Gaston de Foix

To force people to download and use the app as a first step to becoming a verified user. Lots of people (including me) were reading tweets with no intention of ever registering as a user. It did result in me downloading the app, so it partly fulfilled its function.

In looking at the public pronouncements about what the rebrand means for the business (such as tweets from Linda Yaccarino), the answer is a content-free "everything"? "X is the future state of unlimited interactivity — centered in audio, video, messaging, payments/banking — creating a global marketplace for ideas, goods, services and opportunities," If there is a big idea here it is to take a place that at its best was the global public square and turn it into a global marketplace. Leaving aside whether this is a good idea or not, it just seems like this is an exceedingly difficult task to execute because you are talking about competing with Spotify, OnlyFans, Youtube, Amazon,Ebay, Facebook/Whatsapp, Venmo simultaneously for a userbase that's already proved very resistant to paying a nominal sum for your service. Zuckerberg had a big (bad) idea that the metaverse was going to be the new Matrix and threw a ton of resources at it, and it still flopped catastrophically because the market didn't want what he was selling. That too was the "future state of unlimited interactivity" as he saw it. Elon is obviously super cheap and easily distracted and he's like, move over Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the "world wide web" is a lousy name, let's call this thing "X". LOL.

Watching it tomorrow, and v. excited. Thanks for all the reviews.

You are right. You will have to sign something. If they don't ask you to sign something, run, run run far away from the skydiving center. If they can't afford competent lawyering, whose to say they have invested in decent parachutes? Anyway, reading just the last page of the thread, I noticed we are discussing the scope of the waiver in the abstract. You should read it if you haven't yet: https://www.insider.com/read-oceangate-waiver-titan-sub-passengers-lists-numerous-death-risks-2023-7 I have thoughts, but I'll just point out that how this waiver would be interpreted will depend on which legal system any claim would be brought it.

Yeah, I've thought for a long time whether you like or loathe Sanderson, what he did in the Stormlight archive in terms artwork and crossing the novel/graphic novel wall was innovative and valuable.

Deal. Just to be clear, the terms of the bet are whether the federal courts strike down this specific map as being noncompliant with the SC's decision in Merrill. If they uphold the current 39.9% as "something close to it", I lose. We should set a deadline: Let's say 1 Oct? There's a hearing in August, but who know when they will hand down their opinion. If there are appeals, we'll just wait till the legal process finishes.

So I intended to engage with the premise behind this article, and it reminded me in many ways of an excellent article by Pam Karlan: link. Here's the first place I disagreed: pg.4: "And in fact, I think there’s now a pretty good chance that the Republicans will try to steal the 2024 election." Well. It's absolutely true that between Nov. 2020 and Jan 2021 the Republican party became an authoritarian or anti-democratic party and not just a minority one. It's also true that it expelled or punished many of those who defied the authoritarian turn or tried to investigate or sanction that conduct. BUT, it's also true that many of those resisted survived and thrived, including many like Raffensberger who were called dead men walking, or Murkowski. Silent defiance was not punished; only open defiance was. Most importantly, the electorate savagely punished election deniers in 2022. In terms of personnel, the Republican party has never been more Trumpified. But in terms of following Trump's authoritarian turn, I'm unconvinced that those such as Kemp and Raffensberger who resisted in 2020 are going to suddenly change course in 2024. But OK, let's say the facts are murky enough a la Florida 2000 that they try to do it. Where do they have control? Not PA, MI or WI or AZ. Just GA (and NC, FL and OH the old battleground states). Are we really saying that Raffensberger and Kemp are going to go balls to the wall for their buddy Trump and their efforts are going to be decisive? Yeah, right. So this brings us to the link between the counter-majoritarian institutions and the authoritarian Republican party (about p.8) which is reminiscent of the Karlan article. And I really do get the frustration with the melange of these profoundly undemocratic parts of the constitution. And the inability to amend the constitution. But there are some institutions that are contingently counter-majoritarian and some that are structurally counter-majoritarian. For example, if you take the long view, the benefit of the electoral college has shifted from party to party, and may shift in the future. Does it suck? Sure. Will it continue to suck for evermore? Maybe not. Maybe we'll reach a new balance where the electoral college and popular vote align. But if not, we do have initiatives like the National Popular Vote that are trying to address this problem. It's a long hard road, sure, but we aren't completely out of luck. Same for the Senate. The filibuster is a procedural rule. It will die in the next couple of decades when an ambitious president finds it impedes his or her agenda. Trump wanted to get rid of it, and if he had been slightly more disciplined and organized, might have managed it. As for the SC, look for all the complaints about constitutional hardball, the Democrats did lose the 2004 election and RBG did stay on the bench in 2014 when she should have retired. And that's really on the Dems. No one, including Obama, dared tell RBG in no uncertain terms to shuffle offstage. If they wanted to dominate the SC for a generation, they should have won the 2016 election. It's really that simple. They fucked up, thrice. They also got a couple of lucky breaks inasmuch as John Stevens lived as long as he did, and Souter retired when Obama was president. Both Republican appointees, whose drift leftward was fortunate for the country, but hardly guaranteed. I hear Levitsky's cri de couer: "The United States desperately needs institutional reform. We need to entrench voting rights. We need to replace the Electoral College with direct elections. We need to democratize the Senate. We need to eliminate the filibuster. We need to reform the Supreme Court." I want all this stuff too. But we had a Democratic president with a supermajority in Congress only 14 years ago. He could have passed a new voting rights act; eliminated the filibuster or even imposed a code of ethics on the SC. It wasn't a felt necessity at the time and he didn't do any of those things. When one party prioritizes substantive outcomes, and the other focuses on garnering power by any means necessary you have an imbalance. The Democratic party has largely gotten what it wanted and what it felt the country needed in the last two democratic presidencies; it's just that it has had (arguably) the wrong priorities. But it's not too late. It can win congressional majorities, abolish the filibuster and pass a major new voting rights act. It can admit PR and DC as states. It can expand the SC. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. And actually, the party has never been more unified in terms of its identity or its rejection of Republicans. There are no Ben Nelson's left with the exception of Manchema and we'll see if both or either survive 2024).

Sure. Terms? The ambiguity here is that the SC said majority or something close to it. Alabama could have been smarter and done a 45% black district. But they opted for 39.9%. It's always helpful when the racists are also stupid.

I get that people are up in arms about this but the lower federal courts will shut this down. The SC will deny cert. The decision in Merrill was 6-3 and the majority won't brook defiance of its own decision. Alabama's hope is Kavanaugh or Barrett rides to the rescue with some dishonest application of the Purcell principle. Won't happen. The rule of law is flickering in this country, but not all is darkness, yet.

Love the optimism, but I would just remind you that in 2022 Greg Abbott crushed Beto (ok, fine, imperfect candidate) in TX and Rubio crushed Val Demings (great candidate) in FL in those two safe seats. The dream of Blue Texas remains alive, at least in my heart, but exceedingly unlikely to happen in 2024. Scott is less popular, sure, but we don't even have a top-tier Dem candidate yet. I think, you are right, that a Senate seat in TX can and will flip eventually, and Cruz is more vulnerable than Cornyn. Just doubtful it will happen in a presidential election year.

Yeah, I acknowledge it's probable. But there will be a few senators who are Trump-skeptical, let's put it that way. The only guard-rail that can stop Trump is the American people. They've made the wrong decision once, and the right decision, once. Third time decides all.

Dude, the options are not restricted to voting for judges (yuck), or presidential appointment. There is a better way: https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/. But it needs a shared social commitment to judicial neutrality and modesty rather than unelected philosopher-king. I think what you are trying to insinuate verblessly is that I do not love America. I do, so much so that I chose to live here and swore an oath to give up loyalty to all foreign princes and potentates (how this is consistent with being allowed to retain British citizenship is unexplained, but never mind). But other countries copy America relentlessly, and America barely even notices when they steal a march. We just need to amend the thresholds for amending the constitution. If we can fix that so that the constitution can be amended by a reasonable majority, we can fix pretty much everything else. It's considerably more than 5%. He's the likely Republican nominee and if so he's got a 30-50% chance of becoming president. But if Trump were re-elected I assume Biden would pardon him before Trump assumed office. We cannot have a president governing from jail. The timing of a May 2024 trial doesn't quite work for the DOJ discontinuing charges before a verdict but they could confess error in the inevitable appeals to the 11th circuit and SC. I mean Judge Cannon can dismiss the charges if she likes and there'll be nothing the DOJ can do about it. But, procedurally, if Trump is elected he will need a Republican senate to confirm his appointees to the DOJ before they can commit these kinds of shenanigans. Is it possible? Sure, they confirmed Bill Barr who proceeded to act in the most blatantly partisan fashion using the patina of goodwill surrounding Bush I. But it's a question that depends on the composition of the Senate and what Murkowski and Collins etc decide to do.

Yes x 2. My ideas for reform are pretty heavily influenced by the fact that I'm a British expat living in America. But there's so much wrong with American law (the presidential appointment of judges and political appointees making sensitive prosecutorial decisions both being cases in point), that the system basically needs a thoroughgoing overhaul. The constitution produces sub-optimal results across the field in American government. And we are so obsessed with excavating our own history that we rarely look at how other countries operate to try and implement best practices here.

While I agree with you that Trump has no defense, that is not a conclusion that is open to trial judges, nor should we want them to prejudge jury questions. Judge Cannon has no remit to be fair to other candidates for the republican nomination. Yes, she's a partisan hack who almost certainly acted on the basis of improper motives. But it's really not her fault that the Justice Department wasted so much time before bringing this case. That's on Merrick Garland who faffed around for a year and a half doing nothing before appointing Jack Smith.

Team Trump will certainly try to push it. And it is a lot of time. Look, the simplest explanation is the correct one. The NY trial's march date gave her a legit excuse to schedule after rather than before. She took it because her entire future career depends on not displeasing Trump and Team Republican. Trump deliberately asked for an outrageous amount of time to give her room to appear reasonable. Her discretion was its apex, though. When faced with Trump's future requests, she will have to show she is sticking by her own earlier decision, and limit future extensions.

I think Derfel is on to something though when he says Lib Dems/Green voters might have been more motivated to kick out Boris if his name had been on the ballot. It's not logical, for the reasons you give, but political outcomes rarely are.

Yeah it's entirely possible. It's also possible that a certain amount of personal loyalty for BoJo would have led to greater Tory turnout. He's a skilled campaigner. But I think his decision to throw in the towel tells us that he expected to lose (both in Parliament and in his constituency) which is revealing.

Fair enough, but Derfel's counterfactual was a little more specific which is what I found intriguing: What difference would those few weeks have made? Or is the idea that Boris as a candidate would have swung the vote one way or the other?

or the Greens for that matter. I mean it really was that close. But what makes you think it would have been different if BoJo hadn't quit?

Yeah I think it's safe to say that Rishi Sunak is a potent vote-getter for the Tories amongst the British-Indian community. Barack Obama he ain't but we shouldn't underestimate the pride that people feel to see one of their own as PM, especially someone who openly celebrates his Hinduism and doesn't mask his identity.

Looking at public reports, I'm skeptical that the Trump indictment is going to be issued in the next week or so, as prosecutors are still gathering grand jury evidence and evidence from other potential witnesses. Hopefully August. Race to the finish line between Fani Willis and Jack Smith.

Does anyone understand what this guy McFadden is up to?

"Asked for comment on whether it was appropriate for the king’s pay to increase so significantly amid the cost of living crisis, a Buckingham Palace spokesperson pointed out that the sovereign grant had remained flat at £86m for several years, which she said was a real-terms cut when considered against inflation." If only we extended this logic to junior doctors.... The story is more complicated because the funding formula agreed 10 years ago has given the government and the crown a windfall, but the reality is this remains public money, and giving it to Charlie so he can spend it on saving country houses or flying back-and-forth between his 10 different residences is a massive waste of money. Just once, I'd like to see the royals in something other than 2023 Range Rovers with all the bells-and-whistles.

Right. This is a very US-law centric approach to the situation. Because of our (here, meaning US) long and disgusting history of open racism and apartheid we have laws preventing those participating in the stream of commerce from discriminating on the basis of 'protected' characteristics (i.e., race, sex, sexual orientation etc.). But political views are, in general, not a protected characteristic, (although California is an exception), and a Teamster credit union doesn't have to offer an account to Howard Schultz if it doesn't want. The UK specialized in softly softly white-glove bigotry, and consequently we never enacted such broad ranging laws regulating private conduct. What the FCA Head says, or any apology offered by Coutts, is not really a source of law. I'm still confused for all the outrage what law Coutts is supposed to have violated. I get the government is threatening new legislation, and there is the broader issue of banks (sensibly) avoiding risk by declining to give politically exposed persons bank accounts. It's worth noting that not discrimination based on the content of political views, but based on political activity presenting a greater risk profile. I was chatting with Nicola Sturgeon's husband the other day, and he didn't see the point, but I sort of do really.

Yeah but two things can be true (1) Coutts wants to get rid of him; (2) Farage might not meet the banking thresholds and they are refusing to make an exception. The latter functions as an independent reason for terminating the banking relationship. Anyway, I stand by my original point. Coutts has freely discriminated against 99% of humanity for 99% of its history based on race, sex, ethnic origin, education etc. etc. Nigel Farage is welcome to the intersectionality, but let's not pretend that what has happened to him is uniquely heinous or inconsistent with newly invented British values. To answer your question, Coutts would never allow Jeremy Corbyn to open an account (nor would Corbyn ever try to, admittedly) or a Just Stop Oil protester or Gordon Brown. It's useful for everyone involved in this episode to pretend its not true, but it is. They have no obligation to accept or continue a customer.