IHeartBadCode

I'm a bit wordy, that's something I'm working on. Thank you here's your boost for the kind reminder.

"Congress has taken decisive action to defend our constitutional order and hold accountable a public official who has violated his oath of office,” Representative Mark E. Green, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee

But you decided to tank the bipartisan border reform bill. Clearly sound logic here. SMH

But yeah, even Republicans in the Senate are indicating that it's likely the Senate will dismiss the trail as, shockingly, everyone has way better things to do.

However, this is Republicans attempting to normalize impeachment. So this way, when someone mentions Trump being impeached twice they can say, "well so-and-so was impeached sixty-three times!! Impeachment doesn't mean anything!" Which impeachment does mean something, just in this case it shows how petty the House Republicans have become.

Impeaching someone ALWAYS means something, just that if you're sitting there impeaching someone over border issues when yourself have tabled solving those border issues at the behest of the leading candidate for a political party, it clearly doesn't say the thing these Republicans are hoping it says. You cannot reasonably believe people OF SOUND MIND can look at the justification of this impeachment and the recent tanking of solutions by this exact body in the House and think that the conclusions were arrived at in an apolitical manner.

Literally Trump said, "Don't give Biden the win on the border." I mean c'mon, okay you might have an issue with how the guy was running things, you're Congress, you can literally pass legislation forcing the guy to do your bidding. That's actually an option. But Republicans of the House cannot actually get it passed, not just because of their dysfunctional nature, but because Trump told them to not. So this is the result, rather than actually pass legislation to set the guy on the "right" path (I mean I'm going to give GOP House a benefit of doubt here, that they actually want to fix something) and boy oh boy, it was bipartisan it COULD HAVE been a slam dunk here. But rather than do that, they did this.

Republicans are going to think that this is some sort of win, that's cool, whatever helps them to sleep. But nobody is going to forget that Trump literally asked Republicans to tank any kind of solution. That's what this impeachment says. And literally, that's the echo over at r/conservative, it basically boils down to a "take that Biden!" Rather than people actually going, "shouldn't have Congress given clarity if they had issues?"

But of course you ask that question to some of them and it'll instantly devolve into "did Democrats give Trump … ?" And that's the tell that it's tit-for-tat for those people.

In approving the charges, the House also appointed 11 Republicans to serve as impeachment managers, including Mr. Green and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, the right-wing lawmaker who has led the charge against Mr. Mayorkas.

LOL!!! In a perverse sense though, I would love to see MTG attempt to form solid arguments in an impeachment trail. Lady routinely trips on logic and her fallback is just screeching, which given a Democrat would be presiding over the trial, I would love to see Sen. Patty Murray figuratively chuck a gavel at MTG's head and tell her to "shut the fuck up!" Ah man, I almost miss the chance to see MTG as an impeachment manager. Impeachments are usually highly politically charged (hence the reason the background upon which it is set is pretty important) and that's like Rep. Greene's trigger to ignite. Lady doesn't know how to pump the breaks on her partisanship or emotions (which there's a time and place for that in Congress for sure, not when you're in the Senate with the opposite party presiding). Now Rep. Mark Green now that's an obvious choice, he's absolutely got a flare for dotting the i's in an argument. Perfect choice for a manager into this and has a great deal of understanding this domain. But him opposite of MTG, that's just hilarious. I would love to see Rep. Mark Green give Rep. Greene side eyes to reel it in on an almost consistent basis during the hearing.

That's just entertainment you cannot make up.

MMMPox!

indiscernible screaming

MMMPox.

cries of agony

Yeah, yeah!

While Crystal Dynamics didn’t specify which content it’s referring to, it’s speculated that it could be the animalistic depiction of Pacific Island natives in Tomb Raider 3, who are implied to be cannibals.

Yeah that's with any position. Things change. More argument about loyalty being a transitory thing. My second job was like that. Was really good and then the company we third partied for was sued by a US State for fraud. When the contract wasn't renewed I thought we'd move on, but I was surprised by how many of our eggs had been placed in a single basket. The vast majority of the company I worked for relied on those contracts to supply jobs, so when that went away the company went from thirty software developers to one. 90% of the company I worked for's value evaporated within two months.

It was this that I also became aware of what the WARN Act was.

I guess I'll interject with personal experience so take everything that follows as, my most humble opinion of things. I have zero expectation for anyone to agree.

Gen X myself, I am currently in a position that I am completely happy with now. That did not come without a massive fight. This is quite literally my 6th job in my field (system's programming) and now the second longest I've stayed with a company. Quoting from the story:

Without the promise of high returns for their loyalty, Gen Z has learned to follow the money

And this should be people's default until shown otherwise. I cannot count the number of times I've heard "it's just business" in the course of my various jobs. At the end of the day, your employer is looking at bottom line most times. One should not invest themselves into any relationship when the other is simply looking at the piratical ramifications of the relationship and not the broader nature of that relationship.

It's about the money and being able to pay for living expenses, which is reasonable. The dollar went a lot further when baby boomers were entering the workforce. It doesn't go as far now.

Yeah, while suffering when sufferable was okay when a taco was under a buck, dollar doesn't go anywhere today. The amount of time to have shits and giggles with an employer on actual compensation is about seven seconds today. When I first got into the field being underneath the region's average for X number of years wasn't unheard of. And for me, it was all cool because shit was cheap. Today, being under the region's average for a position needs to be measured in X minutes, not this year shit. Employer's that want to play games, Gen Z should not budge for a second on the matter.

When a raise and promotion don't hit swiftly, Gen Z is quick to jump ship

I'll say this. When I got to my current position, I knew right off that this was a good company. How? I can't really put a finger on the how, but having been in two jobs previous that were hyper toxic, I had a feeling. Now, I still didn't play games coming in though. I indicated exactly what I expected and that the job couldn't be "all hands on deck" 24/7, 365. That's just shitty management. I gave them six months to show me the money and if it didn't come through I had every intention to hit the door at the 121 day mark.

There was still friction, no meaningful relationship doesn't have those moments, but the things I was indicating was actually being taken serious, and compensation for kicking ass on my end was forthcoming. If your employer doesn't like talking money with employees, you're going to have a lot of friction and I'm not telling anyone what to do, but employer's feeling uncomfortable with the topic of money should be a red flag for you. If that's the straw that breaks the camel's back or just a stone in the wall for you, that's your call. But in my opinion, employers that get squishy about the word money shouldn't be employers. Not with how this world currently is. Maybe we can go back to the "ha ha ha" playing coy game when a significant percentage of a person's paycheck doesn't have to go for simply feeding themselves.

But Gen Zers "haven't lost the passion for what they want to do,"

And I have never thought they have. The Gen Z that I oversee are some of the best workers I've ever dealt with. But the world isn't allowing them to be slacking on ensuring that proper compensation is constant. Inflation is eating away any kind of raise I can give them as fast as I can give it to them. As far as I have seen, Gen Z is some of the best workers to date to come out of the woodwork and it's actually kind of shitty they cannot have the environment to flourish that I had at their age.

Again, from my personal experience, I think there's a lot of management that's still in the lax mood of how employment might have worked back in the day. When a few years under the line of compensation was just the name of the game. But the game has seriously changed and a lot of the folks my age and the boomers as well are still stuck in "the way things used to be™" and it's so bad right now, no one has time for that anymore.

As I've heard so often, it's just business. But I think employers have been so used to the giving that advice, they are completely at loss when receiving it. The Gen Z I've worked with, and it may be different for others, but the ones I've worked with and the ones I currently manage, they're some of the hardest workers who take everything they do as personal value and will be some of the best employees IF YOU ENCOURAGE THEM AND COMPENSATE THEM.

I too dislike that the world has become really centered around pay. But to quote some Tolken:

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

Treat your folks like people, and the rest mostly falls in place.

I guess I'll interject with personal experience so take everything that follows as, my most humble opinion of things. I have zero expectation for anyone to agree.

Gen X myself, I am currently in a position that I am completely happy with now. That did not come without a massive fight. This is quite literally my 6th job in my field (system's programming) and now the second longest I've stayed with a company. Quoting from the story:

Without the promise of high returns for their loyalty, Gen Z has learned to follow the money

And this should be people's default until shown otherwise. I cannot count the number of times I've heard "it's just business" in the course of my various jobs. At the end of the day, your employer is looking at bottom line most times. One should not invest themselves into any relationship when the other is simply looking at the piratical ramifications of the relationship and not the broader nature of that relationship.

It's about the money and being able to pay for living expenses, which is reasonable. The dollar went a lot further when baby boomers were entering the workforce. It doesn't go as far now.

Yeah, while suffering when sufferable was okay when a taco was under a buck, dollar doesn't go anywhere today. The amount of time to have shits and giggles with an employer on actual compensation is about seven seconds today. When I first got into the field being underneath the region's average for X number of years wasn't unheard of. And for me, it was all cool because shit was cheap. Today, being under the region's average for a position needs to be measured in X minutes, not this year shit. Employer's that want to play games, Gen Z should not budge for a second on the matter.

When a raise and promotion don't hit swiftly, Gen Z is quick to jump ship

I'll say this. When I got to my current position, I knew right off that this was a good company. How? I can't really put a finger on the how, but having been in two jobs previous that were hyper toxic, I had a feeling. Now, I still didn't play games coming in though. I indicated exactly what I expected and that the job couldn't be "all hands on deck" 24/7, 365. That's just shitty management. I gave them six months to show me the money and if it didn't come through I had every intention to hit the door at the 121 day mark.

There was still friction, no meaningful relationship doesn't have those moments, but the things I was indicating was actually being taken serious, and compensation for kicking ass on my end was forthcoming. If your employer doesn't like talking money with employees, you're going to have a lot of friction and I'm not telling anyone what to do, but employer's feeling uncomfortable with the topic of money should be a red flag for you. If that's the straw that breaks the camel's back or just a stone in the wall for you, that's your call. But in my opinion, employers that get squishy about the word money shouldn't be employers. Not with how this world currently is. Maybe we can go back to the "ha ha ha" playing coy game when a significant percentage of a person's paycheck doesn't have to go for simply feeding themselves.

But Gen Zers "haven't lost the passion for what they want to do,"

And I have never thought they have. The Gen Z that I oversee are some of the best workers I've ever dealt with. But the world isn't allowing them to be slacking on ensuring that proper compensation is constant. Inflation is eating away any kind of raise I can give them as fast as I can give it to them. As far as I have seen, Gen Z is some of the best workers to date to come out of the woodwork and it's actually kind of shitty they cannot have the environment to flourish that I had at their age.

Again, from my personal experience, I think there's a lot of management that's still in the lax mood of how employment might have worked back in the day. When a few years under the line of compensation was just the name of the game. But the game has seriously changed and a lot of the folks my age and the boomers as well are still stuck in "the way things used to be™" and it's so bad right now, no one has time for that anymore.

As I've heard so often, it's just business. But I think employers have been so used to the giving that advice, they are completely at loss when receiving it. The Gen Z I've worked with, and it may be different for others, but the ones I've worked with and the ones I currently manage, they're some of the hardest workers who take everything they do as personal value and will be some of the best employees IF YOU ENCOURAGE THEM AND COMPENSATE THEM.

I too dislike that the world has become really centered around pay. But to quote some Tolken:

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

Treat your folks like people, and the rest mostly falls in place.

This is the second time this question was tossed at SCOTUS. SCOTUS denied hearing the motion the first time around before the trail even began. I've yet to hear a convincing argument on why the high court would change their mind on the matter.

Now the SCOTUS will take it up and sit on it till November

I'm doubtful they'll sit on it. As you said, they already indicated a lack of desire to pick it up last time Trump submitted an appeal to them on this basis. I'm pretty sure everyone is expecting a repeat performance here. Remember the rule of four would apply here and I'm sure Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Roberts would do exactly the repeat as before.

There's just not the numbers to play petty favors for Trump here.

Hey OP, I think you're focusing on specific use cases of broader issues.

Globally speaking, energy is about 25% of all CO₂ emitted into the air. Farming and agriculture is another 25%. Industry is 20% and transportation is about 15%. So in just those four categories we're talking about 85% of all CO₂ emitted.

So when you indicate:

We have semi trucks burning diesel to bring pet food and pet supplies to all parts of the world.

That's transportation.

We devote some amount of farm land and livestock to feeding those pets

That's farming.

We have big box stores for pets

That's both energy (for power) and industry (concrete).

So I just wanted to point that out. Now I also wanted to address something else.

It’s interesting when people suggest to reduce global human population

Rich people suggest this and poor people think it sounds good because they believe that the reduction is not including themselves. We have a TON of resources on this planet. We just do not have enough resources on this planet for the current distribution system. That's the key point here.

Population reduction should be viewed in the same manner on how humanity did the horse population reduction. The second we invented the car, horses were no longer useful, so we got rid of a ton of them. As we continue to progress in technology, we render a lot of people no longer useful through no fault of their own. So there's a few folk out there recommending we do the same to them as we did horses.

Now where that lies on your ethical meter, you know, I'm not here to judge. Humanity is a spunky bunch. But just remember that the folks indicating population decline as a viable answer, if you're not pulling eight or nine figures a year, you're in that group up for consideration for culling.

But back to your point. I mean the pet thing is indeed an interesting take on the four factors of climate change. Indeed an interesting take on them for sure. I don't have hard numbers on the CO₂ emissions for pet ownership, but they do indeed contribute to the big four. I cannot imagine that they account for a single percent of any of the big four's underlying values. 900 million dogs do sound like a lot but it's actually pretty small in terms of footprint on the environment. The big thing is that the vast majority of those dogs globally are not living high CO₂ producing lives. Just a few of them are. Same with cats. The vast majority are feral beasts. Wrecking diversity of various ecological areas for sure, but not exactly producing massive amounts of CO₂.

Which ecological impact is something that's a different topic than climate change but the two do sometimes overlap each other. But they are two different studies at the end of the day.

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

— 18 USC § 2383

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

— 18 USC § 2384

The US Constitution gives state legislatures power to choose Electors – full stop.

Well that was talked about. Kagan and Alito both touched on plenary power and the degrees that applies to Colorado's assertion. But in all that was debated Colorado couldn't find de facto application. Kagan even asked if there was any method that didn't rely de novo. The argument keep getting into "well this is so unique". And that's when it headed into how State's executed elections post 1860 but pre 1880.

The thing is, even if there was an application to the novel assertion of federalization here… I mean you heard it right there towards the end, "this is a feature not a flaw". The Court's couldn't be remedy to enforce uniformity. I mean just look at Colorado here for a second. You have three cases in the State plus SCOTUS, that's four hearings. Multiply that by fifty and by three or four major parties that have codified ballot access in the various States. The court's couldn't handle that and elections would become "who has enough money for litigation?" Which is kind of the opposite of "having less money in elections".

And then there comes from that a desire of "Well then Congress could come up with some limit as to what can be litigated before the courts for elections" and then boom, as indicated "how's that different than where we're at?" If the idea is that eventually some de facto appears by Congress, why allow novel approach now with the expectation that we'll get law later when we can equally say why not wait for law today and allow novel to come later based on that?

And Colorado couldn't find a specific reason why the order should or shouldn't be reversed outside of "well State's rights!" And that's what prompted the question of "well how plenary is plenary to join Article II to 14A S3?"

And another thing that you said in a different comment is:

but that a state could decide to repeal its popular vote in the legitimate way

No. Or at least I don't think so because doing so would be really hard to justify. Article IV, Section 4. Now the degree can vary because as it was before that only land owners could vote. But then the Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed the frontier folk the ability to vote. The thing is a vote is always required BUT the definition of who it applies to is up to the State, except that 15A, 19A, and 26A further limit the restrictions that States can apply.

But given Art. II S.1 one could literally read:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…

But in all States the manner is defined by the State's Constitution meaning that the Citizens would have to vote to amend their process to give up their right to vote and even then, it's possible such is a violation of Art. IV S.4. It would absolutely be a Court case. But it's highly unlikely that SCOTUS would permit a State in the Union to operate on a system that denied voting to everyone outside of the political process as that's kind of the whole premises of the Revolutionary War and that specific part of the Constitution. They would need to include at least ONE person not a sworn officer of the State and given the restrictions of 15A, 19A, and 26A I don't see how they uphold 14A S1 and keep on the correct side of those other amendments. It would be difficult to say, this one person over the age of 18 is cool to vote AND still uphold 14A S1 equal protection and deny OTHER 18 year olds. It would definitely be an exercise.

States have rights, but SCOTUS is the first place to tell someone, "No right is absolute". And multiple justices brought that up plenty of times with the perceived plenary that Colorado attempted. I would love Colorado's reading, but SCOTUS has a point, Colorado needs to define a line in the sand and not just be like "Well that's what SCOTUS is here to do, draw lines". I mean given the track record recently, I don't think we should let SCOTUS draw lines. And yeah, funny time for them to suddenly adopt that mantra. But that's the thinking I agree with, which is why WV v EPA was such bullshit in my opinion. But I cannot think both WV v EPA was bullshit and Colorado is correct here. That just doesn't jive. I get inconsistent SCOTUS is frustrating, but at least questioning where that line is from Colorado is the correct move, not leaving it up to SCOTUS to dictate.