Kevin Kelly expects it to be much more common for people to self-choose names in the (distant) future
|
My weird idea from last night: A "shadow" phone OS inside a browser window on your phone
It's an interesting idea. I have no idea how it would be useful, but it popped into my head last night.
|
How I Use the Surface Duo 2
Overall, a very good review of someone who has really used and put the Duo 2 through its paces. I will say, the issues he complains about regarding Bluetooth and his car is something I have not dealt with. My car (Honda Pilot) and the Duo 2 work fantastically.
|
Reddit poster dispels explains the Supreme Court and what the Democrats would have to do to stop the Roe v Wade being overturned
Found courtesy of my friend Bill:
So I’ve seen a number of comments blaming Democrats for this that say it’s their fault that Roe v Wade wasn’t “codified into law.” This shows a misunderstanding of how the US legal system works, so here’s a quick primer.
Role of the Supreme Court
At the very inception of the USA the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to be the interpreter of the US Constitution and the arbiter of whether laws passed within the US abide by the Constitution in the Marbury v Madison ruling. This has been an accepted role of the Court ever since, and falls within the notion of checks and balances. The Court acts as a check on Congress and the states to ensure that all laws passed follow the Constitution. For example, if Congress passed a law saying that no one could say bad things about the president, the Court would rule that this is not a law because it violates the 1st Amendment. Or if Congress passed a law saying that there are no more elections, they get to stay in Congress for life, the Supreme Court would overrule that law by saying “no the Constitution says elections every 2 years.” These Supreme Court rulings have the force of law.
So then can’t the Supreme Court just say whatever they want?
Well not quite but sort of. Supreme Court has a policy called stare decisis which means that they generally should respect previous decisions that have been made. Technically it’s up to them though. Theoretically another check on the power of the Supreme Court is that the President appoints them, so the people have a say in the Supreme Court based on who they elect as president. Finally, another way that the people can overrule the Court is by passing Constitutional Amendments — actually changing the most important document in the USA. However this is incredibly hard. Not only do 2/3 of BOTH houses of Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) have to agree but then 3/4 of the State Legislatures have to pass it as well.
So how does this apply to Roe and abortion?
So Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision that interpreted the Constitution as saying that women have the right to an abortion within certain limits. Remember, this has the force of law, and that only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. If Republicans in Mississippi passed a law saying “there’s no right to abortion” the Supreme Court would say “nope we decided that and stare decisis says we stick with that decision”. And this happened time and time again. The restrictions changed somewhat but basically they continued to agree with their previous ruling. Except that’s not what happened THIS TIME. This time the Court said “you know we were wrong back then, changed our minds.”
But what about Democrats in Congress?
So like I said before, if Democrats passed a law last week saying “women have a right to an abortion”, then the Supreme Court could still say “nope that’s not in the Constitution.” If Democrats pass one tomorrow, the Court could still say the same thing. The only way to change it without the Court is to pass a Constitutional Amendment, which is impossible in today’s America. This is why republicans have been laser focused on the Supreme Court. Hope this has been helpful!
EDIT: This is not to say that passing a law protecting abortion today would be not allowed — that’s not what Dobbs says — but highlighting the fact that no matter what law is passed (except a Constitutional amendment) the Supreme Court could (and based on today’s ruling would) overrule it.
|
DARPA's Heilmeier Catechism
DARPA operates on the principle that generating big rewards requires taking big risks. But how does the Agency determine what risks are worth taking?
George H. Heilmeier, a former DARPA director (1975-1977), crafted a set of questions known as the "Heilmeier Catechism" to help Agency officials think through and evaluate proposed research programs.
- What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon.
- How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?
- What is new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful?
- Who cares? If you are successful, what difference will it make?
- What are the risks?
- How much will it cost?
- How long will it take?
- What are the mid-term and final “exams” to check for success?
|
