Guess again! Roberts explicitly calls out orders to the military as covered by absolute immunity. EDIT: and motive is explicitly barred from review too.
An important point here is that there are both legal and illegal orders. Military personnel are instructed obey every legal order, and disobey every illegal order (at least I was).
In the military, we have the UCMJ that allows us to prosecute those military personnel that issue illegal orders. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, but he is a civilian, so the UCMJ doesn't apply. I always thought he would be charged under criminal law in that case, but it seems that this ruling precludes that.
This is true but I don't think it meaningfully checks the president, because the pardon power is also absolute and unreviewable, and does cover courts martial (as we saw in the Eddie Gallagher case). Military personnel are not required to follow illegal orders from the president, but if they do they won't face legal sanction.
Page 14 notes that the President's official responsibilities "include, for instance, commanding
the Armed Forces of the United States; granting reprieves
and pardons for offenses against the United States; and ap-
pointing public ministers and consuls, the Justices of this
Court, and Officers of the United States."
Page 17 states "We thus
conclude that the President is absolutely immune from
criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive
sphere of constitutional authority."
Page 26 states "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may
not inquire into the President’s motives."
> Page 14 notes that the President's official responsibilities "include, for instance, commanding the Armed Forces of the United States; granting reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States; and ap- pointing public ministers and consuls, the Justices of this Court, and Officers of the United States."
Right below that it clarifies
> If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,”
the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held
that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills. See id.,
at 582–589 (majority opinion). But once it is determined
that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive
authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot
be subject to further judicial examination.
This demonstrates where the court is drawing the lines. Fascist dictatorships are fine, so long as they keep their mitts away from private industry. Of course, at this point, who is going to stop the President if he starts seizing companies?
This ruling is like telling a hungry leopard, "you can eat anyone except for us." The hubris of this ruling is absurd. American's President Jinping won't be a Federalist.
But Truman shouldn't have faced prosecution for that should he? It was after all done to ensure victory in Korea and he stopped after the court said no with apparent authority when he did it. This case goes too far and not far enough.
This court's citation of precedent in one decision is meaningless, since they've shown a lot of enthusiasm for overturning it as soon as it no longer suits their (or their patrons') interests. See also: Dobbs, Loper Bright.
In the military chain of command an order is only an order when it is a lawful order. The president does not have any power to issue an unlawful order. That would be outside of his constitutional powers and not an official act.
Who gets to decide the lawfulness of the order, and what physical power does the Executive have at his disposal to bring to bear to tip their judgment?
iirc every US service man/woman is empowered to disobey orders. I think they call it "answering to a higher authority" or something like that, granted there are severe consequences for disobeying an order that turns out to be lawful no matter how much you don't like it.
The courts. Military courts have been handling this for a long time. No reason civilian courts couldn't apply the same standards in the case of a president.
If the president is able to bring physical power to bear, then it matters little what the law says anyway.
The previous POTUS is accused of using his office to perform a series of actions that culminated in disruption of the function of Congress.
Several Congresspeople then concluded he could not be impeached because by the time they were able to consider the question, he had left office.
This ruling by SCOTUS suggests there is now no avenue to hold such a President accountable for such actions.
... and that's before we broach the question of whether "Removal from the Oval Office" is sufficient punishment for all manner of crime the President could commit from his position of power, because that is the upper limit of the effect of a Congressional impeachment. This seems to give a sitting President carte blanche to throw the Constitution in a wood-chipper if he can interpret it is within his official acts to do so.
>The previous POTUS is accused of using his office to perform a series of actions that culminated in disruption of the function of Congress.
Yes, and was impeached for that.
>Several Congresspeople then concluded he could not be impeached because by the time they were able to consider the question, he had left office.
That's how checks and balances work. They may have made that conclusion, but the impeachment carried on anyway and failed to gain the 2/3rds majority.
>This ruling by SCOTUS suggests there is now no avenue to hold such a President accountable for such actions.
It doesn't suggest that at all.
>whether "Removal from the Oval Office" is sufficient punishment for all manner of crime the President could commit from his position of power, because that is the upper limit of the effect of a Congressional impeachment.
It's removal from office AND "the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.[0]" They can still be found guilty for insurrection after impeachment.
>This seems to give a sitting President carte blanche to throw the Constitution in a wood-chipper if he can interpret it is within his official acts to do so.
That's not how it works because at the end of the day the President doesn't interpret the law, and isn't shielded from impeachment and justice through state/federal courts as I outlined above. This is literally the majority opinion. Similarly, just because a military officer interprets their actions are lawful doesn't make them so.
The military was happy to systematically seize guns from citizens in NOLA during Katrina. They will follow unlawful orders to keep their dental plans active.
> ...all of these server applications would have to be easy-as-an-iphone to set up and administer. Right now, such apps don't exist, because there's no market for them. But if the market were there, millions of people with hosted servers just sitting around, you can imagine how quickly they'd get made.
I don't know about this. People have phones and computers, too, but we still have gmail instead of personal mail servers, and we still have reddit instead of usenet. As a developer I definitely prefer serving web pages to shipping iphone apps (never mind physical CDs) because the deployment and maintenance stories are so much simpler. In other words, even if millions of personal servers existed already, why would a developer prefer to write Self-Hosted!Instagram instead of just Instagram?
> why would a developer prefer to write Self-Hosted!Instagram instead of just Instagram?
Because urbit is designed to make that an easy thing to do. Say you've got a webserver, and you want to put a picture of your kid on it, but you only want the server to serve that picture to your Mom. On unix, that's really complicated, you need to do a lot of things to make that happen - not just implement a web app that includes authentication and give your Mom a new login and password to memorize, but also configure the web server properly and make sure your server is locked down and stuff like that.
On Urbit, that would be really easy, the equivalent of "mkdir mom; chmod +r mom; mv pic.png mom", because it abstracts away things like cryptographically verifying identities in the same way that unix abstracts away sending a file to a printer.
Perhaps the difference is between "Russia the state" and "citizens of Russia"? Especially when they're almost neighbors, when you live near the border, I don't see why you'd fear any random Russian citizen just because they live in Russia.
I'd be quite interested in their perspective on world politics. My impression is that Russia has a lot of propaganda and filtering of the media, and I assume it has a different character from the propaganda and filtering of the media in western countries (... where it happens just as well, but in a more decentralized, money-oriented fashion).
Just as illustration: after November 8 a lot of russians were celebrating - just because of hope that relations with US will be warmer. Really, people don't want cold war or any other war.
100%. Russia is multi-national country and we have some nations inside country that we don't like (sorry, but it's true), so I can say we like Finns even more than some russians :) They have awesome vodka (much, much better than any russian vodka), they are smart and friendly, not arrogant - awesome people. I highly doubt any russian leader, even Putler, will try to offend them.
Bullshit. Do not read Soviet newspapers until dinner. It's not "just me". Looks like you get your information from news portals which nobody read in Russia because they are owned by government.
They are violating somebody's airspace every week, nobody cares. It's just political games of the current moment, it's not whole nation's decisions. Or you think we call referendum before each airspace trespassing?
I guess when Russia tried to invade them back in 1939 there was no referendum and it wasn't a whole nation's decision either. Heck, you could even deem the Russian people friendly towards the Finns (they were trying to free their Finnish comrades from the capitalist yoke!). I don't think it made the Finns any happier though.
What I CAN see is the glee on the Russian discussion boards whenever an incident like that is mentioned in the news. It's either that or outright denial blaming the Finns (British, Estonians, etc.) for making these claims up out of "russophobia".
You will not believe, but yes! Putin is fan of Stalin and they both use internal and external propaganda. And it may sound wild or ridiculous for you, but there is official agency where people get salary for writing comments on forums, youtube, facebook and other well-known public services. There was even article about it in some western newspaper. And reaction of people: 2 guys threw molotov cocktails to the window of that agency - that's our real relation to Putin.
Night clubs of St.Petersburg are full of Finnish people, who drink even more than locals. Apparently, the mistrust is limited to subjects other than alcohol.
They frequently bring up how they beat the Germans and the Russians in WW2. And how Finnish vodka is the best. And how it sucks that the world's most popular sauna heater is made in Sweden, because Finnish sauna heaters are superior.
Well, it doesn't prove that russians don't like Finns, maybe just Finns don't like russians. Sad to hear, but, looks like our government's propaganda works. And Finnish vodka is really the best ;)
I have many Russian friends and they're intelligent and nice people in general. The info war and traumas from the winter war still exist though and we really don't like Russia as a country, except the neo-nazis who think Putin's actions against minorities should be supported and many of them think that Russia should conquer Finland so we wouldn't have such a liberal government.
Of course after Trump, the general feeling about US is pretty close what we think about Russia...
Right, but then you also shouldn't be using the techniques described in the article, right? To put it another way, there's no case where deferred collection with smart pointers is better than real GC.
I have the same problem as the GP, on four monitors. All four, bought at different times in different countries, are miscalibrated according to these calibration images. Is that plausible? If not, what might be going on?
And if it _is_ plausible that four random monitors are all miscalibrated in the same way, why should we optimize for well-calibrated monitors?
If you read the article carefully, you'll realise that this is not just an optimisation (check for example the sections on colour blending and rendering; those artifacts are gamma calibration independent.)
Suppose I have a configured tab width of 2 and I write a line with three tabs that's 78 characters wide. When my friend with tab-width 8 views it, he'll see a line that's 90 characters wide. What do projects with 80 character limits do in situations like that?
In either case the line contains only 75 characters, of course, but that's a pretty pedantic non-answer: we care about horizontal screen space, not the number of bytes of storage you'd need.
EditorConfig tells you the canonical tab size for the project, in other words "a tab counts as 4 characters to the soft wrap". If you choose to increase the tab size beyond 4 characters, you have to accept you'll get longer lines.
(It's also high time we stop pretending wrap limits matter to the exact character. In most cases, they are and should be guidelines - we have evolved beyond 640x480 CRTs and 80 character terminals)
I think this analysis assumes that Dwarf Fortress has reached only a small fraction of its total addressable market (that is, the space of players who can enjoy DF without large improvements to new player onboarding). Any fixed-price offering risks cannibalizing Patreon subscriptions, whose expected LTV is probably _much greater_ than $19.
Their chosen tradeoff makes more sense if you think of it as "subscriptions versus one-offs" instead of "sales versus donations".
Even given that I stopped playing and probably will never find the time to touch DF again (unless singularity) I would still buy that Supporter Edition.
And thanks patio11 for that plan, sounds fascinating, as always.
I guess I saw his proposal as more about customer acquisition; those of us who already know and love the game can send Tarn $19 any time we want, right here: http://www.bay12games.com/support.html
> In contrast there are masters in the martial arts who learned their art as a means of survival and became masters in a realistic and hostile environment. We don’t have anyone like this in the programming profession, or at least I haven’t met any.
“I wish I knew what to tell you that would lead you to write good Forth. I can demonstrate. I have demonstrated in the past, ad nauseam, applications where I can reduce the amount of code by 90% percent and in some cases 99%. It can be done, but in a case by case basis. The general principle still eludes me.”
I have a background in system design, programming, and martial arts. That was a great essay. Really enjoyed it. So thanks for linking it. I'm glad I've finally gotten into the Master phase in the sense of philosophy rather than claiming a certain talent level.
I'm sick of all the needless complexity in what people push. I'm old enough to have seen it repeat in many fads over time. I've seen designs that beautifully and simply (for user/developer) handled their requirements. I've even seen the master programmers he thinks don't exist that write maintainable, good code under deadlines. I've seen amateurs following good principles come close enough. So, I'd like to see more people emulating the principles of mastery he espouses using any proven method to get there and avoiding common pitfalls.
A significant rise in amateurs on that path would itself deliver a better baseline than what today's experts are pushing. I'll take a well-trained amateur that hates complexity over an expert any day. 80/20 rule says I don't need many experts anyway for most jobs.
> I'll take a well-trained amateur that hates complexity over an expert any day.
I would consider someone sufficiently well-trained, yet wise enough to understand the value in simplicity, humble enough to listen to the ideas of others and keep learning, and curious enough to actively consult others for dissenting ideas to be one of tomorrow's experts.
Very well worded haha. Given my background, I should throw in an exception for INFOSEC. If it's high security, you want as many experts as you can get to review various aspects for pitfalls and possible suggestions. Just too much to worry about for one master and good amateurs as complexity grows. Still leave final decision and priorities on any of that to the leader who was a master or an expert that's a cut above the rest in wise decision-making. That should filter BS and committee-think while getting review benefits.
That's actually been my recommendation for a while for high assurance. What you think of it?
Somewhat related anecdote: Trying go get WordPress to adopt a CSPRNG was painful for a year.
Then I started paragonie/random_compat and like 30 other people pitched in to improve it, and then I suggested just using that (so new code can be written against PHP 7's API). And so the problem was solved.
I'd tend to agree that, for security matters, a small team of people focused on success with the knowledge and/or resources they need to execute on their own initiatives gets a better result than a large team with varied interests and use cases.
That was my intention. Dion Hulse really pulled through on WP's end, and he's quick to pull in upstream changes into their trunk branch for testing. :)
> In contrast there are masters in the martial arts who learned their art as a means of survival and became masters in a realistic and hostile environment. We don’t have anyone like this in the programming profession, or at least I haven’t met any.
I'm wondering if Zed would consider say Carmack for example, such a master coder?
Many big-ticket items are not transacted through a sales funnel beginning in google ads, even for individuals (businesses tend to have more formal processes). Houses, cars, etc. are largely purchased by going to a specific place (digital or otherwise) where such things are bought and sold. Not just googling "3 bedroom 2 bath house close to Redmond". I do not think this process involves a lot of unmet demand.
It's very much a supply-constrained market, which is why firms tend not to advertise much, and why it's hard to understand the premise behind this market.
