Seems like this would be a good place to treat those stocks (and options) as real property and tax them accordingly. With a properly progressive rate on them, we could set the lower end such that normal retirement funds won’t be impacted, with the high end discouraging hording assets.
Next up, we turn The Ellipse into the Circus Maximus. I mean, it’s already got the right shape for the chariot races.
The base is taking about Iran and not the Epstein files. I’d say Trump’s done a fine job fooling his base.
There is a reason I always say, “backslash, the one without the question mark”.
how would it put more dollars on the market than there was always going to be anyway?
Specifically printing money (as you proposed, or more realistically, the Fed giving more money to the US Treasury) means increasing the Dollar supply. Something kinda like that happens all the time and, in a much more controlled fashion, and is probably a net good. But, the Fed could just add $39 Trillion to the US Treasury’s bank account, it’s just a database update command anyway, and that would increase the Dollar supply by $39 Trillion. Sure, no actual bills would be created, that isn’t really important. At the scale those investments operate at, no one is handling cash, it’s just numbers in a database. But, it’s numbers in a database which are very carefully tracked and those numbers mean something to people. If I move $100 from the database at my bank to the database at your bank, you will have the ability to obtain more goods and services based on those database transactions. The whole thing is absolutely a house of cards, but it’s a house of cards that most people trust because if anyone fucks with that house of cards the US Government will show up and start shooting them. People also trust it because the US Government (US Fed, really. But that’s a whole different can of worms) is very careful about how it grows the money supply.
If the US Fed started just adding large amounts of money to the US Treasury’s account, people would notice and people would freak out.
The total Federal debt is $39 trillion, but there’s only something like $20 trillion actually in existence, if I’m not mistaken. Even if we collected every single existing dollar out there through taxes, we’d still have a shortfall of almost $20 trillion.
Wikipedia puts the number in actual bills and coins around $2T. But ya, the number of physical Dollars is dwarfed by the US debt. And no one cares. Most money exists as numbers in databases. But, those digital Dollars are every bit as real as the physical ones in the sense that they can be used to obtain goods and services.
Trump, is that you?
Jokes aside, this is a bad idea.
We could try printing our way out of it, but people will swear up and down that would cause runaway inflation
That’s exactly what would happen. With more dollars on the market chasing the same amount of goods (e.g. oil) the price of everything denominated in dollars would shoot through the roof. As a simplified example, imagine I have a barrel of oil and someone offers me $50 for it. That’s pretty good and I might be inclined to accept. But, with the money printer going BRRR, someone else has a lot of cash to splash around and offers me $100 for that barrel. Well great, that $50 bid can go get fucked. But they really want my barrel, and the money printer go BRRR so now they have $150 to offer me. And this cycle keeps going, so long as the money printer is BRRing along. Eventually though, I get smart and realize that, no matter how many dollars I get for my barrel of oil, the value of those dollars is going to collapse faster than I can spend them. So I finally get smart and tell both bidders to put their dollars somewhere else and demand that I get paid in a more stable store of wealth (e.g. gold or a more stable currency).
And, in theory, wouldn’t that cause bond yields to go down?
Maybe for a very short period, but it would reverse very, very quickly. If investors want to make money (wealth really). If they start to realize that US Treasury yields either not making as much money or losing money due to the devaluation of the US Dollar, they are going to demand higher yields. This is why countries which are suffering crises have to pay much higher borrowing costs. The US has been a special snowflake here, specifically because the US Dollar is seen as exceptionally stable and the US economy is seen as a safe place to put money. If we go stupid and start heading the hyperinflation route, that will all collapse. Read up on the Turkish Economic Crisis for something.
If treasuries were essentially guaranteed investments (and weren’t they kind of seen that way for a very long time, up until recently?), yields would drop and the cost of borrowing for the Federal government would go down.
That is why US borrowing costs are currently so low and one of the reasons the US can run these sorts of deficits and not have investors fleeing for other countries. Despite Trump’s flailing about, the US Dollar is still seen as a safe investment. It’s relatively stable, easily convertible and easily transferable. Plus, it’s used to buy oil. Inflating the fuck out of it would not help any of these perceptions and may make some nations with lots of oil consider requiring other forms of currency. You want to see a major economic catastrophe in the US? Convince the world to stop trading oil in US Dollars. Granted, as the largest single producer of oil and natural gas, the US has a lot of pull against that. So maybe, the US Dollar would survive the Middle East de-Dollarizing. But, it’s not a gamble I would want to make for anything other than really, really, really good reasons.
Answer #1: Someone gutted CISA’s budget. We’re not naming names here, but perhaps a branch of government with the “Power of the Purse” could figure out how to fund the organization properly.
Answer #2: Maybe don’t fire the people who actually make the organization work, just because they aren’t political hacks.
Answer #3: Cyber security is hard and it takes skilled people. Laying off large swaths of the staff isn’t conducive to good cyber security and leads to the remaining people taking short cuts which they shouldn’t. And a robust cybersecurity program has a batter chance to catch and correct these shortcuts before someone else finds them.
Of course, this would require the MAGAts in Congress to unwrap their collective mouths from Trump’s cock long enough to tell him to stop gutting critical government operations. Something we know isn’t going to happen. And given recent Primary results, is only going to get worse.
The just stopped working was the client stopped syncing?
The client doesn’t seem to detect new photos as they are created/taken. If I manually upload an image from my photos folder, it syncs just fine. Files in other folders seem to sync just fine. But, photos and videos just never even try to sync.
NextCloud decided to stop allow private made certificates with its client in 2025 and its what made me switch.
This hasn’t been an issue for me. I pay for a domain and have a certificate issued by Let’s Encrypt. The only certificate errors I get are when I refresh the certificate every 6 months, and that’s just the client asking me if I want to trust the new certificate.
Syncthing
I had looked into this a while back, but it seemed to be more of a point to point solution and not a client-server system. I was aiming to have an authoritative server with everything and clients (both phone and desktop) able to pull the needed/request files. I also like the ability to share via a web link when needed. Am I wrong in that understanding?
I currently use NextCloud, but I have been looking to move away from it. My main use case is for syncing photos and videos to the cloud from my phone (Android) and this used to work flawlessly. But, some time in early 2025, it just stopped working. I can still manually upload files and sync still works for other folders (e.g. Documents) just fine. But, photos and videos just won’t sync automatically. Not sure if there are other options which would work better, but NextCloud on Android just seems to be broke.
It depends on the user(s). Which position do you naturally reach for first? That’s where the oldest stock goes, with newer stock “behind” that in descending order of age. You always want to rotate stock, such that the oldest stock gets used up first.
You literally say it yourself. Precedents are being revoked. This shouldn’t be possible by the same court.
Why not? You are essentially arguing that the courts should always be bound by their first decision.
We have balance of powers for a reason
You don’t seem to understand what that means. The balance of powers doctrine is about ensuring that no one branch of government has too much power. A single branch changing its mind has nothing to do with that. In fact, all three branches do this all the time. Presidents can issue Executive Orders and those can (and regularly are) overridden by new Presidents. Congress passes laws regularly and it’s rather common for new Congresses to change those laws. It makes no sense to say that the Courts must always be bound by the first decision to be made and never update those decisions based on new information or a changing in society.
it was pretty well decided on that things don’t get re-litigated
Have you read a history book? Things are re-litigated constantly. Something I specifically pointed out in my last comment.
exactly to stop what is currently happening from happening.
Quite the opposite, really. Re-litigation of issues is one of the ways in which issues actually get changed. Let’s take something like Roe v. Wade. That was not the first time an abortion ban was in front of the Supreme Court. In fact, they had just decided US v. Vuitch. That case effectively rules that DC could enact a ban on abortion. Under your theory, Roe couldn’t have happened. We could also just jump all the way back to Cruickshank (which I mentioned before) and say that the restrictions on the Federal Government in the Bill of Rights (specifically the 1st and 2nd amendments) do not restrict State Governments.
Honestly, it sounds like your real complaint is that precedents you like or agree with are being overturned. And that sucks, but Supreme Court precedents have never crystalized US law in the past. On the upshot, they won’t in the future either. The actions of this Supreme Court will only last as long as the Justices continue to agree with the decisions being made. And that is likely to change eventually. It just takes time and hard political work.
They already can be. There’s a few ways to do it, but all of them are slow, difficult and rely on achieving a level of political alignment which is not going to happen any time soon. And almost certainly not for the things you’re likely to want.
First off, Congress can just pass a law to change the current law. For most things, this works out well enough and this still happens from time to time. But, it’s much less durable than other methods. If the Supreme Court sees that law as violating the Constitution, they will strike it down and that ends that path to change.
Second, Congress and the States could amend the Constitution. The has happened 27 times in US History, but it’s never been a simple process. The Constitution is hard to amend and it requires a lot of consensus. Given the fractious nature of current politics and going by voting patters, the near perfect split between left vs right, I doubt we could even get an amendment passed which just said, “don’t kick puppies”.
Lastly, the States could just call a Constitutional Convention and pass whatever they want. This is a bad idea. It’s a really, really bad idea. The last time the States did this, they scrapped everything the previous Constitutional Convention had written and started from scratch. Maybe this would result in something better, but given whom our current president is, I’d be kinda afraid of giving any political body that sort of power right now.
Technically, there’s also always the “ammo box” solution to forcing change. But, history provides lost of examples of that going very, very poorly and almost none of it going well. Also, that process is only legal if you win; so, maybe let’s not go there.
This proposed amendment would be based on the ratification provision in the Constitution, which requires only three-quarters of the states to approve an amendment. However, this amendment would only serve to overturn Supreme Court rulings if three-quarters of the state supreme courts reject the ruling or issue a contrary ruling.
Ignoring the fact that this would require an amendment to the US Constitution to put in place, it’s an interesting idea. Though, it’s worth noting that this would have likely delayed a lot of social change in the US. The 20th Century saw a lot of landmark changes to the interpretation to the Constitution, not all of them widely popular at the time.
What would be the political and judicial consequences if this amendment were to take effect?
This would devolve a lot of power away from the Federal Government. Arguably, this would be more similar to the pre-20th Century state of affairs. Control of State Governments would be even more important to political parties and this would likely shift power even further towards small, less densely populated States. In short, I’d bet on it causing a significant conservative shift in US law. Currently, the GOP hold 23 State Government trifectas (control of all legislative branches), and the DNC 16. The other 11 States are split. [source]. While such control does not guarantee control of State Supreme Courts (e.g. Virginia’s Supreme Court is still conservative), it is an indicator. But, I’d bet on a cumulative court decision being much closer to the current Supreme Court than many folks here would want.
The Supreme Court just interprets the laws as “unconstitutional” no matter how clearly laid out they are.
The US Constitution is considered the Supreme Law. If there is a conflict between the Constitution and any State or Federal law, the law in the Constitution wins. And the Constitution can be updated via amendments. We’ve done this 27 times, though the 18th Amendment was canceled by the 21st Amendment, so those two are a bit of a wash. Part of the Supreme Court’s job (kinda made up by the SC itself) is to interpret the law and decide if a conflict exists and how that conflict should be resolved. This is called Judaical Review.
And, this power ultimately makes sense in the context of the US Constitution. Consider for a moment that Congress “clearly laid out” a law which made supporting the other political party illegal (for whatever version of “other political party” strikes your fancy). This sort of law would be incredibly anti-democratic. It’s also a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment. But, who gets to decide that? If it’s just up to Congress, and they are the ones passing the law, that seems a pretty poor way to adjudicate it. Maybe the President gets to decide. And the President might do just that by vetoing it. But, it’s likely that a President is going to sign it, if he’s of the same party. That only leaves two options, we all start shooting at each other every time we feel the Constitution has been violated, or the last branch of the Federal Government steps in and makes the call. While certainly not non-partisan, they are somewhat removed from the political process and are more likely to make rational, long-term decisions. And it’s a damn sight better than the “shoot each other” option.
In practice, this has held up reasonably well. The main problem is that the early lawmakers in the US were kinda shit at their job. The early Amendments to the US Constitution are vague and leave a lot of room for interpretation. The result is that those interpretations have changed over time and as different factions have gained more influence over the Supreme Court. And given that the Justices on the Supreme Court serve for life (barring impeachment), those shifts can be slow and long lasting.
There is also the issue of implied rights and what exactly those are. Consider everyone’s favorite, a “Right to Life”. What is it, and where does it exist in the US Constitution? The definition for it is kinda fuzzy in US Federal law partly because it doesn’t explicitly exist in the US Constitution. There is the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Well great, but um, what are those rights? And who gets to decide? Again, we have to sort out a system for that, and the best we’ve come up with to date is the Supreme Court. Hardly a perfect solution, but we haven’t come up with anything better yet. This is also why a lot of courts look to the writings of the Founders, especially the Federalist Papers. Trying to divine what those “other rights” are is hard and the courts try to base their decisions on some sort of textual evidence or precedent. But again, these interpretations are not universal and are subject to change as both society and the make up of the court changes.
So no, “passing of laws doesn’t matter anymore, and neither does precedent” is incorrect. Passing laws matters, but those laws need to comply with the current interpretation of the Constitution and it’s amendments. And precedent matters in so much as the interpretations of the Constitution haven’t changed. The issue is that the current make up of the court has a very right-wing view. So, previous precedents (which were more left-wing) are being revoked. That anyone is surprised by this is kinda dumb. In fact The early and mid-20th century saw the Supreme Court taking a much more left-wing interpretation of the Constitution, which was a departure from prior generations. Decisions such as Tennessee v. Scopes (Scopes Monkey Trial) and Roe v. Wade were major departures from previous precedent. Many of us grew up with those decisions in place and took for granted that they were “settled”. But, they really weren’t. They were Supreme Court decisions which could be reversed by newer Supreme Court decisions.
And while it sucks when that happens to decisions we like, it’s also been useful when it’s gone the other way. In US v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court decided that the rights enumerated in the US Constitution did NOT bind the States. Specifically, that States were not bound by the 1st or 2nd Amendments and it also greatly limited the applicability of the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, this precedent would be rolled back by later decisions and Incorporation slowly redefined the relationship between the Federal Constitution and State governments.
Ultimately, law is a messy thing. And it’s very much the outcome of a political process which is subject to people of all stripes, including those whose opinions and beliefs will be hostile and toxic to your own. It’s a pretty terrible way to decide laws, but it’s better than most everything else we’ve tried in history.
Good for them. If we’re going to live through all the stupid of an AI bubble, it’s good to see some of the insane profits making their way to the people who actually build the part and not just management and shareholders.
When you get to doing division and multiplication, it can make sense to look at what is being done to what and see if operations cancel out or simplify. E.g. if you are multiplying by 6 and dividing by 2 and bother operations are going to affect the same number/group/etc. there is no need to do both operations, you just multiply by 3 since that’s ultimately what you are doing. Really, any place you can simplify operations, do that. Same goes for addition/subtraction. The Commutative Property is really handy for making hard math easier.
Do any of you, living in the US, vote?
Yup, everyone does. If someone chooses not to vote, they have cast a voted for “I don’t care”. And have decided to let everyone else choose for them. They may not like any of the choices, but politics has always been “the art of the possible”. If they want perfect solutions, they need to start their own dictatorship. If they won’t or can’t do that, voting is the only bit of control they’re going to get. And that means some type of compromise with everyone else in society. It’s a terrible system, but history hasn’t provided a lot of better examples to follow. Don’t like the system, change it. And unless you have the force of arms to do it the violent way (and it’s really unlikely you do), you’re only real option is to do it via the soap box and ballot box.
Would you ever consider voting DSA/Socially democratic[?]
Sure, though not any time soon. One of the things I’d like to change about our system is the First Past the Post nature of elections. But, until that happens, the math just doesn’t work in most elections. I vote in primaries and vote for the options who most closely match my views in those. But, come the general elections (especially at the federal level), third parties are basically DOA. I’d rather vote “not Nazi” than sit on my thumbs and watch “Nazi” coast to victory because I’m stuck letting “perfect” be the enemy of “not a fucking Nazi”. Should the DSA reach a point that they aren’t an “also ran” in an election I’m voting on, sure I’d probably vote for them.
Would you ever vote for someone like Trump just to make things intentionally worse in the hopes of sparking off a revolution?
Well, it hasn’t happened with Trump. And looking at history, I really don’t think revolutions are such the clean and wonderful things people in online forums like to make them out to be. History provides lots of example of revolutions ending up with groups like the Taliban in charge and basically none ending up as egalitarian utopias.
Not sure if I will ever vote again at this point
That’s your choice, but you’ve made the choice to let other people decide your government. You can sit on the sidelines and stew in your own smugness. But, no one cares. And no one will ever care about your opinions if you’re not willing to enter the political milieu and fight for them.
Oh no!
It all depends on conditions. If there’s lightning, it’s time to get out. If the rain is riding on cold air, probably gonna get out, cold water isn’t fun. Warm rain with no lightning, who cares keep swimming. Also, windy conditions (which often accompany rain) while at the ocean can cause strong waves and riptides, that might warrant caution or getting out.
False positives out of Defender?
I’m shocked I tell you, shocked.
Well, not that shocked.
My company has let us get Enterprise Copilot and has been pushing us all to “use AI”. So, I now use it as a a semi-functional search for SharePoint/Outlook/Files on an almost daily basis. I also ask it questions about Microsoft documentation on a regular basis. I wonder how long it’s going to be until they yank my license.