no one alive today will see a mission that reaches the planet, and that's more accessible for most readers per above.
In fact, with apple providing this service, it's objectively worse — if apple declines to refund you and you charge back via card, apple (and Google etc) will just ban your account.
Removing apple and google from the payment chain mitigates this risk.
> "Deports" is wrong word for removing a citizen. "Expels" would be more appropriate.
While this is true, the use of what's technically the wrong word highlights that the wrong action is being applied.
The action is a deportation. The targets are people who must/shall not ever be deported. Therefore the headline immediately gets attention for concisely describing a violation.
I think what happened here is that the parents were here illegally. The children just had to accompany the parents. I find it quite possible that the children will be allowed back in once they no longer have to depend on their parents.
The reports of no due process or little to no due process for citizens[1], that is the main point to my understanding. Due process for [1] would at least include making sure the proper documentation was in order so they could easily return in the future, making sure any health care needs could be meet in Honduras or any other critical needs, (not all the details are in but) the father in [1] wanted the child to stay in the US, but they were deported anyway.
I am not seeing all the details I want, but given the reports of 4 year olds having to defend themselves without representation it is easy to believe these reports of no or little due process for child citizens.
I have to wonder what horrors and shames ones pathway of life must have taken to think a person existing in a space is summarizable as illegal. A person cannot be illegal. They cannot exist in a space illegally. They could enter a space illegally. They could be unauthorized to be in a space. But by simple fact that they exist in the world, if the law makes them illegal to exist, then that law is unjust and should be considered void ab initio based on the very few common similarities among coherent moral frameworks.
From a practical perspective, as parents and tutelaries of children who have citizenship, they should be allowed to stay as guardians and join the US society. We have so many who thumb their nose at culture in the US, whether the right wanting to commit genocide against the outgroup under the guise of MAGA or the left self-shaming because they know the US can be morally better, but of all people, immigrants, especially undocumented and unauthorized immigrants who risk everything and worked outside standard pathways just for the chance to be at the periphery of US society, vulnerable to the predators and outlaws that inhabit that ___domain, they should be given extraordinary respect and consideration -- which is what we grant all persons who are in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (which is geographically defined).
> A person cannot be illegal. They cannot exist in a space illegally.
I don't know if this is true, it seems more like a situational demand that you're making but giving it the tone of a fact that you're pointing out.
If you break into my house, and I shoot you while you're doing it, I won't go to prison. So either you're illegal, or I've become so extraordinarily legal that I can shoot people with impunity. Whatever has happened in that hypothetical, I do not think it is unjust. If you also do not, you don't agree with your own premise.
Maybe if you make it rhyme, it will slip past people's reasoning skills better.
> I have to wonder what horrors and shames ones pathway of life
You don't know anyone here. Your self-regard is off the charts.
> You don't know anyone here. Your self-regard is off the charts.
Ironically, I know myself fairly well and quite a few folks in all political persuasions, and thus remain confident in my priors. But I could see how one could mistake empathy for egomania.
Calling people "illegal" is a hallmark of steeping in rightwing/authoritarian propaganda as it is about "othering" others. Self-abuse should be discouraged whether it is physical (cutting, suicide, etc.) or mental (losing one's capacity and faculties for reasoning to authoritarian propaganda).[0,1,2,3]
Respect for law, like any other kind of respect, has to be earned.
If you pass nonsensical, or worse yet, outright evil laws, not only will they not be respected, but one can reasonably argue that it is a moral duty to disrespect them and assist in their breaking. The Underground Railroad is a prominent historical example of this.
Do you think restriction of immigration is a case of nonsensical or outright evil law? Do you think law abiding deportation of illegal immigrants is morally justified in concept?
no matter where you land on this, it stands that division on the topic is a top point of conflict in the US. I dont think either side claiming to be above the law helps move society in a more productive direction
>Respect for law, like any other kind of respect, has to be earned.
If someone choses to disregard the the law, this puts them in conflict with those who do care about it, and they will often seek to force obedience.
If I find you breaking in my house, I dont care about earning your respect, at least not in a way that you would enjoy.
You posit a false dichotomy here. The law isn't just about what is prohibited, but also about what the consequences are, and how it is enforced. One doesn't need to believe that e.g. stealing should be legal to oppose on moral grounds a law that says thieves get the death penalty.
Let me ask you directly: do you believe that people who smuggled away slaves into freedom, back when US had legalized slavery on large parts of its territory, were in the wrong and didn't "help move society in a more productive direction"?
Im not sure how to continue the conversation in a productive manner if you are withholding key information about your stance.
You refuse to answer my questions, but I will answer yours. Of course not, I don't think smuggling slaves was wrong.
I still hold that refusal to respect the law is incredibly divisive and leads to social conflict and destruction. In the case of the US, it led to the most deadly and destructive war in American history.
When you give up on settling issues with the law, you move to settling them with brute force. I dont think this is a positive direction.
I will ask one last time: Do you think restriction of immigration is a case of nonsensical or outright evil law? Do you think law abiding deportation of illegal immigrants is morally justified in concept?
I cannot fathom being so far removed from facts on the ground as this comment suggests its commentator is.
1. "respect for the law" requires both due process, for both citizens and people in the geographical jurisdiction of the US, and respect for the courts. Anyone who works around due process and court orders does not respect the law. This is a general statement regarding the treatment by the current regime, using ICE, towards immigrants and anyone they think is associated to it. Literally -- this article is about deporting of US citizens held incommunicado and without legal representation, and people are already protesting judges being arrested and legal residents being exiled without due process.
2. "this is the rhetoric that drove the country to this point" would more appropriately be attributed the othering of immigrants and groups MAGA doesn't agree with - how many Haitians ate dogs and cats in Ohio? Maybe more than 0, but certainly not the unmoored groundswell of false-flag horror that crested at the rightful mocking of Trump's debate performance.[0] Ref: the moral teachings on motes, beams, eyes, Golden Rule, etc. across time and religions of all stripes. I reject the notion that me expressing empathy for immigrants and the xenophobists is rhetoric driving the country apart. It's calling a spade a spade.
3. "If you want more immigration, work to increase legal quotas and update the law." This is sort of one of those feel-good statements that have no meat or content in them. We had a perfectly cromulent immigration reform ready to go until Trump threw a tantrum and got Republican legislators to vote against their own interests because it would hurt his presidential chances. We could go back to that, it had some good political will, instead of the authoritarian nonsense chaotically deployed. Of course, you wouldn't want me to be the authoritarian -- we'd come out of things with an open border and trade agreement across the Americas because that's more efficient and morally justifiable than military intervention at a mis-named "invasion" at the border (almost as poorly named as DOGE). So rather than enabling groups to work towards coherent immigration strategies, we have a tyranny of the majority assumed to be the will of the land.[1]
[1] "It is abundantly clear that many activist judges around the country have been acting politically in order to sabotage President Trump's agenda, and disenfranchise the 77 million Americans that voted for him." - Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisc.) (This is 100% political grandstanding, since polls show that most people now disagree with Trump's agenda, [1a])
You are correct. People watch too much TV and think this is out of the ordinary. If the children were kept here we'd be weeping about kids being separated from their parents.
Yes, because expelling citizens is illegal, and separating children from their families is tragic. Just being sarcastic and cynical about it doesn't change this.
This just dishonest. In the past, the rule of law applied. The law is not perfect or kind, but there was a process where people could defend themselves and egregious violations of U.S. law like this would be avoided. It wouldn’t be the child being “separated from their parents”, it would be the family choosing to go together OR the family choosing to have their child live with relatives.
The case we heard about yesterday illustrates the difference. A judge Trump appointed raised the alarm not just because due process is being violated but because a two year old’s father was pleading with the court to let his daughter live with him. Prior to this administration, nobody would have blinked an eye at a U.S. citizen switching custody to a U.S. citizen parent, and it’d save the government a lot of money to let that happen.
That's an unfortunate incident. As per my understanding, the father can technically go get the child back while the child is under the age of 16, using just the child's US birth certificate, but only through the land border. I understand that this can be difficult since traveling from Honduras to a US-Mexico land border crossing could not be too easy.
> [Boeing] would sell four businesses from a digital unit to Thoma Bravo, a private equity firm specializing in software. Those include Jeppesen, which provides navigational charts and information to pilots, and ForeFlight, an app that helps plan flights and monitor weather.
I don't imagine any PE company would prioritize opex on quality assurance, so this is yet another hairline crack in the pylons keeping the engines attached to the airline industry.
Rights afforded by the US Constitution such as free speech, assembly, and due process extend to everyone in the country, not just citizens. But apparently, there is no right to be in the US. The state department (Marco Rubio) has the power to revoke any non-citizen’s permission. And that is exactly what they are doing right now to non-citizens who are legally in the US on visas for work, school, vacation, etc., if these people do or say something the Trump administration finds objectionable like attending a pro-Palestinian protest. They’ve revoked 500 student visas so far at dozens of universities. Google “revoke student visa”. And since there is no illegality needed, there is no due process necessary. These people are just sent home with no explanation given. In some cases they have no idea what they even did wrong. They can even be kicked out on mistaken identity because there is no due process. This has nothing to do with illegal immigration. These people are in the US legally, and have done nothing illegal. This policy is apparently designed to intimidate anyone who dissents, including citizens. If the Trump administration can find a legal loophole that allows them to harm their enemies they are using it. And if no loophole exists, they are trying it anyway (since Trump’s Supreme Court has already ruled that nothing he does can be a crime). See their actions against law firms and investigations into Miles Taylor (called Trump “unfit”) and Chris Krebs (called the 2020 election “secure”). All this is happening under your nose and you see it as purely focused on illegal immigration.
I'm surprised Australia placed relatively low compared to the others. But yeah, that answers the question of which single countries are the most attractive. But none are overwhelmingly importing expats.
The main reminder here (not even really a novel takeaway - this ends up happening like clockwork in some shape or form every few generations) is that laws can only be enforced after the damage is done.
Short of overwhelming activism e.g in the form of recall elections where applicable, constitutional conventions, etc., the degradation of both the rule of law and the standing of the United States on the world stage will continue for the next 21 months. And there's every reason to believe that voters suffering today will again be swayed through misinformation to vote against their own interests in the November 2026 congressional elections.
I remember saying the same thing about my girlfriend's conservative mother, in my mid-twenties, around the time when people were very worked up over GWB's supposed degradation of US World standing. It was a mistaken sentiment. What I didn't understand then is that they are voting for their interests. It's just that their and your idea of their interests differs, and they're obviously correct in their evaluation. Because they are them and you aren't. Common misperception.
That wasn't nostalgia on my end. I was only making an implied point. To remember that era clearly is to know that it is impossible for sentiment to be worse. My point is about the flaws of perception and memory, and regrettably immortal pabulum.
US approval varies across all populations, from inception. Some British still refer to us as Colinists, with a hint of disdain. People have always complained about the United States. Which is irrelevant, on balance, in the modern period.
What are these complaints about? DJT in general? Same record, different guy. Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. In a complex economy that few to no people in public discussions understand.
A bottomless fall along which that particular immortal complaint is always relevant is no fall at all. Which was my implication about the relative silliness of the boilerplate comments.
This isn't even a defense of any particular issue. More like a wish for a better breed of critic, if nothing but for a change of pace and interest. Or maybe because we need actually effective critics, to maintain a healthy ecosystem.
I mean, "they aren't aware of their own interests" is truly basement tier immature rhetoric.
Perhaps it'd be better for the OP to explain how whomever they want to vote for will address opposition voter's perceived most important interests. Otherwise, one can't credibly complain about their vote.
I'm going to just toss the entirety of your comment out to focus on the last line. Yes I can. We all lived through the same 4 years, saw and felt the disaster the first time, and now we're fucking doing it again. If your only policy issue is that you don't think women & gay people deserve rights & you want to be able to use slurs with impunity, you don't have policy positions.
Nobody should be falling into the trap of trying to approach these people as rational actors with a coherent idea of what they want or how the country should be run. They've proven to us, twice in the last decade, that they don't have anything resembling a serious idea.
I'm sure this comment will get flagged & I'll probably get a note about remaining civil, but fuck this whole comment. You may feel fine hand waving, equivocating, & telling yourself this is "business as usual." Sit this one out. Your head isn't in the game and the stakes are different this time.
Spare us the theatrics. Every four years wherein the opposition is in office is a perceived "disaster" for the other side.
Here's a question for you and the Nation: did the other side also see the first four years as a disaster? Can you accurately describe why?
You complain about a lack of "rational actors", and yet your complaints aren't couched in rational language.
Your comment resembles a teenage outburst more than anything else.
Can the Nation advance via teenage-style emotional breakdowns, or will the teenagers have to "sit this one out" so that the noise can be turned down enough to progress to a better stage?
What I see is someone who isn't confident enough in the persuasion of their views to do anything but engage in an embarrassing tantrum and hyperbole that isn't designed to solve a single problem.
You say that "my head isn't in the game", and yet you proudly refuse to play on the board.
It's literally impossible to perceive your strategy. It isn't persuasion let alone compromise.
> Perhaps it'd be better for the OP to explain how whomever they want to vote for will address opposition voter's perceived most important interests. Otherwise, one can't credibly complain about their vote.
87% of Trump voters during Oct 23-25 2024 at least slightly believed that "American jobs are insecure right now and our future prosperity is under threat."[0]
I reckon I don't have to point at what's been going on the last few months. It's certain that the election going the other way would've at least not resulted in the current debacle.
> Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now.
Implying that tariffs of this magnitude would've been inevitable[1][2] regardless of the government elected shows a lack of good-faith participation in this conversation, so I'll move on. Cheers, mate.
My opinion stands. Claiming that I'm not being honest in my opinion is not a valid escape from the conversation. But be my guest.
Tariffs were inevitable, in any administration. Unless the plan was to have been much worse. With all due respect, truly, I'm sure that you don't understand how the international monetary system works at a basic level. For reasons, tariffs were inevitable. All sides have been preparing.
Kamala Harris had zero chance of winning, lost in a landslide, and could have said whatever she pleased because she was never going to be there to follow through. Believe they knew she didn't have a chance. She was truly a candidate who could not win. Hillary Clinton could not beat Donald Trump, and she was a vastly superior candidate. Anyone with political horse sense knew that the first woman POTUS would not be Kamala Harris. Forcing Biden out was equivalent to throwing the election. Though, I'm not saying that I know that he would have won.
Second, I look at policy to inform on politician intention. I recommend that you do the same. Instead of looking at stated intent.
In your sources, "strategic" (or surgical[0]) tariffs are mentioned, which is perhaps the only accepted practice for applying tariffs compared to blanket tariffs.
As it happens, you've now twice doubled down on claiming both administrations would've imposed tariffs, and the manner in which you conveyed your point ("Tariffs? Inevitable regardless of the office holder. Prepared for by both sides, for a long time now. In a complex economy that few to no people in public discussions understand.") implies that both policies would've been equal when in fact it's quite clear even from your links that the two approaches would've been different - Biden/Harris' surgical application vs Trump's current blanket tariffs.
The repeated implication that the two policies would be equivocal is at best a failure to understand the debate and, at worst, in bad faith.
[0] https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/trumps-pr... - "This isn’t normally the way presidents act when it comes to tariffs. Additional tariffs are generally imposed very selectively, under trade remedy statutes crafted by Congress. They are actions taken pursuant to a finding that a particular product is involved in a specified unfair trade act, or it may be that the new tariff is a surgical retaliatory measure to open a market for a specified American product."
---
Went ahead and chucked the thread into archive.is so it's not lost to the sands of time. I guess now I'll bow out in a manner that's not valid :)
You tell me what I supposedly implied, and then set that up as a shifted-goalposts straw-man argument.
Which in my experience is consistently the sign of someone who can't take the "L".
It's common with people who "argue in bad faith". In contrast with your "twice doubled down" accusation of me doing so, we have actual hard evidence of you arguing in bad faith.
Your argument consistently relies on gaslighting me as to what my unstated beliefs are.
Tactics of a scoundrel, or perhaps just a person unskilled in having "good faith" debates.
I more than understand the debate. I'm even being polite surrounding your general and clear lack of information on how the global monetary system works and its current state of affairs. That is, your lack of context for tariffs. Because if you had it, you'd realize how dumb this conversation is.
You can't keep the discussion on-track without needing to shift it, in order to feign superiority before telling me that you again won't be back. A shameful demonstration!
The original argument was whether tariffs were going to be applied or not, in any administration.
I stated that they were unavoidable. I didn't make any statements in regard to exactly equivalent tariff policies across administrations. You created a prior non-existent argument, blew it up, and stomped off.
Comparative intended granular tariff policy isn't even even an interesting discussion in my opinion. I don't think that the realized strategy would be predictable for either administration, whatever they said in the past. Nuance of tariff policy is too granular to predict. In spite of any prior statements. I don't believe that such statements are evidence of firm commitment, just direction.
But I'm glad you now admit that the Harris administration would have applied tariffs.
> Half of the Great Depression was caused by tariffs.
The downvotes might be because it's unrelated to the discussion, but it's also not really wrong. The exact impact of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act probably can't be quantified, but it's well agreed that it contributed significantly to the extent of the depression itself due to the retaliatory tariffs triggered and the resulting drop in global trade. (Institutional access needed - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-...)
The paper you have linked is a survey (economic historians are like other people and believe things that do not have clear evidence too, as someone who studied economic history I can give you a long list of subjects on which opinions without evidence are common...this is one of the most notorious), it does not say that it contributed half (there is no way to know this either, it is an anti-factual statement, there is research that says it contributed to the drop in imports...but this is against the backdrop of a massive drop that was probably at least 5-10x as large caused by banking), the quantum is extremely important here because you can say something is probably negative but also probably irrelevant (true in this case, the reason why this statement is said is because tariffs are negative ceterius paribus, so it is easy to say that they were negative but this ignores all other context...the irrationality about tariffs is exposed by almost all of the growth miracles in economic history occurring in countries with extremely high tariffs), and (finally) there is massive amounts of evidence that 99% of the cause was banking.
On the latter, this is knowable because you can point to failures of specific banks that coincided with the Depression getting worse in areas where those banks traded (in particular, the failure of Caldwell). This is a very different kind of evidence to the one for tariffs, in economic history terms the latter is shrug maybe (this kind of thing is not apparent to people who don't know how the sausage is made). This is why you have papers (like Eichengreen) that revolve around asking why SH is such an obsession for economists (usually not actual economic historians). Compare this to the number of papers on banking history of the period, on the failures of massive banks like Caldwell...there are very few on this because banking history is extremely unpopular and boring amongst economists because you can't use mathematical models that show how clever you are, macro is very popular but completely useless (again, most people don't know how the sausage is made).
There is no evidence that it contributed significantly. This is like your house being on fire, and saying that your house collapsed because you left the kitchen door open (and, again, to repeat: there is no evidence that tariffs are bad either...because almost every country that has experienced huge growth had tariffs in the past, there is a lot of evidence that tariffs/trade barriers are bad for economically uncompetitive countries i.e. the EU today, South America in the 50/60s, and Britain 20-70s but those two things are not separable, tariffs have a context).
Other comments are also mostly wrong. Issue wasn't unregulated banks in the GD either, most banks that failed were regulated. There is an argument for saying that state regulators were worse, that there was massive regulatory fragmentation (in the 20s, banks were regulated in a completely different way to today) but I am not clear why people would assume regulation automatically leads to less crises. Savings and Loans were also heavily regulated...still blew up. The issue is that heavy regulation usually causes massive concentration in the banking sectors (Canada and Australia are two examples) and this generally leads to a much lower frequency of banking crises but significantly greater severity. The assumption that regulators can just magically find this optimum is not logical (and is based on the theory that people who work at banks do not have an incentive to stop failures, this aspect was sold heavily after 2008 to support significantly more regulation...but it isn't accurate, for example Lehman's senior management lost 95% of their net worth, and ignores that regulators were overseeing the institutions that failed before too).
Your whole argument is based on "it's causal because we saw a peak just after a bank collapse", as if a fire started bt a spark couldn't have fuel and generate other sparks in a positive feedback loop. The rest is basically "there is evidence that" without nothing to back it up.
See Rustici (2005),Irwin (1998), Bond (1993) and Crucini (1996)
I'm not as engaged in this topic as you are, likely because I'm not as ideologically fixated on it. But the idea that the Tariff Act had a significant negative impact is well analyzed (e.g above), hence the consensus.
Imports fell 40% and it is a small part of that fall. And, as the paper explains, the actual economic impact was quite limited in the context of the Great Depression and the financial system shutting down completely.
The reason why I am engaged is because I have a postgrad in economic history. Within economic history, SH is generally understood as something where the evidence is often misunderstood by journalists (for the reasons I have explained), and this filters down (the Irwin paper is somewhat notorious for this because Irwin is a trade economist who is often very careful, because trade economics is often non-conclusive, and you hear the conclusion from people who have never read or actually understood the paper...you may not have noticed but I alluded to this paper in my original argument, it is that well-known that people will misunderstand it).
The issue is that people who haven't studied GD in depth do not understand any part of the context. They just do a quick Google search and then act as if this is the same thing as prolonged study.
In all seriousness (aside from all the comments stating they'd ordered it. Hey, I just did myself), it's interesting seeing Meta go after the employee but seemingly not make much of an effort to go after the publisher.
What would they hope to gain going after any of it so late anyway? Surely if their goal is to dissuade others from publishing tell-alls, the resulting publicity from their suits against this one would do the opposite? If they really wanted to stop the book, they should've gone after it early before publication, but it seems like they dropped the ball and are doing more damage to themselves trying to catch up.
Publishers have high priced lawyers on retainer (who will copy and paste the same winning brief they have served anytime they have been challenged before) - individuals are resource constrained.
I suspect the actual issue is that the publisher is not a party to whatever contract there exists between the author and Meta.
Unfortunately for free speech, it is no longer the case (if it ever was) that publishers have strong financial resources compared to an increasing number of those who want to hide things.
They are defending the author in this case though. Im sure they bully authors plenty too, but I'm pretty sure they keep some around for allegations of libel and other complications where they have the authors back.
Exactly. The employee entered into an agreement with Meta, then broke the contractual agreement with this book.
This is the purpose of those agreements.
Meta has no such agreement with the publisher.
You can argue about the merits of such agreement separately, but there isn’t any mystery in this situation. Employee entered into an agreement with Meta and then broke the agreement. Meta is pursuing the terms of the agreement.
Seems like she, personally, has been spared the need to go out and promote the book, the only thing Facebook seems to have gotten out of the arbitration. In return they provided far more promotion than her appearing on podcasts would have done.
IANAL, and would really like to read some legal commentary of what Facebook thought they were going to achieve. As far as I can tell they have a pretty hollow victory. Even if they were somehow able to stop her from receiving royalties, it seems like Macmillan could pay her sideway with a contract and advance on her next book, her story of Facebook trying to silence her. Once again, IANAL, desperately want to read multi page thoughts from one on the Facebook strategy.
Yes, I bought the book and am enjoying it immensely. It has a nice fun irreverent sense of humor.
Contracts only bind the people who are party to them, so they couldn't go after the publisher on the same grounds. And there is a lot of case law around suing publishers so they probably know they would lose a lawsuit on other grounds (and maybe get an anti-slap ruling against them which could cost a lot of money).
One thing I don't understand though is I thought arbitration could only award monetary relief? I didn't realize that they could issue injunctions like this which I thought constituted an equitable remedy.
> seemingly not make much of an effort to go after the publisher.
That's a much, much harder case to make. Wynn-Williams can be reasonably held to be bound by the terms of her severance agreement and whatever NDA was part of it. The publisher is allowed to print whatever they want as long as they don't knowingly defame someone.
What might happen in the longer term is Meta suing the author (this case here is just an arbitration ruling) for proceeds from the book sales. NDAs have a hard time constraining speech, but they can absolutely constrain your ability to make money from speech. But again that's going to depend on the specific contract.
In my mind its one of those events that is hard to know the exact motives. Could be as simple as enforcing the standard of their contracts or as extreme as actual retribution.
15x means no one alive today will see a mission that reaches the planet, and that's more accessible for most readers per above.
reply