throwaway199956

6 ms·

1.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
Recent weeks frankly not a good show by US Judiciary. The series of Trump indictments all fizzling out, because judges didn't want to indict an on coming president. And on this particular matter, Supreme Court 'unsigned' opin
2.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
That is exactly what the government has not done all these years. Why be tight-lipped if there is solid evidence and data, its not some issue of nuclear weapons/military-strategy.
3.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
Did the supreme court examine government as to, if this was the only path available to achieve what it wanted? Was it established that existing provisions of law is not sufficient to deal with the issue(perhaps not so easily as by fiat as i
4.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
Of course if the app have done anything seriously illegal, it would not have been necessary to bring this law to ban it, because existing laws would have sufficed to do it. Perhaps because US government wanted to do it despite TikTok not br
5.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
Why only to the Congress, does not the American people have a right to know? Why be tight-lipped about it, certainly it's not some military or nuclear technology matter.
6.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
The question is if the new law was necessary, if there is case that to be made TikTok has violated other existing law, but government merely has to prove so? Was government trying to take a shortcut to a TikTok ban which could have been ach
7.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
Of course if the app have done anything seriously illegal it would not have been necessary to bring this law to ban it, because existing laws would have sufficed to do it. Perhaps because US government wanted to do it despite TikTok not bre
8.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
Of course if the app have done anything seriously illegal it would not have been necessary to bring this law to ban it, because existing laws would have sufficed to do it. Perhaps because US government wanted to do it despite TikTok not bre
9.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
Soviet Life Magazine for example was printed and sold in the US by the Soviet Embassy.
10.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
As far as first ammendment it does make no difference if it is print or voice or online service.
11.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
That is not the point of the First Ammendment, it is that Government cannot stop anyone from saying/printing/dissemination of content. So question if government has power to do so. Can they ban RT? Or even the BBC, if the governme
12.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
What does intermediate scrutiny mean?
13.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
Like such cannot be enforced for example against foreign radio stations or print publications. Then how do court justify that it stands in the case of an app.
14.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
Are they banning any TV channels from hostile countries? RT, for example can be watched by Americans without restriction.
15.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". First ammendment protections have no National security caveats.
16.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war f
17.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war f
18.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
But the comments largely doesn't add anything further interesting to the discussion. Its been mentioned and spoken about ad nauseam.
19.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
Some further updates: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cuba-power-grid-1.7356496 It appears power is being restored atleast in some parts. Also airports and flight operations seems not to have been affected.
20.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
May be you should visit Haiti and see which is better.
21.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
It may not be verifiable, but is it possible to do some kind of macroeconomic analysis/modelling to estimate it?
22.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
What are the numbers for Haiti?
23.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
Interesting that its mostly image/ video processing, which isn't a 'traditional' guidance/control approach.
24.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
For continuous probability distributions, the pmf(x) has value of 0 for all real x, as per the text books.
25.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
One thing they seems to have got working fairly reliably is the lunar landing of the probe using image processing to guide the final approach and touch down. It seems to have worked well in this and the previous mission, there are videos on
26.
Chang'e 6 lunar sample return mission returns with samples from moon's far side(theguardian.com)
234 points by throwaway199956 2y ago|118 comments
27.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
These are the first time rock samples from the far side of the moon has been retrieved. This was a fairly complex mission with autonomous docking of the sample capsule in lunar orbit and a skip re-entry back into earth. Essentially a smalle
28.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
But Kaspersky specifically is not sanctioned. Is there a general sanction against all Russian firms?
29.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
Is Kaspersky sanctioned?
30.
by throwaway199956 2y ago
There are US sanctions against Russian government and some officials, but is Russia an 'Embargoed Country' whatever might be it's legal defenition?

More ›