Unfortunately their arrogance isn't false bravado. iPhones brand is extremely strong. Funny aside I know many women who won't date men who's text come up in green bubbles... thats branding.
I believe you -- though it's not surprising in the USA. Apple absolutely dominates the US market. I'd estimate of the top 75% of incomes Apple has at least an 80% market share. I live in a high-income area and the only Androids I ever see are carried by my house cleaners. And among young people it's only more intense because teens are so obsessed with brand cachet (as they always have been).
Now, on HN we know some people, though plenty wealthy enough to afford Apple, are choosing Android for function. But I doubt most of the public even thinks about that choice through that lens. Green bubble is the same as arriving to pick up your date in a 2002 Civic. It projects "I'm probably broke." Statistically. In the US only.
There you get arrested for being a Nazi. In America you get disappeared for not being one. There was a bit of excitement in the 1940s that gives us moral guidance on what to do when Nazis rear their heads.
Maybe if we'd stuck it out with Hoover... "given a chance to go forward with the policies of the last eight years, and we shall soon with the help of God be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this Nation." (campaign trail, 1928) He only got four of those years.
Yeah, we’d be much much better off if the Great Depression was still happening, and Hitler got to slaughter our ancestors. I’m guessing the congress critters are pretty nostalgic for stuff like polio, tuberculosis, measles and the bubonic plague.
Also, screw breathable air and drinkable water, even more than the internet and microwave. Above all else, ballpoint pens and velcro need to just stop.
Excuse me. It’s rush hour. I need to go yell at a busy bridge until the thing just falls the fuck over.
Would there be a way for the bluetooth device to rotate its broadcast keys in a predictable way to avoid the iphone notification of "unknown airtag close by" messages? Seems like this could be exploited for surveillance.
Technically it would need to rotate every 15 minutes or so - the notification you're talking about happens when the device is in "lost mode" (away from its owner): in that case the key is rotate every 24 hours
The Holocene extinction was started when pointed sticks were state of the art and we ate most megafauna to extinction. It would be more the Anthropocene to blame if anything. Blaming high technology is thus rather anachronistic.
Personally I'm of the opinion that the world was already on fire as it were, what with the mass extinctions caused when we became an invasive species out of Africa. If we were still stuck in the stone age like our predecessors we would still be an ongoing mass-extinction. There is some hope to eventually not be an ongoing mass extinction but that would require some combination of even better technology and the right priorities.
Yes government bureaucrats got to drag political enemies off planes and kick them out of restaurants on the basis of wrongthink, masquerading dogma as science.
I agree that the original ruling was ideological, but in the real world the enemy of good is perfect. How many people will suffer in the meantime because of this? How many women in red states will undergo back alley procedures to terminate their pregnancy? Truth be told I really don't care about the intellectual consistency of upholding or overturning Roe, I care about the real world impact it will have on people. It's not abstract, these are real people's lives.
Also that's before even getting into the structure of our federal system and explaining how "states rights" have almost always been a tool for upholding regressive legislature that is unpopular at the national level, due to the fact that a filibuster-proof supermajority is required to reign in the states, meanwhile a dissenting minority within the states has no similar recourse. Why do you think most of the progress in civil rights post-1964 has been accomplished through the Supreme Court? It's because southern and rural states are impossible to reign in with congress. This is why the Federalist Society went through the Supreme Court, because it's technically legal and technically how our government is supposed to work. But the end result is them harming people just like you and me.
There is a reason the maxim exists "Hard cases make bad case law". Of course slavery is wrong, and in fact rebellion to end slavery is more appropriate that case law to end it. That said abortion isn't slavery and its unclear which is morally superior. It's a question of balancing of rights between one human and another, no easy answer here.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So if a right is not explicitly enumerated, it still exists and is retained by the people, NOT the States, the PEOPLE! A right to privacy, to control ones own body is fundamental to freedom.
Read the Thomas concurrence, lots more individual freedoms are going to be killed off by these theocratic fascists on the court.
"The largely limitless reach of the dissenters’ standard is
illustrated by the way they apply it here. First, if the “long
sweep of history” imposes any restraint on the recognition
of unenumerated rights, then Roe was surely wrong, since
abortion was never allowed (except to save the life of the
mother) in a majority of States for over 100 years before
that decision was handed down. Second, it is impossible to
defend Roe based on prior precedent because all of the precedents Roe cited, including Griswold and Eisenstadt, were
critically different for a reason that we have explained:
None of those cases involved the destruction of what Roe
called “potential life.”"
That's Common Law 101 for you: rights are not "given", they are "discovered".
Pretty much as Newton's laws existed before Newton, the "rights" exist regardless of the laws (so is the philosophy underlying Common Law). The legislature can "discover" these laws, or — failing that — a judge can.
Well, those of us who believe in a textualist definition of the constitution believe the process for adding constitutional rights is a constitutional amendment and we control the court.
I'm not arguing with that, since any argument about "beliefs" is pointless. I'm just saying that "legislating from the Bench" is there by design. If you disagree with the design, it's fine — but this application "works as designed", even if you or me don't like the outcome.
The Continental law is based on another philosophy — you have no rights except the ones that are explicitly given to you by law, and the only way to have more rights passes through the legislature. There are many countries that employ Continental law, but the US is not one of them.
Common Law interpretation sure, you need to use the logic and decisions of the court to inform future decisions, but those decisions must be grounded on actual text and insofar as bad decisions are made they should be corrected. Should we have left all of the bad decisions on slavery and Jim Crow because of stare decisis?
Uhm, no — “precedent” is a judicial decision which may not be grounded on any text whatsoever. It’s a common thing in Common law, and of course it doesn’t exist in Continental law.
Well when your job is to interpret the constitution, it should be grounded on the text. That's why there are textualist who disagree with your interpretation of the role of the court. It is supposed to be the foundation.
From the dissenting opinion: Those responsible for the original Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment, did not perceive women as equals, and did not recognize women’s rights...When the majority says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification (except that we may also check it against the Dark Ages), it consigns women to second-class citizenship.
--
This country couldn't pass a constitutional amendment making spam calls and email illegal. And didn't pass an equality amendment making women equal.
There is no prior example of a right being conferred and then taken away like this. That the Court now has a 25% approval rating following this past week, which rivals that of Congress, it is deeply delegitimizing to representative democracy that the minority keeps making the rules, and the majority keeps having to acquiesce, per the rules.
In Lincoln's 1st inaugural address he pointed out that in all constitutional disputes, either the majority or minority must acquiesce, or the government ceases. The majority can't be expected to suck it up all the time, it's just too obvious we don't have anything approximating a representative democracy so what's the incentive to acquiesce?
