I think you would struggle to find any serious Constitutional scholar who would agree with your interpretation. “Except in cases of impeachment” is clearly a limit on what cases a president has the power to issue a pardon, not a retroactive “unpardoning” of cases after a president has been impeached. In fact the retroactive nullification of a pardon seems to fly in the face of a basic judicial principle that hold decisions to be final.

I’ve been playing around with this idea I have called “n-link civic literacy” it’s an unscientific measure of civic literacy (how good are you at extracting and understanding information from the news) that works by measuring the number of links it takes to successfully obscure bullshit from the reader.

Did you read a headline, form an opinion and react to it without reading the article? Then you are -1 link literate. Do you open the article but believe it’s claims without checking the source material? Then you are 0 link literate. Click through to the study cited by the article? 1 link literate.

Probably would not work for edge cases, but I think could work to get a rough measure of the civic literacy of a community.

The section about buying new phones and the section about company investment appear to have nothing to do with one another.

The report by the Fed they cite is concerned with estimating the effect of capital reinvestment productivity gains by the firm.

Just breezing through the report it looks like the Fed is trying to explain differences in GDP between economies as a consequence of capital reinvestment. When firms buy new equipment, which could include IT equipment but also could include things like robots, backhoes, new looms, or any other piece of equipment a firm uses to produce goods or services, they should be more productive because their equipment has newer technology in it. The Fed reasons that if two major economies differ in GDP growth one of the potential explanations might be the rate of capital reinvestment firms in those economies engage in because newer equipment usually increases productivity. So more frequent investments in capital should yield faster growth in GDP. They present evidence in favor of that argument.

I don’t know how reasonable their conclusion is because I am not too familiar with their measurements which are not direct measures of capital investment and don’t really know enough about how GDP changes over time to know if this is a good explanation. It is clear, however, that the Fed is not arguing that consumers need to keep buying new phones every year or the economy will collapse or even be harmed. That is not even remotely what the report is about.

The repercussions are that all the grand jury materials are going to be released to the defense, which is extremely rare.

These materials will bolster one or more of the arguments for dismissal making them much more likely to succeed.

If these materials clearly demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct (which so far has not been proven) I think they could also be submitted as bar complaints against the prosecuting lawyers, making those complaints more powerful which could lead to career consequences for those lawyers.

This decision, which is part of the preliminary phase of a trial, is extremely unusual and very bad for the prosecution.

It happens a lot. They even made a lifetime movie about one incident.

They will need/find another more hyped up thing that is somehow even worse for the environment than what they have now.

It’s only a misdemeanor because the injuries sustained were only categorized as boo-boos. If they had been ouchies, we would be looking at felony charges.

Using a straw when drinking sugary/ acidic drinks is supposed to be better for your teeth since it limits the exposure of sugar or acid to your teeth. Not sure how true that is, but I have had dentists suggest it as a way of lowering the chance of getting cavities.

I think one of the problems with citing that first study as evidence Russian disinfo is targeted at conservatives more than liberals is that it only studied one case, and Russian disinformation campaigns tailor their disinfo to different demographics, often through brute force/trial and error. So it is quite possible that the particular case they studied happens to be tailored to (or more successfully resonated with) conservatives, while another specific case would have resonated with liberals more thus resulting in more liberal exposure by their metrics.

There are folks who cannot tell the difference between productivity and output. Once you recognize that fact, a lot of the fascination with llms start to make sense.

The ruling

When I was in undergrad I had to write lots of essays by hand. I’d say about every other course in one of my majors had midterms and finals that were a single question essay to be completed in class during the testing period. I figured that was pretty typical.

I agree with her general point about the poor civics education of Americans. Even reading comments here on Lemmy has been enough to convince me that most Americans have no clue how their government works.

The survey this is based on has a summary page, but they don’t post their survey error estimates. What I can tell, without giving them my email, is that the entire survey was 250 adults. How many of those are “gen z” I have no idea, but if you are generous and say 1/4 that is 63 people considered gen z. The 46 percent that reported dipping into savings would then be about 29.

Just so everyone prognosticating about the state of the economy in this thread is aware, you are commenting on a survey that has a very low n and did not publish any sort of margin of error.

The point I was making was that the people who are in power are in power because about half of all voters are fine with them being in power and about a third actively want facist rule. Ultimately thisis not a failure of government structure. It’s a failure of citizens. Maybe that will change as those who supported trump from ignorance experience the consequences of their decisions. Maybe not. But trump won the popular vote last election cycle and has always enjoyed a fairly substantial base. A base that penalizes conservatives who worked against him by removing them from power. You cannot ignore the role that the people played in bringing about the current state of affairs. We are getting what people voted for.

Btw the checks do still work. They work in lower courts as they apply the law without regard to partisanship. They, surprisingly, work in grand juries. And they work for non MAGA states to the extent that our federalized system gives more influence to local governments. Where they have failed is where maga politicians enjoy wide support.

That’s a nice bromide but framing the current constitutional crises as the result of a “lie” about checks and balances fundamentally mischaracterizes the issues at hand. For one it diminishes the compliance of the other branches which is clearly critical for enabling the abuse that we see. And it also overlooks the general issue that about half the national actively enables the naked corruption and ascendant facism of the current government.

The problem of the present moment is not the structure of the government it’s the tolerance of the population.

The checks still exist to correct those abuses of power. Just because congress or SCOTUS is unwilling to use them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

“Checks and balances” in the context of US federal government just means that each branch has the ability to check the growth of power of the others. It’s not “a lie” because it’s still true. Right now congress could, if they wanted to, impeach the president or pass laws preventing him from doing the things he wants. The SCOTUS could stop him too if they wanted to actually take up cases on the law instead of using the shadow docket to avoid making rulings.

Trump partisans hold a trifecta in government right now so they are not going to use their checks they have available to them. But one branch refusing to check another because its members were elected from the same stock of partisan lunatics is not the same as checks and balances not existing.

If they had actually discovered a cause of autism, or even substantially advanced research in that area they would have announced it right away, rather than engaging in this hype cycle bs like they are trying to defraud a venture capitalist.

AI doomsday marketing wank has the same vibe as preteens at a sleepover getting spooked by a ouija board.