I hope our little pushback against deporting random legally present gay bakers to the foreign gulag doesn't force you to support Trump's 2028 22nd amendment violation.

"The USA is a democracy" is a perfectly valid and correct statement. "No, it's a republic" is kind of a nonsensical retort, and I'm not sure how it got so popular.

There literally are no democracies which do not have representative elements, and "constitutional republic" and "constitutional monarchy" are concepts that are both perfectly compatible with the separate concept of democracy.

They would be afforded a way to challenge their deportation, not be denied access to a lawyer, sent to a foreign gulag on the account of a random guys interpretation of their tattoos, then having videos of themselves in chain gangs posted on the governments social media.

There is really nothing defensible here at all.

In this context, its a bit rich for the pro-Trump "great peace negotiator" group to imply that the US needed to keep verbal promises made 35 years ago. It was, after all, just what some dude said one time.

Germany's highest court has held the same thing.

This is right and proper. We need to defend these principles, now more than ever.

If they want credit for the ones not dropped, they need to take responsibility for the ones they did. Not really that hard!

This is important because "it's all on Hamas's hands" is really just a refusal to engage with the ethical questions at all. Folks could (and clearly would!) say that, whether one child is killed, or a million. It's just a question of when it becomes untenable to brush the question away.

The idea that "this is more or less like any other country would have reacted" is the same trap; this makes Israel no worse or better than any other country, and conveniently means we don't have to ask ourselves about the morality of it all.

> If you're Natanyahu on October 8, 2023, and the reports of the Hamas massacres on civilians come in, there is almost no leeway for reacting in a way differently than how the Israeli government and the IDF reacted.

Any lack of political leeway to react differently is squarely within Israel's ethical score card. I.e. "Israel as an entity is not responsible for its choices because the entities constituent parts forced those choices" is reductive.

> The problem right now with the hostage deal is that it leaves Hamas in charge. That's a huge problem.

That this is the current outcome is maybe an indication that your framework of the three possible options (what Israel did + two strawmen) is lacking.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Thousands of Palestinians children are dead, and for every single one, Israel could have chosen not to kill them, and the decision to do so is on them.

The floor price can be a dubious measure of value for many NFTs, since there are few buyers, but for highly liquid collections like the Penguins, there are corresponding standing "offers" that owners can sell into any time they want, therefore creating a spread between listings and bids.

The price is (was) real.

This is basically untrue. At times, the court has applied different standards to speech by residents, but this does not mean that they would allow the government to apply any kind of limit on their speech, or indeed, more than very narrow ones.

In addition, the first amendment also covers the right to receive information.

Foreign ownership rules are not the same thing as the EU banning RT through legal means, or Israel shutting down Al-Jazeera and instituting internet blocks. You will notice that RT is not blocked in the US, nor is any other foreign media company.

I've taken many flights in Europe without id check, see also: https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/180781/what-deter...

It's not really a big deal if someone sneaks on board, therefore, no reason to burden millions of flyers every day with additional checks. Also, you may well not have ID on you. Maybe you don't like to carry it. Maybe you forgot your wallet. Maybe you don't even have one. Who cares?

https://oberlandesgericht-stuttgart.justiz-bw.de/pb/,Lde/Sta...

- Countries without a link they have no info

- Countries with a link, but are cursive, generally provide the certificate in most cases (this seems to be broken, I see no cursive ones, but the UK is among this group, which one can see when opening the link; but that seems to be the minority).

- All others they seem to suggest need to go through the exemption process.

In any case it say that since 2021 Germany will accept a sworn oath from US residents to declare their eligibility.

Because most countries don't have that sort of document (including the US), you then instead need to apply to your local Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) for an exemption.

All the way, any foreign government documents need to be notorized by the German embassy in that country.

The reality is that I (and others who are complaining, as well as many who have resigned themselves to their fate) are happy to have a website "track me", certainly if the cost of non-tracking are having to click away an annoying popup, and think that people who compare a website wanting to know the number of their visitors to "hidden fees" are kind of being ridiculous.

Unfortunatly in the real world your criminal justice ethics will have to accommodate crimes that are not murder, so you might need to think about some prisoners eventually getting released, who might then go on and do more criming.

> it's great if they change their life but ultimately it's to extract murderers from society

In that case, there is no need to make prisons particularly cruel. Cost can be debated, but surely as a society, we can put a value on humaneness. Even if not, if say I, a billionaire, wanted prisoners eat caviar every night and am willing to fund it, surely this should be allowed.

How so? They are clearly saying they expected this to be possible already, until this article claimed otherwise (by suggesting AI is contributing something new here).

They are saying that this result will not resolve the disputes, because it doesn't address the core thing in dispute: that there are meaningful differences that people actually care about. For example, maybe it is possible to tell the sex based on the shape of the brain. This doesn't mean that men and woman think differently, which is what people are actually arguing about. And the AI in this study can't proof that, because it doesn't give us any further insights into how cognition works.

This point strikes me as actually pretty mundane and obviously correct. The fact that 5 people immediately seem to have misunderstood it (as in, they are not responding to the argument) seems to tell us something about their priors instead.

So is my NFT! No one can take it away from me. There are a couple things that could happen:

- The artist can mint an additional copy; this could mean my own copy loses value, or it could mean the community doesn't care, and continues to value the original one. Similarly, the folks that issue some ERC-20 token can decide to issue a new one and abandon their old token. In fact, vitalik et al could advocate for a fork for ETH. This is just how the social layer works.

- The media file associated with the NFT could be lost or changed. This can be a problem, but can also be addressed (IPFS), and can also be art: https://publico.pob.studio/piano

Larva Labs, the pioneers behind Cryptopunks, didn't even bother to put a link into their NFT at the time: it literally is a item/owner table. They didn't forget the link, they correctly understood that what the token represents is defined at the social layer.

The thing that I never understand when people make this complaint: Do you think my purchase of the "monkey picture" is now more real, because someone else paid for Ethereum nodes to physically store the bytes to it, instead of a link? Do I own it "more"? Does it have to be stored in a particular location within the Merkle tree? Can I upload it myself to make my ownership of my monkey more "real"?

What if I store it in the Arctic World Archive instead, does it now have more or less permanency than on the blockchain?

The line of critique inherently seems to make no sense; it's IMO a strong sign that it is fundamentally flawed.

When you buy art as an NFT, you do own an actual piece of art. Unless you think a non-physical art like say The Clock inherently cannot be sold outside of a copyright transfer, and that has been untrue long before NFTs.