it’s the sort of tool that is really just fundamental now and should be ubiquitous and promoted and taught and talked about every where there is knowledge work. Even more so as there’s a great open source version of the tool.

Scaled all the way! I use my subscribed list (All is too much randomness.

Occasionally top 6 or 12 hours to catch up.

And occasionally All New/hot/scaled to see random new shit.

On the friends thing, doesn’t it make you wonder sometimes if they ever grew out of it or are out here acting as agents of chaos in ways we might feel but do not know =P!? Cheers!

All the time.

Hunter S Thompson once said “in a world of thieves the only final sin is getting caught”

Cheers! Yea things are all good. The way bikes are stolen is crazy though. I’ve known otherwise reasonable people that honestly believed any bike they found that was not locked was free game. Not friends with them anymore.

Yep. Fucking hate thieves

Pushbike stolen … Many times. Once was kinda my fault for leaving it out, but every other time it was some cunt working hard to get a push bike. Every time I only found out just when I was going to the bike to go some where. One time, the bike was in a secure garage with two gates and the fucker secretly tail gated a car on foot to get in and then waited for another car to leave to tailgate them.

Motorbike stolen … it was a cheap and nasty one but still

Apartment broken into … 18th birthday present fancy watch stolen along gaming console

I don’t think this is correct.

The bit you’re getting confused by, I think, is that some generations are just bigger than others. The boomers were by their name sake a big generation. Millennials are essentially boomers’ kids … and so they’re bigger than both Gen X and Gen Z.

• Most “generational” definitions span about 15 years, sometimes more. EG, Boomers: 1946-1960
• There are sensibly defined micro-generations typically at the borders between generations.
  • EG, “Jones Generation”: 1960-1965 … “young boomers” … they had a distinct life experience from “core boomers” not too different from that of X-Gens. Vietnam and 60s happened while they were children, Reagan was their 20s, not 40s, etc.
• Xennials are notable here because they’re the transition between X-Gen and Millennials (late 70s to early 80s) … probably what you’re thinking of as “older millennials”. What’s interesting though is that the relevance of Xennials is that technological changes mark the generation … they’re essentially just barely young enough to count as part of the internet generations but not old young enough to be ignorant of the pre-internet times. Which just highlights that how you talk about generations depends on what you more broadly care about. In the west, arguably not too much political upheaval has occurred since WWII and its immediate consequences (basically Boomer things) … and so the generations are distinguished on smaller and probably more technological scales.

Cheers!

I think that immunity for explicitly delineated powers makes sense purely from a logical point of view: the constitution says the president can do a thing, therefore a law saying they can’t do that thing is either unconstitutional, or doesn’t apply to the president.

Yea, it’s an interesting one. AFAIU, the delineated powers are basically command of the military and the power to pardon. I really don’t see how a Crime can generally be applicable to either of those. It’s not like “commanding the army” can just become a crime.

But regulating what the army can legally do … seems like a very natural thing. I don’t know if individuals of the military in the US can be responsible under ordinary law for anything. If so, then I don’t see why that would extend to the president should they order something that’s obviously a crime. If not, then that’s that. And again, there are probably natural exceptions to carve out regarding the very nature of military action that would lead to preposterous inconsistencies if they could possible be made generally criminal … where again, it seems to me that you don’t need immunity … it’s just the nature of the power that is amenable to falling within the meaning of legislative regulation.

Beyond all of that though … there’s the opening line of Article II:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America

WTF is “the executive power”?! I’m sure there have been attempts in the US to give it some shape … but I’d also wager it’s been left somewhat nebulous too, involving elements quite distinct from whatever powers Congress/Law can confer. Does that count as an enumerated power?

Otherwise … yea I’m with you. The “official acts” thing seems more than wonky to me … seems downright expansive. Excluding military action and whatever “fuzzy” powers may be considered intrinsic … I’d imagine most of the executive’s powers come from legislative laws. So the body conferring power can’t constrain it to “not doing something criminal”!!!

I’ve wondered since having a brief look at the decision that the SCOTUS is playing a game here … where they do not want Trump’s trials to affect the election and are hoping to clarify this decision and what “official” means at a later date after the election.

It’s reasonable to me to say you cannot sue the president for vetoing a bill, or criminally prosecute the president for commanding the military. The constitution says the president can do those things, and that the check on presidential power is congressional acts including impeachment.

Yea I dunno … why not just have no immunity? It’s not like the whole idea of the separation of powers is to ensure power is freely exercised … it’s the opposite.

If a president has to pause for a moment before doing something to ask their lawyer if it would be a crime … maybe that’s the point of having fucking legal system and constitution?

Sotomayer’s dissent provided pretty good evidence (AFAICT) that the framers would have put criminal immunity into the constitution if they thought it wise … because it was a known idea at the time that had been done by some states regarding their governors. They didn’t. Cuz that’s the whole point … “no man is above the law”.

And as for Congressional impeachment being paramount … I’m not sure that’s either necessary or even consistent with the Constitution (again, as Sotomayer’s dissent addresses).

For example … Article 1, section 3 (emphasis mine):

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

In short (AFAICT) … impeachment and general legal liability are not the same thing … and the latter totally still applies.

Beyond all of that, the general law probably achieves everything that the majority’s decision was worried about (while they were conspicuously not worried about all of the other things that one should be when crowning a king). Civil immunity is a well established doctrine (government’s just too big and complex a thing for civil responsibility to make sense). And while I don’t know anything about it, there are similar-ish ideas around criminal responsibilities that just don’t make sense for the very nature of a governmental responsibility, war, I think, being a classic example. Sotomayer again speaks about these things.

Overall, once you start to squint at it, the whole decision is kinda weird. To elevate the separation of powers to the point of creating literal lawlessness seems like plain “not seeing the forest for the trees”.

The bit I wonder about, without knowing US Constitutional law/theory well at all … is whether a democratic factor has any bearing. A criminal law is created by the legislature, a democratic body. And also caries requirements for judgment by jury. So couldn’t an argument be made that the centrality of democratic power in the constitution cuts through any concerns about the separation of powers that the SCOTUS had, and enables democratically ordained law to quash concerns about whatever interference the judiciary (or legislature?) might exercise with the executive.

I know there’s the whole “it’s not a democracy, it’s a republic” thing … but the constitution dedicates so much text to establishing the mechanisms of democracy (including the means by which the constitution itself can be altered) that it seems ridiculous to conclude that democratic power is anything but central.

in line with map_enthusiasts: !dataisbeautiful@lemmy.ml (and also !dataisbeautiful@lemmy.world , which is smaller IIRC)

Upvoted (and came to say the same)!

The interesting thing about fire is that it is way back in human history, like, AFAIU, before our hominid species even evolved. So it’s likely intertwined with very biological being.

Another similar invention is likely language. Once the evolutionary pieces were there to get language to the ability of syntax, whoever were the people that riffed on communicating with sounds to the point of making up words and making sentences etc, they invented some ridiculously awesome shit. Like there was probably the first sharing between people of a pun, joke, or first abstraction or conceptual musing. The first argument where one person was more convincing. The first person who was naturally good at speaking and impressed others with it.

A simple way I’ve been touching on this for a while is what I call “The problem of existence”: why would god create a non-divine existence such as our selves?

Put aside evil. If God is all three omnis, why make something that is lesser? I figure that the answer is they themselves must also be lesser than the three omnis.

Fair … I don’t really care that much TBH … it just seemed to be blurring the lines and I’ve always been ambivalent about the strident anti-support stance of this community … so I thought it’d put it out there.

Call me a shit stirer but I can’t help but wonder if this violates rule 3? Which I say not to have this removed from here but because of the IMO weirdness of not wanting any lemmy-support posts here as though lemmy isn’t a growing space in need of supporting new users.

https://spacehost.one/

Run by @reiver@mastodon.social

Still in beta I think.

Yep, agree, and had the same feeling through undergrad.

If it helps, I’ve had the same feeling through post-grad too! The whole world is on timelines and productivity goals these days … no one is allowed the time to just explore and see where things take them.

The recent Nobel Prize for medicine (for the mRNA vaccine) being a fairly glaring indictment of how much it has maybe taken academia off course. For example, here’s a psychology professor trying to address the issue on mastodon. Another example I noticed was that any older paper I’d read, though the technology and understanding (in some cases) was obviously older and less advanced, would obviously be of a better quality compared to modern papers. The main difference was that older papers were more likely to report on the story of an investigation. There’s be assides about things they’d checked or doubts they’d had etc. Modern papers tend to lean more into “marketing” and feel more rushed and manufactured. Any colleague in similar areas to me that I’ve spoken about this has shared similar feelings. Academics are pressured to publish at nearly a breakneck speed and none of them like it. Not because it’s got them working hard (though it does have that effect through secondary affects because of just how many things academics have to do to keep the system running, including peer-review), but because they aren’t allowed to work as hard as they’d like on solving problems and actually finishing projects.

Back to the topic of education … yea I agree that curriculum and its modularity is a big part of the problem. Bottom line is, along with the above, education is manufactured now, not cultured. Allowing a student to try and inevitably fail and struggle at actual research and asking their own or at least not spoon fed questions doesn’t fit neatly into the current design philosophy of education.

Thing is, I’m not sure there is much more of a point to education than allowing and helping someone learn and experience this process. It’s as simple as the “teach a man to fish” aphorism. All of the assessment and metrics driven design of education and curriculum to make sure someone is capable of knowing something for a short window of time is a rather superficial view of what being educated is about. With AI, chatGPT etc, the specter haunting academia and the hollowness of its value proposition is looming very large IMO, but few who are around academia or who genuinely found it valuable or value it as part of the self-worth want to question it.

So I’m going to say no but in a way different from others here.

Technical details like libraries, even search engines, sources, quoting and citing … sure, these were at least touched on if not covered well enough.

But as someone who has gone on to do actual research at an academic level, I’d say the essential challenge of the task wasn’t even touched. Which is getting to the bottom of a question or field, exploring the material on said topic and then digesting and synthesising all of that. Some may hit this in undergrad depending on the degree, and it’s tricky work to do well and at an advanced level.

From what I’ve seen, the ideas and techniques required aren’t covered early on at all. Now it may be rather challenging at an early educational level, but I’d bet you it’s possible but undesirable because it’s hard to grade and takes a long time.

Thing is, I’d suspect trying to get practiced at that kind of work would actually be beneficial. You start to get insight into what it means to know things and to work things out. What it means to ask questions that aren’t common or not immediately answerable by Wikipedia (I recall realising in my masters that Wikipedia no longer had any utility for my research, like at all) and how there are different domains and sources and levels and techniques of both knowledge and uncertainty and mystery. Whether a young student is good at this or gets far at it, trying it for a bit and seeing the process could be valuable for everyone.

I’ve thought this since I was young. Background music? Cool, keep it quiet so we can talk.

Does this mean loud music is bad? No, I’ve been a put my head in the PA speakers metal head since I was young too. But I don’t expect a waiter to serve me then.

Beyond that, it’s a known problem that as you get older audio distractions become more severe, and I’m sure there’s a neurodivergent dimension to it too, so it’s one of those things where we are actively punishing people for wanting to be out and socialise. Also sure it’s one of those things where everyone thinks they have to do it but don’t