Is that a scam to get people's phone numbers or is it just a classic case of "everything Microsoft touches turns to $h17?"
I suspect it's not so much Microsoft as bots, if they're pushing it. Although it's true that Microsoft et al seem to have some ideas about 2FA as well…
Here you'd leave to go home or you'd ask to eat along, and your friend's parents would normally ask about your dinner arrangements before making dinner.
And of course you'd have to call your parents to ask if it's okay that you're not eating with them unless you arranged it in advance. They have meals to plan too.
Times have changed, too – today, it’s a different story. In Sweden now, if you have one child who comes over, they would likely get food as well. It’s not so much the way it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago, when I was growing up. But even then, it really wasn’t the “big deal” people on Twitter are making it sound like it was. Everyone did it. You just continued playing with dolls (or whatever it was) while your friend ate with their mum and dad.
This particular scenario of sticking around while the family is eating does sound odd to me as a non-Swede. Here you'd leave to go home or you'd ask to eat along, and your friend's parents would normally ask about your dinner arrangements before making dinner. For lunch it's different because lunch is bread-based; that doesn't require any planning. I think there's also a factor of summer vs winter, which is to say parents generally want you to come home before it's dark.
But this does go back to my question as to what exactly the map is trying to say. If it's that by default we might head home around 17:30 to 18, while eating along is common enough but not the default, then that might be true. But I think that's something very different than what the map seems to be trying to imply.
In dark blue areas, this invariably includes wholesome snacks like sandwiches.
As stated, that depends on the time of day. If you expect sandwiches at 14:30 you could be disappointed, though there'll be a variety of snacks and pastries.
Yes, ofc. It is seen as basic decency and hospitality. Ofcourse you're not going to be offered to stay for dinner up-front if you arrive ~1 pm., but when dinnertime approaches, it is normal that people offer their guests to stay for dinner. Or if you visit around lunchtime, and the host hasn't had lunch, it is common to ask the guests to join for lunch.
What would the alternative be? Just have your guests seated at the table, but without offering them food?
That map is severely lacking in context. All I can say is that it smells grossly inaccurate, unless they mean something more subtle. For example, it's conceivable that we don't shove food in people's faces at 14 o'clock while down south they insist you should stuff yourself even though you probably just ate lunch.
Also available more dynamically on http://www.icinity.nl/ but that's a bit harder to navigate.
Compared to the Irish map, also available at https://gis.epa.ie/EPAMaps/ which is somehow even harder to use, it looks to me like it has many more roads at over 70 dB while it seems their equivalents in Groningen are mostly at 65-70 dB, with slightly fewer at that level.
It's based on polling, asking what people think. Isn't livability objectively measurable, such as number of kindergartens/schools per parents etc?
I partially disagree with that. At best you might leave things on the table, at worst you'd risk measuring in the wrong direction. Asking people could act as a sanity check for whether something like the number of kindergartens/schools per parents actually does what you think it does.
But I see where you're coming from of course. For example Dublin shows up as people being very satisfied with the noise level. From personal experience I can say that Groningen, ranked slightly lower on that list, is tremendously quieter than Dublin. It's been over a decade since I visited, but this noise map doesn't suggest it's become any quieter: https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/2023/03/18/tyres-road-surfaces-and-speed-being-considered-in-noise-reduction-plans/ Similar notes clearly apply to many of the categories.
The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
This argument is shockingly weak. Obviously the president cannot appoint themselves; only dictators do that. They are appointed by the people (or perhaps we should say the electors, not that the distinction matters here). That the president appoints all other officers of the state makes them the highest officer of the state, not not an officer of the state. This clause is clarifying both the power and confines of their higher office.
Of course what matters most is contemporaneous language. Since the court saw fit to include 310 without any counterarguments, one might be strongly inclined assume there simply aren't any worth mentioning.
Quote
•The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the President and Vice President from the category of “civil Officers of the United States:” “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 4.
A better argument than the above, though of course we can note they're explicitly held to the same standards by this text.
Quote
•The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that the President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3.
The same weak sauce as before.
Quote
•In the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes “[t]he Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States.” US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3.
It's more logical to conclude that the distinction simply isn't relevant here, the way it's relevant in the Appointments Clause and the Commissions Clause where the highest officer is granted those additional powers.
Nevertheless this could've looked impressively persuasive if they hadn't included that bit about contemporary usage by Andrew Johnson and earlier presidents. Of course anyone with half a brain cell would immediately check up on that, but still.
I haven't looked at it yet, but I'll note there's a footnote to that sentence.
Quote
The Court agrees with Petitioners that an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution encompasses the same duties as an oath to support the Constitution. The Court, however, agrees with Intervenors that given there were two oaths in the Constitution at the time, the fact that Section Three references the oath that applies to Article VI, Clause 3 officers suggests that that is the class of officers to whom Section Three applies.
And for reference, section three:
Quote
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
I'll have to read through the argument in more detail, but I'd be surprised if the president weren't regarded as an officer of the state at the time.
The bulk of the argument seems to start on page 98.
Quote
310. Magliocca further argued that contemporary usage supports the view that the President is an “officer of the United States.” Andrew Johnson repeatedly referred to himself as such in presidential proclamations, members of Congress both during the 39th Congress that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and during Johnson’s impeachment several years later repeatedly referred to the President the same way, and earlier presidents in the Nineteenth Century were referred to the same way. 11/01/23 Tr. 56:3–59:16, 69:21–71:21.
Quote
311. On the other hand, Intervenors argue that five constitutional provisions show that the President is not an “officer of the United States.” •The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 distinguishes between the President and officers of the United States. Specifically, the Appointments Clause states that the President “shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2. •The Impeachment Clause in Article II, Section 4 separates the President and Vice President from the category of “civil Officers of the United States:” “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 4. •The Commissions Clause in Article II, Section 3 specifies that the President “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3. •In the Oath and Affirmation Clause of Article VI, Clause 3, the President is explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to take an oath to support the Constitution. The list includes “[t]he Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States.” US. CONST. art. VI, cl. 3. •Article VI provides further support for distinguishing the President from “Officers of the United States” because the oath taken by the President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 is not the same as the oath prescribed for officers of the United States under Article VI, Clause 3.
One might remember he once said the Holocaust wouldn't have happened were it not for Haj Amin al-Husseini talking Hitler into it. That in particular is a rather silly example, but it might serve to illustrate he's never looked for solutions. Or perhaps put another way, you're not a five year old child!
There are good terrorists, those who are useful for our geostrategic interests (call them moderate or freedom fighters) and bad terrorists, those who don't serve our geostrategic interests.
Is a term like "freedom fighter" even used anymore since the Wall fell? I've seen words like "guerrillas" my entire life, "freedom fighter" being some kind of quaint Cold War relic that primarily refers to guerrillas opposing oppressive communist regimes. Perhaps it's simply that the militants tend to instill their own dictatorship after emerging victoriously, but let's not forget that some insurgents never use the language of freedom at all. Some rather explicitly want to install dictatorships and/or theocracies. As such the term "freedom fighter" seems more naive than meaningless per se. A pretty common way to distinguish between "regular" insurgents and terrorists is whether or not they make a point of attacking non-combatants. So,
a. Hamas targeting Israeli soldiers is probably not terrorism, depending a bit on the specifics including e.g. treatment of prisoners. b. Hamas targeting Israeli citizens is definitely terrorism.
Ergo, Hamas is a terrorist organization, clear as day. It's only when b is absent that things might get a bit muddier. In my experience, b is always present when calling something a terrorist organization.
Hamas is a terrorist organization and their rocket attacks should be unconditionally condemned. But this was also calculated political recklessness and opportunism by Netanyahu. His political end is nigh and apparently, cynically, a battle for Jerusalem during Ramadan is just the thing. Close the gate, close the Al-Aksa mosque without provocation, kick people out of their homes, wait for the Hamas deplorables to take the bait. Mission accomplished, even if presumably slightly more so than expected.
Also keep in mind Hamas has more popular support among Palestinians now because of that wretched wall and because of the increasingly apartheid-based state.
But I should also qualify that there were mass Palestinian protests against Hamas not long prior to their recent atrocities.
What Hamas did last week should have sparked a robust debate about -oh, I don't know- the rules of war, the role of Antisemitism, and the resurgence of the barbarian.
Why should it? Nothing has changed. Hamas is still a bunch of terrorists and Netanyahu is still an idiot — heck, this underlines it.
I also enjoy some other features like code blocks and the calendar plugin (i.e., just click on a date to start or open a note there). I find it more convenient to quickly set headings with e.g. Ctrl + 2.
In the past I've dabbled in tags and checklists but that didn't stick for me. I think it's clearer to format with strikethrough or to delete entirely, although "proper" checklists have the advantage of being listed globally if you're juggling many things and might forget about one of them.
Yes, it's very similar. I like Markdown but I don't necessarily consider it a pro. As long as the format is plain text you can just read and write even if you don't have the software.
I think the main alternative is just a directory with subfolders and text files. Which is what these programs are a fancy interface for, after all.
