this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
917 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59135 readers
2588 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 324 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Day 30 of being fucking bewildered that I, a non-voting member of my city's bicycle commission, have stricter ethical laws binding me than those for judges and politicians.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 108 points 2 months ago

It's because the politicians make the laws. And they want their judges on the bench to rule in their favor. Laws forcing judges to recuse don't help the politicians ignore the laws they find inconvenient.

[–] rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 40 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If you can get the street sweeper to get the bike lane near my house I'll give you a half a can of chamois butt'r

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 21 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I'm trying to secure wholly separate bike lanes, or at least flexi-posts, anything but a sharrow or a line of paint. Tbh, I dunno how that'll work with a street sweeper.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

There are little sidewalk sweepers about the size of golf carts that get used by colleges, it would work perfectly for a bidirectional bike lane.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 months ago

The mini sweepers work just fine in both Toronto and Montreal. Heck, in Montreal they clear the bike lanes even in the winter, often better than the roads. Additionally the local bike share is open 365 days a year now, they are equipped with studded tires between November and April.

Curious to hear about your experience.

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can you get narrower car lanes? Trying to cross an 8 lane stroad that has 12ft wide lanes in the middle of town is hellish.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I don't know if I can; it's not, well, in my lane as a bicycle/pedestrian committee member. I still show up and advocate for lane narrowing and traffic calming at the city council meetings.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 214 points 2 months ago (3 children)

This is fucking bullshit.

I review science proposals for the government that come from private companies responding to an announcement about grants for specific kinds of technology.

I have to submit a financial form every year disclosing stock that I own to make sure there are no conflicts of interest.

The fact that is guy is allowed to shrug and say “nah” and just keep going blows my mind.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 58 points 2 months ago

Congress critters straight up trade on insider knowledge. Welcome to America 🤡

The system is working as designed.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 139 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Gotta love that Conservative mantra:

  • I get to do what I want.
  • You have to do what I say.

The judge doesn't have to recuse himself, because <insert specious reasoning> and fuck you. Also, he's the big, bad judge, and he's going to chide the plaintiff's attorneys in a show of dominance.

Texas is basically a Conservative rubber stamp, at this point. I hope we get Kamala/Walz, because we desperately need judicial reform.

[–] OlinOfTheHillPeople@lemmy.world 75 points 2 months ago

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 128 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The fact that we just left it up to them to recuse themselves is a major unchecked flaw.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 43 points 2 months ago (11 children)

Our founding morons were the most naive idiots in existence... Sure they lived in a different time, but how could you possibly look back at any time in history and say "it's ok only moral people get positions of power so we'll play by the honor system."

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 30 points 2 months ago (6 children)

US citizens give way WAY too much credit to their founders. Calling them "founding fathers" almost sounds like it's a religion. I'm sure they were smart guys in their time, but they too were flawed and made a shit tonne of mistakes, like everybody else. Just fix those mistakes already.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's totally cringe when people call those slavers their daddies. Definitely a symptom of a much larger, wacko cult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] olympicyes@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

The Founding Fathers could not have anticipated that honor and shame would be totally foreign concepts to a sitting president and congress. In the 1790s for example, pistol duels were the leading cause of death for US navy midshipmen.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 months ago

This is curiously noteworthy in The Federalist Papers. Hamilton puts a lot of faith in the human conscience all the while pointing out that if men were angels we would need no government noting that we do need checks and balances.

The Electoral College is a dead giveaway that they didn't trust the public to self-govern, and hence there needed to be back doors where gentlemen (men of means) could override the system should someone like Jimmy Carter get elected.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 85 points 2 months ago (9 children)

The reason to have courts at all is to have an alternative to violence to resolve conflicts of interest.

This is why black market negotiations are done featuring a lot of well-armed guys.

This is also why the public needs to be able to trust the courts are impartial.

This is why even the appearance of misconduct cannot be tolerated.

So at the time your goons kill their goons to resolve the dispute, kill the corrupt judge as well, because its his fault you had to resort to violence in the first place.

[–] Xatolos@reddthat.com 28 points 2 months ago (5 children)

If it matters, the judge is a Republican.

They seem to be in the news more often....

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 22 points 2 months ago

You didn't have to mention his party, everyone knew he was a Republican from the headline.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 80 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Right wingers in the US have decided to collectively do whatever the hell they want.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Judges in East Texakistan have been doing it for decades.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jayandp@sh.itjust.works 39 points 2 months ago

There needs to be a ban on any judge presiding over something within at least one or two degrees of separation of relationships with said judge. Any direct relationships, either direct relatives or friends or direct investment, and possibly second degree relationships like a relative or friend being invested, or a relative/friend of a relative/friend.

[–] notnotmike@programming.dev 29 points 2 months ago (4 children)

For anyone confused by this headline, there are two trials this judge is considering for X

[O'Conner] was overseeing two lawsuits filed by X and recused himself from only one of the cases.

This isn't the new case about the "illegal boycott" O'Conner has recused himself from that trial (likely) because he also owns stock in Unilever, one of the defending companies

[–] towerful@programming.dev 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh, so if a judge has a vested interest in more than 1 party, then they should recuse themselves from the case.
Good to know where the line is

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] febra@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Democracy in America in a nutshell.

[–] RangerJosie@sffa.community 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"American Style" Democrqcy

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Does the American law still not have an auto-recuse system that does not even put you on a case of a company you own stock of?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] drdalek@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago (3 children)

We should've let them secede.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

Papa Clarence would be proud

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

There needs to be a system in place that removes any judge from presiding over a conflicting case

[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Of course it’s fucking Reed O’connor

This will get overturned on appeal. He’s frequently overturned for shit like this.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›