@repdeliaramirez If it was clear, there would be no controversy. There's obviously a controversy because it's made its way to the Supreme Court. Pipe down, wait for the decision.
English
Dr. Yellingatclouds
16.8K posts
Dr. Yellingatclouds
@Yellingatcloud1
Curmudgeon, leans to liberty and federalism Twitter is a place to come when you miss arguments at the high school lunch table Pronouns I/me
state of confusion Beigetreten Haziran 2020
129 Folgt151 Follower
Today, the Supreme Court is hearing President Trump's white supremacist arguments about birthright citizenship.
Let’s be clear: Everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. Period.
English
8-1 decision, only Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. I think conversion therapy is almost always completely bullshit borne out of prejudice but worry abt the state dictating what is or isn't permissible when it comes to speech and health care. apnews.com/article/suprem…
English
@myonlinetrust Cool things we got today where you can find that out
English
@Yellingatcloud1 I’m not sure what that word “discerning” even means.
English
@myonlinetrust Never felt like it was nor concerned if you understood
English
@bluebells_01 @CyberRacheal That presumes that we stand still on those aspects of security which is not likely.
English
@CyberRacheal ok. We are worried about crypto here. What about your online pasoword for banking, 4-digit pin for payments? I think there's a lot more smaller things that are screwed before crypto
English
Google has discovered that future quantum computers could break the encryption protecting cryptocurrencies much sooner and with far less power than previously thought.
Specifically, their research shows that a quantum computer with about 500,000 physical qubits could crack the standard security used by most blockchains in just a few minutes.
This represents a 20-fold reduction in the resources required compared to earlier estimates, significantly accelerating the "quantum threat" to digital assets.
To address this, Google is urging the crypto community to transition to Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC), which is designed to withstand these advanced attacks.
Because this transition takes years to implement, Google updated its own migration timeline to 2029 to stay ahead of the risk.
They shared this data using a "zero-knowledge proof", a method that proves the vulnerability is real without giving hackers a "roadmap" on how to actually perform the attack.
nic carter@nic_carter
Many are wondering "what Google saw" that caused them to revise their post-quantum cryptography transition deadline to 2029 last week. It was this: research.google/blog/safeguard…
English
@GovernorShapiro Do you ever think he does this stuff? Just to see how riled up you guys get?
English
President Trump can sign whatever the hell he wants to, but it won’t change the Constitution.
The authority to set our election rules belongs to the states — and as Governor, I will protect your right to vote.
That includes your right to vote by mail.
The Associated Press@AP
BREAKING: President Trump signs an order directing the creation of a national eligible voter list, a move expected to face swift legal challenges. apnews.com/article/donald…
English
@myonlinetrust @donkilmer @nickgillespie The point was a little more involved than you seem to understand
English
English
@dilanesper @teafortillerman @EWess92 Are you saying that a statute that regulates or forbids the performance of an abortion is not about the practice of medicine?
English
@teafortillerman @EWess92 Joe, seriously re-read the thread. Skrmetti and Dobbs were 14th amendment cases that did not turn on any any right of doctors to practice medicine. Jackson is discussing that right in a 1st amendment case where it was raised.
English
This is a really bad rap. Skrmetti is an equal protection case that involves drugs. Chiles is a first amendment case that involves words. There's no inconsistency here (on either side, for that matter). They're different!
Theo Wold@RealTheoWold
Last year, Justice Jackson dissented in the U.S. v. Skremetti case-- in which she argued that states have no right to ban gender transitions on minors. Today, she was the lone dissent on Chiles v. Salazar, writing that "there is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the power of states." So, states have no right to pass laws banning children from changing their sex-- but states DO have the right to ban counselors from telling boys they are not girls. You truly can't make it up.
English
I don't know, man. Maybe I'm too old fashioned, but I don't love the trend of machines and constant replay review taking the place of umpires and refs. To me, there's just a soullessness to machines enforcing the rules. I don't mind the umpire mistakes (especially on balls and strikes) - I'd just rather have humans in charge.
Also, Gov, if you could nudge Gunnar Henderson to start hitting ASAP - he's a staple on my fantasy team.
Wes Moore@iamwesmoore
I have to disagree with you on this one, Chris. Go O's!
English
@KFILE @NancyRomm Because that's the sticker price and most people don't pay that
English
@Krazy_Trane @Evo404ATL @NFL_DovKleiman Yes, and the demographics are much different than the demographics of the players in the league. I don't know what you're arguing about. But you have a good evening
English
@Yellingatcloud1 @Evo404ATL @NFL_DovKleiman There is a primary pool of candidates for coaching and that is people with playing experience. A few outliers does not change that reality. Eg., the fact we had a few 70 degree days in February does not mean February is not a cold month in WI.
English
This year’s annual NFL head coaching photo. What do you notice?
English
@Krazy_Trane @Evo404ATL @NFL_DovKleiman Merely reinforces my point that the demographics for the coaching profession is different than the demographics for players. So suggesting that there should be more black coaches because the NFL is a certain percentage of black players is misguided
English
English
@BernieSanders Fair means many things to many people.
English
Ok, Jamie: Let me clear things up for you.
If my 5% wealth tax on billionaires was enacted you’d owe $135 million more in taxes & a family of 4 making $150,000 or less would receive a $12,000 payment.
Oh, and you’d still be worth more than $2.5 billion. Seems pretty fair to me.
Acyn@Acyn
Kilmeade: What do you say to people like Bernie Sanders who says billionaires don't pay their fair share? Dimon: I don't know what he means by fair share
English
@ishapiro “[T]here is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the States.” Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U. S. 581, 596 (1926). This was true 100 years ago, and it should be true today. Jackson in the majority in Dobbs?
English
As the Court showed, this was a straightforward case. It wasn’t the inverse of last term’s Skrmetti because that involved a ban on physical interventions, which Chiles involves talk therapy alone. Colorado’s argument that its ban on certain viewpoints in that regard was just a regulation of therapeutic conduct doesn’t pass the constitutional smell test. As Justice Gorsuch put it in his majority opinion, citing an NAACP case from 1963 and joined by all but one justice, “The First Amendment is no word game. And the rights it protects cannot be renamed away or their protections nullified by ‘mere labels.’”
Greg Price@greg_price11
🚨 BREAKING: The Supreme Court just ruled 8-1 in Chiles v. Salazar that Colorado's law banning "conversation therapy" for sexual orientation or gender identity is unconstitutional. Jackson was the lone dissent.
English
@donkilmer @nickgillespie Seems like she's just undercut Roe v. Wade
English
Most disturbing? Almost like Covid never happened.
JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting. “[T]here is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the States.” Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U. S. 581, 596 (1926). This was true 100 years ago, and it should be true today.
English
@SeanTrende The plain unambiguous language to whom? The people who originally wrote the constitutional provision. Language evolves and we do not necessarily interpret things the same way they did.
English
Nb: original ism is a theory of constitutional, not statutory, interpretation.
Kevin Baum@kevinbaum013
Lawyers are not trained historians. Originalism is largely and remains largely bullshit. The hubris that backs it leads to nonsense arguments that ignore the plain, unambiguous language of a statue. These professors want to will more bullshit in furtherance of their careers.
English