Wesley_Hilliard

canukstorm said:

DAalseth said:

I wonder if Trump knows it won’t change. He made all sorts of really stupid promises to his supporters. These Executive Orders let him say he followed through, but like his promise in 2016 to ‘bring back coal’ none of them stand a chance in hell of happening. He knows that but he’s just going through the motions. It’s also good misdirection so people talk about this, while he and his crew are doing real damage behind the scenes. 

As a non-US citizen, how do Executive Orders work?  Are they not binding?  For example, the issue of birthright citizenship is a hot button topic which from my understanding is protected by the 14th Amendment.  Can an executive order just overturn that even though it's in the Constitution?

Nope. Many of Trump's executive orders were actually illegal. An executive order is kind of like a promissory note that conveys the intentions of the administration. They are binding for federal employees and offices, but can't go beyond that and can't violate the constitution. The orders can later be considered by Congress and the Supreme Court if they need further legislation to make them more official, or if they need to be blocked.

ike22w said:

Tim Cook did the same thing with Biden. Also, why did Wesley coin the President-Elect as controversial? He won in an electoral college landslide and also won the popular vote by over 4 million votes. I’d say the country clearly stated who they wanted. No controversy here folks. Maybe let’s just stick with tech news and not show our biased political views in a tech article. 

He's controversial not because he won, but because of who he is and what he believes. There's nothing biased or even political about that. The mountain of lawsuits, assault claims, overt racism, sexism, and indignation for any country that isn't the United States makes him a controversial president.

Saying someone is controversial isn't an insult or attack. It's a simple fact.

entropys said:

I find it all very entertaining.  

One lot of yanks are currently overloaded with euphoria at the thought of a wrecking ball tearing the establishment down, the other lot are crying in their cups.

and why not call it the Gulf of America? It isn’t as though the left aren’t busy changing place names all the time.

I think the motive is different. Gulf of America is part of a bigger problem with the incoming administration suggesting that the United States is now an empire looking to expand its borders. The gulf's name predates the United States and is founded in the people that lived here before colonizers enslaved and killed them.

leighr said:

The end of so called “fact checkers” is a welcome relief for true free speech. When one person, or group, has the power to decide what is ‘true’ or not, we are all in trouble. See exhibit one: China, or even worse, North Korea. We all need to fight against this sort of abuse of money and power, and while I am not a huge Facebook fan, I’m glad that they are following X’s lead in allowing free speech. 

I'm assuming this means that when a teacher graded your paper and marked an answer incorrect, it was a violation of your free speech? No one has the power to decide what is true or not. Reality is the only truth. But by making fact checking crowdsourced, you remove truth from fact, and I guess that's why they say we're in a post truth society. People only want to hear things they agree with, and everything else is deemed a lie, "fake news."

It is tragic how bad things have become. People mistrusting professionals, believing conspiracies, hating everything different from themselves.

It is tragic. I mourn the death of knowledge, of fact, of reality, of compassion. The only thing left is greed and hate in the people that follow him. It is pitiful.

decoderring said:

Could we just stop with these useless articles — everyone will be better off not constantly seeing articles about a mercurial individual whose only goal in life is to twist everyone’s undies in a bundle for his own ego gratification.

Sadly, it is news even if we are all tired of seeing it. Believe me, we're tired of reporting it.

StationGrey said:

jmoore5196 said:

Extortion?  Backtracking?  Did no one learn anything from January 6?  

Remember Richard Nixon's comment to David Frost:  If the President does it, it's not illegal.

Nixon's party of law and order, fiscal responsibility and small government has been completely co-opted by a conman.  Voters have put this party in charge of the Executive and Legislative branches, and the fact that most members of the judiciary hew toward this party's views means the President can do whatever he wants.

Indeed. The question my friends and I in the UK ask, is at what point is the US technically a dictatorship? 

Oh, we crossed the literal definition around January 20th with the signing of dozens of executive orders. Now whether anyone wants to admit it is a whole different discussion.

From Britannica:

dictatorship, form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. The term dictatorship comes from the Latin title dictator, which in the Roman Republic designated a temporary magistrate who was granted extraordinary powers in order to deal with state crises. Modern dictators, however, resemble ancient tyrants rather than ancient dictators. Ancient philosophers’ descriptions of the tyrannies of Greece and Sicily go far toward characterizing modern dictatorships. Dictators usually resort to force or fraud to gain despotic political power, which they maintain through the use of intimidation, terror, and the suppression of basic civil liberties. They may also employ techniques of mass propaganda in order to sustain their public support.

"An old fashioned term that we use -- groceries. I used it on the campaign. It's such an old fashioned term, but a beautiful term. Groceries. It says a bag with different things in it."

9secondkox2 said:

Sounds good. Trump cares a lot about Apple. gotta get China in line to do the most benefit since Apple seems so cozy there. 

Yep, get China in line by making Americans pay more than they ever did for Chinese goods. Great deal. Also awesome that the 10% tariff on American goods means that Chinese customers are likely to look elsewhere for goods. Good for American businesses for sure.

So more expensive goods and less sales for Americans. Art of the deal, as you say.

neoncat said:

Mr. Hilliard, you're a fine writer and I enjoy your articles. But your increasing need to challenge readers with parochial arguments in the comments is a bad look (not that my opinion matters, of course.)

I have no real skin in this game—I don't live in the EU. I tend to like more open systems than more closed, but I get the advantages Apple's approach brings, even if it also brings tremendous baggage and restrictions that deserve to be challenged. More importantly, however: Dominos have an interesting way of continuing to fall. The longer Apple digs in its heels, the less control it will have over outcomes. Which is such classic Apple behavior: Kick and scream until the terms are fully dictated and then they have zero chance to represent their viewpoint, whether on behalf of their customers or their own financial goals. They should let go of the App Store before the whole thing, bad *and* good, gets burned to the ground. 

Nothing I said contradicts what you said here. I'm not sure what you mean by saying my posts are some kind of church gospel. As I've said on Bluesky and other places, more than one thing can be true.

Apple digging in its heels isn't great. It's in a troublesome issue of its own making. However, the EU is overstepping by making demands it doesn't always seem to understand. Compel Apple to open up, but on its terms and timeline. Don't force hastily made changes that could be compromising to users.

My comment was directed at the original poster's comment about envying alternative app stores, which I do not. I'm happy that regulations enabled things like emulators without much trouble, but asking Apple to destroy its business model to make way for competitors that can't keep up, now that's an issue.

People like me that buy Apple for the closed ecosystem of products like that it's built on privacy and security first, then opened up in certain ways to allow more third-party interaction later. It's time for Apple to allow more smart watch functionality outside of Apple Watch, for example. But asking Apple to open up AirPlay and other proprietary systems is incredibly short sighted.

What's the point of competition if the EU regulates all the competitors to operate identically. That's not user choice, that's the kind of dystopia where all the brands in the store have been removed in the name of equality. I don't want to have an Android phone, so I didn't buy one. I don't want the EU to force Apple to make iOS into Android.

That said, regulations are helpful in pushing companies into making consumer-friendly decisions.

SmittyW said:

Wesley Hilliard said:

canukstorm said:

DAalseth said:

I wonder if Trump knows it won’t change. He made all sorts of really stupid promises to his supporters. These Executive Orders let him say he followed through, but like his promise in 2016 to ‘bring back coal’ none of them stand a chance in hell of happening. He knows that but he’s just going through the motions. It’s also good misdirection so people talk about this, while he and his crew are doing real damage behind the scenes. 

As a non-US citizen, how do Executive Orders work?  Are they not binding?  For example, the issue of birthright citizenship is a hot button topic which from my understanding is protected by the 14th Amendment.  Can an executive order just overturn that even though it's in the Constitution?

Nope. Many of Trump's executive orders were actually illegal. An executive order is kind of like a promissory note that conveys the intentions of the administration. They are binding for federal employees and offices, but can't go beyond that and can't violate the constitution. The orders can later be considered by Congress and the Supreme Court if they need further legislation to make them more official, or if they need to be blocked.

For example, his orders about birthright citizenship aren't allowed, period. He can't actually provide amnesty to ByteDance from a law that was passed. And he can't withdraw from the WHO like that. He's being sued already and there are a lot of people on both sides of the isle that are unhappy with the many of the executive orders and what they do. Congress will likely overturn several. We'll see.

You need to do some more research and look into what 'US jurisdiction' means. Might want to look up supreme court precedent while you're at it. You are welcome.

Also, that's a shame about the WHO, looks like Tedros is going to have to go back to embezzling funds from the Ethiopian government again. Poor guy.

I'll repeat what I said in a previous thread: wtf are you talking about?