sylver_dragon

the FDA actually has less than 10 employees. Everyone else is an outside contractor.

You can search for FDA employees here (the US Government has a lot of transparency around employees). Also, it wouldn’t surprise me to find a lot of contractors in scientific and technical roles in the FDA, the FedGov uses a lot of contractors. I actually spent time, at a site, first as a contractor and then as a direct employee. The only thing that materially changed was whether or not my badge said “contractor” on it. I literally sat in the same seat and did the same job. Pay was pretty close, but the benefits were way better. The line between contractor and govie was pretty blury and more of a running joke than a real wall. Maybe that was just the departments I worked for, but I suspect my experience was more typical.

Can someone take them on a tour of the ice sheet, and then accidentally forget to bring them back?

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require any specific test which defines “insurrection”.

Ya, the real problem is that it doesn’t. As specifically stated by the CRS:

Determining who has engaged in either of the two disqualifying activities—that is, engaging in insurrection or rebellion or giving aid or comfort to an enemy—is likely to be a difficult task given the scarcity of precedents and lack of clear definitions

And that difficulty is why that whole document exists, there isn’t clear legal guidance. And the historic precedents on it are a mess. Yes, either house of Congress has the power to refuse to seat a member of their respective house and have used the 14th Amendment as a reason in the past. Moreover, Congress could pass a law which sets out a legal framework; but, that’s not really happened either. The whole reason that this is even a discussion is that lack of clarity.

Republican strategy has long revolved around the targeted devolution of norms. They hide in the cracks between definitions which assume good faith participation in the labor of mutually consensual governance and shield themselves in perpetual faux-victimhood. If Congress does not pursue the execution of Section 3 it is nothing less than an abdication of their duty to their Oath of Office.

Arguably, Congress did try to do something, the House Impeached Trump. The Senate dropped the ball. And the American people then buried that ball far enough to interfere with Satan’s daily activities by re-electiong Trump. It’s a bad situation, but also not one we’re going to solve by misrepresenting the law. Especially by handing The House the sole power to determine what Presidential Candidates have engaged in insurrection by a simple majority vote (the requirement to impeach). If you want to bring up “devolution of norms”, that sort of power is going to take the cake. Anytime we have a split government, we’re going to see impeachment and barring from office on the flimsiest of excuses. What we need isn’t half-baked ideas but an actual, well considered framework.

Your last paragraph is a result of misunderstandings and assumptions on your part.

I think it’s down to you moving the goalposts. You specifically stated:

The language of the 14th doesn’t require an impeachment or other formal conviction to apply. The fact that Trump was successfully impeached for inciting an insurrection is enough. The Senate’s failure to execute its duty does not erase reality.

You are arguing that the House Impeaching is enough to trigger Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Which is what I’m calling ridiculous. Trump being convicted by the Senate would have clearly barred him from holding office again. The reality is that he was acquitted. That’s the part which is actually important.

The fact that Trump was successfully impeached for inciting an insurrection is enough. The Senate’s failure to execute its duty does not erase reality.

Do you actually understand how impeachment works? The House passing articles of impeachment means very little. For a legal equivalent, it’s like the grand jury agreeing to indict. Should we be punishing criminals just because charges were brought against them, even if they were acquitted? Of course not. While the House has the Power to Impeach:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. -US Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6

The reality of the situation is that the Impeachment of Trump isn’t a factor in the 14th Amendment barring him. Had the Senate convicted, it would have been a cut and dried situation, but that didn’t happen. Were Trump convicted for insurrection for his actions on January 6th, it would again be an easy situation. The reason there is such an interesting conversation, and not much else, around the 14th Amendment and Trump is that the legal situation isn’t clear. Lots of folks have said that Trump’s actions were an insurrection, but he hasn’t actually been convicted of it. Congress could probably bar him from holding office, but that hasn’t happened.

I’d also point out how insane it would be for the House’s Power to Impeach to become the de facto bar for executing the 14th Amendment’s bar on holding office. This requires a simple majority in the House. Really think that one through. You want the House to be able to bar any person from holding Federal Office, based on a simple majority vote? The level of chaos that would create would be insane.

This is not speculation. Donald Trump was successfully impeached for inciting insurrection.

Did you stop reading your link at the title? Literally the third sentence:

On February 13, 2021, the Senate voted to acquit Trump on the article of impeachment.

If you want to dig into the arguments about what is and isn’t legally insurrection and if the 14th Amendment is self executing or not, that is an interesting discussion. But, don’t lead with a “pants on head” stupid argument that the House passed Articles of Impeachment, for which the Senate acquitted him, as evidence that the 14th Amendment applies. Just fucking no.

My all time favorite was Robotech, though it has not aged well.
I also went through a lot of Disney in my youth:

• Gummi Bears
• Duck tales
• Darkwing Duck

And then there was the smattering of others:

• Dungeons and Dragons
• Thundercats

I was lucky that, despite being somewhat religious, my parents were fine with me being an atheist. We would even debate the merits of religion and they did not have any issues with my questioning of their beliefs. Both were Lutheran and they had raised me in that tradition. I went to Sunday school, attended the Lutheran Catechism and reached the point of Confirmation. And that was right about the time I realized that the whole thing seemed to be based on a bunch of old stories with no more evidence than elves or faeries. And that was always the crux of my issue with their religion, and one they could never argue past.

When it came to my kids, they have been raised with my complete lack of belief and my wife being agnostic. We spend our Sunday mornings sleeping in and not going to any sort of church/temple/forest altar. Though, that last might happen, if it’s ruins at the end of a nice hike. My parents never expressed any disapproval and the lack of religion was never an issue. Technically, my mother is still kicking about and could suddenly go off the deep end, though I strongly doubt that’s in the cards.

At the same time, my wife and I had discussed religion before we had kids and what we might do in the event it became an issue. The simple answer was, “fuck 'em”. I love my parents, but my kids come first. If my parents had decided to get stupid over us not indoctrinating our kids in their fairy tales, then I would have just removed them from my life a few years before death did it anyway. Sure, it would have meant the kids never knowing their grandparents. But, there are lots of assholes in this world, I don’t see the need to personally inflict them all upon my children.

The best thing you can do is talk to your partner and have a plan. I would say that, if you expect it to be a point of contention with your parents, you might want to talk with them about your views on religion before it gets to that point. It doesn’t need to be anything confrontational, just be up front and say, “I don’t believe what you do”. You don’t need to go on a Dawkins style, “your religion sucks and you are morons for believing it.” Just make it clear that you don’t believe. It’s still entirely possible to have a warm, loving relationship with folks who don’t believe as you do. It just requires that each side treats the other with basic human decency and respect.

Now, can we fix flashlights in games such that we don’t get a well defined circle of lit area surrounded by completely a black environment? Light doesn’t work that way, it bounces and scatters, meaning that a room with a light in it should almost never be completely dark. I always end up ignoring the “adjust the gamma until some wiggle is just visible” setup pages and just blow the gamma out until I can actually see a reasonable amount in the dark areas.

Yes, really dark places should be really dark. But, once you add a light to the situation, they should be a lot less dark.

I generally use the OS which fits what I am trying to do. For my desktop PC, I run Arch Linux as it lets me game, run VMs and have a high level of control over what the system is doing. The VMs are mostly Windows for testing stuff and one running Ubuntu as a host for PolarProxy. My server runs Ubuntu, though really just as a platform to host docker containers. That was a decision I made years ago when I knew a lot less about Linux and was looking for something which was more turnkey. My work laptop is Windows, because my work is mostly a Microsoft shop. But, I have WSL running both Ubuntu (for the SANS Sift framework) and Kali.

An Operating System is a tool. Don’t get wedded to any one OS.

Popular beliefs influences people’s beliefs, which reinforces popular beliefs. Step back even farther from the question for a moment and ask, “why do you think of ghosts as dead human spirits at all?” That a “ghost” is some sort of dead human spirit is a concept that has been built into Western society for a long time. It is something we just accept in story telling and mythological belief systems because it’s been in them so long and is told to us via authoritative figures in our lives from an early age. To tell a story where a ghost is anything other than a dead human spirit or the echo of a dead human, makes people call bullshit on the story, because the story has broken a long standing societal expectation. Sure, some stories can get away with it, and more so in the modern age where we are starting to appreciate stories which subvert long standing expectations. But, we still tend to fall back on old tropes and devices which we can expect readers to understand, without having to spend too much time on building a world. It’s far easier to save the term “ghost” for something much like a dead human spirit and just create a new term when trying to describe something else.