runiq

joined 2 years ago
 
  1. I can't get over the fact that Comer got schooled by someone named Moskowitz.
  2. Moskowitz wore a Putin mask in today's hearing. Can't make this shit up.
  3. "Are you… are you asking me a question?" – "Nah, I just like looking at you."
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Man, this is just maddening. The comment OP highlighted is terrible, but the reply to another just drips condescension.

I used to respect the NYT. But between the Trump coverage and their viewpoint on the war in Ukraine, they can go kiss me where the sun don't shine. (What I'm trying to say is, both are ass.)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Nothing of value. Please don't sue me.

I'm still part of the RUST EVANGELISM STRIKE FORCE, promise

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Read it last night. What I think is notable (besides the awesome-in-the-original-sense sum of money) is that Judge Engoron has retracted his previous order to lump-dissolve the Trump businesses. Because the Trump entities are going to be under supervision by not one, but two independent monitors, Engoron has decided to decide those on a case-by-case basis. Given how widespread the fraud in the Trump ecosystem appears to be, I expect this judgment to be the gift that keeps on giving.

In any case, massive props to Engoron for a) taking this important step into the societal dark, and b) keeping a cool head in the face of the defense's shenanigans.

 

Thus ends the short yet arduous career of Temulania, lawyer at law.

14
This Week in Rust 530 (this-week-in-rust.org)
 

Good choice of crate, llogiq :)

17
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

In my previous post, I said that the single best thing the Rust project could do for users is stabilize AsyncIterator. I specifically meant the interface that already exists in the standard library, which uses a method called poll_next. Ideally this would have happened years ago, but the second best time would be tomorrow.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Scripting it is really much, much easier than, say, LaTeX.

Oh yes, this is absolutely my favorite improvement over LaTeX: Namespacing for packages! As a result, there's already a healthy package ecosystem. :)

 

The one dealbreaker for me in Typst is the current lack of locale-aware decimal separators. The rest of it is so good that I've donated a couple times.

 

What is this title

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You're acting like it's a bad thing to call this out. Is it?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

…I'll be in my bunk.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

Exactly my reaction :)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I'm not an American, but I'm assuming you're referring to this, right? It seems the administration kept fighting to get railroad workers sick days after that, so that half a year later, the railroad workers got their sick days:

This is a big deal, said Railroad Department Director Al Russo, because the paid-sick-days issue, which nearly caused a nationwide shutdown of freight rail just before Christmas, had consistently been rejected by the carriers. It was not part of last December’s congressionally implemented update of the national collective bargaining agreement between the freight lines and the IBEW and 11 other railroad-related unions.

“We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement,” Russo said. “Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Man, that ruling is scathing. Judge has had it with these two-bit lawyers.

In response to both OAG's request for a preliminary injunction and to defendants' motions to dismiss, this Court rejected every one of the aforementioned arguments. In rejecting such arguments for the second time, this Court cautioned that "sophisticated counsel should have known better." (The court even went so far as to caution that the "arguments were borderline frivolous even the first time defendants made them." […]) […] However, the Court declined to impose sanctions, believing it had "made its point."

Apparently, the point was not received.

One would not know from reading defendants' papers that this Court has already twice ruled against these arguments, called them frivolous, and twice been affirmed by the first department.

This just goes on and on. The judge devotes like eight pages to taking apart defendants' counsel. The next section is, amusingly, titled "Arguments Defendants Raise for the First Time."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

I can think about a few cellmates, too, so he won't get too lonely.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

I swear, like half of them are this close to screaming for a literal crusade against the Saracens.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I urge all y'all to read the full text. Girl takes no prisoners.

Your questioning of the inclusion of overt and predicate acts by the defendants in the indictment’s racketeering count shows a total ignorance of Georgia’s racketeering statute and the basics of criminal conspiracy law.

Allow me the Opportunity to provide a brief tutorial on criminal conspiracy law, Chairman Jordan. As I explained to the public when announcing the indictment, the overt and predicate acts are included because the grand jury found probable cause that those acts were committed to advance the objectives of a criminal conspiracy to overturn the result of Georgia’s 2020 Presidential Election.

For a more thorough understanding of Georgia’s RICO statute, its application and similar laws in other states, I encourage you to read “RICO State-by-State.” As a non-member of the bar, you can purchase a copy for two hundred forty-nine dollars [$249].

view more: next ›