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.
•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.
•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.
•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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Incidentally, I do not think that "Do one thing well" is really a Unix philosophy. Rather, it is an imposition of C language.
There is this essay of unknown provenance dating back to at least the '80s:
Last night I dreamed that the Real World had adopted the “Unix Philosophy.”
I went to a fast-food place for lunch. When I arrived, I found that the menu had been taken down, and all the employees were standing in a line behind the counter waiting for my orders. Each of them was smaller than I remembered, there were more of them than I'd ever seen before, and they had very strange names on their nametags.
I tried to give my order to the first employee, but he just said something about a “syntax error.” I tried another employee with no more luck. He just said “Eh?” no matter what I told him. I had similar experiences with several other employees. (One employee named “ed” didn't even say “Eh?,” he just looked at me quizzically.) Disgusted, I sought out the manager (at least it said “man” on his nametag) and asked him for help. He told me that he didn't know anything about “help,” and to try somebody else with a strange name for more information.
The fellow with the strange name didn't know anything about “help” either, but when I told him I just wanted to order he directed me to a girl named “oe,” who handled order entry. (He also told me about several other employees I couldn't care less about, but at least I got the information I needed.)
I went to “oe” and when I got to the front of the queue she just smiled at me. I smiled back. She just smiled some more. Eventually I realized that I shouldn't expect a prompt. I asked for a hamburger. She didn't respond, but since she didn't say “Eh?” I knew I'd done something right. We smiled at each other a little while longer, then I told her I was finished with my order. She directed me to the cashier, where I paid and received my order.
The hamburger was fine, but it was completely bare… not even a bun. I went back to “oe” to complain, but she just said “Eh?” a lot. I went to the manager and asked him about “oe.” The manager explained to me that “oe” had thousands of options, but if I wanted any of them I'd have to know in advance what they were and exactly how to ask for them.
He also told me about “vi,” who would write down my order and let me correct it before it was done, and how to hand the written order to “oe.” “vi” had a nasty habit of not writing down my corrections unless I told her that I was about to make a correction, but it was still easier than dealing directly with “oe.”
By this time I was really hungry, but I didn't have enough money to order again, so I figured out how to redirect somebody else's order to my plate. Security was pretty lax at that place. As I was walking out the door, I was snagged by a giant Net. I screamed and woke up.
In Emacs, Lisp is both the operative and the configuration language whereas keybinds are essentially an arbitrary extension and could in principle be entirely rewritten (and they have in some Emacs distros like Doom Emacs and Spacemacs).
Vim has Vimscript, but that's why Neovim has Lua instead.
For me the point of a 4k monitor (which is my smart-TV at the same time) is the comfort of having the screen significantly further away than average. More distance between the eyes and the screen is a good thing.
Yup, you can either put it twice as far or use it as the equivalent of four ye olde low-res monitors. I haven't noticed ~ 80 cm being any worse than ~ 2 m though; if anything the latter seems worse to me because you (or I) somehow end up looking past it less.
As to weird aspect ratios, I think two monitors side by side whereof one is positioned upright should satisfy all conceivable needs. They do for me. And when one is mainly engaged in writing and reading, the upright one is best placed at dead centre.
It's okay, but upright 16:9 has the exact same problem compared to 16:10 — just that it's not quite wide enough rather than not quite tall enough.
And these aren't weird aspect ratios. Back in the late 2000s most new displays were 16:10, and Macbooks also have 16:10 displays. They're just less usual than they used to be. One question might be what's weirder: 21:9 or 3:2. Both exist, but 21:9 is more easily available as a computer display.
I'm getting a feeling that instead of money for a more awesome monitor you lack space. You need money for a new house with a spacious studio.
Nah, I'm talking about the fact that it becomes this vision filling thing you can barely look past or anything. I find it mildly unpleasant.
But like I said, my opinion is also colored by the fact that 4k 32 inch is basically worthless to me. To me the point of 4k is sharpness and ease of reading, not to have more virtual space, though you do have some more as a result because some less important text and visual elements can be smaller.
In specific scenarios having more space at lower pixel density is worthwhile of course.
That already works with UHD. Due to the higher sharpness of 2160p, 16:9 is perfectly livable. But livable isn't ideal. 3840 × 2400 is both more comfortable to use and wastes less physical space. And since I have an actual display with those characteristics I can say that with an even higher degree of certainty than I could a decade ago, even though I could already say so with absolute certainty based on older 16:10 displays.
And indeed it's not even that I necessarily want 8k (though I do want higher pixel density, I mainly mean there are potential steps in between as well as far beyond), but an 8k 32 inch would be a very usable monitor while a 4k 32 inch is just less sharp. I still think 32 inch is probably too big regardless though.
You're in Western Europe, so you're rich. You're not fooling anybody.
For comparison, over the past decade I've spent "only" about a thousand on monitors (that's a monitor for me, a monitor for my wife, and a TV) and I fully intend to spend a grand total of 0 for several more years unless one of them breaks, although I might be tempted to make an exception for a decent 5k, 8k or E Ink monitor under a thousand. Probably not for 5k, that's too close to 4k to be worthwhile.
Something else of particular interest is 4k with extra vertical space, i.e., 3840 × 2400 like on this very laptop I'm typing right now. I can't wrap my head around that not being available for desktop use…
LTT (back from drama) shows off a 25.3" DASUNG Paperlike E-Ink Monitor available for $ 1,748,--. It's a little beyond my price range, put another way I doubt I'll spend anywhere close € 1.800 on monitors for the next decade if not two, but it's nice to see things like this being developed. Hopefully if richer people buy some it'll become a bit more accessible.