Aside: That phrase "fixed budget" and its twin "fixed income" always strike me as curious. I mean, short of changing jobs, most of us have a fixed income and therefore a fixed budget... and changing jobs isn't necessarily an option.

I guess maybe it's just a euphemism for "small income" or "small budget".

That would be very risky. It's more likely the court would order the administration to enforce it immediately. The administration would appeal that up to SCOTUS, but SCOTUS has already made its opinion very clear and would almost certainly uphold the order. At most they might slow walk it. Trump might simply refuse to obey the court order, but that's a very big step with a lot of risk for him, and while he might well take that step in some context he cares enough about, this isn't it. Not without a really big payoff, anyway.

No, the status quo is the best outcome for ByteDance. AFAICT, no one other than ByteDance and Congress has standing to sue over enforcement, and Congress isn't going to, so if ByteDance doesn't the courts can't intervene. ByteDance can just keep slipping cash to Trump and he can just keep extending. That's a win for ByteDance and a win for Trump. If you believe TikTok's influence over young Americans and the data it can collect is a national security risk, then it's a loss for the American people, but no one cares about that. Even if you don't believe that, it's a loss for Congress, whose authority is being flouted -- but the current Congress seems fine with that in a hundred other situations, so why not this one? ByteDance has no motive to rock this boat.

Very well put.

Crypto bros think what they'll get from regulation is respect and trust, and they're right. But that respect and trust will arise from transparency, and that transparency will also show that the emperor has no clothes. Proper regulation of cryptocurrencies will spell the eventual end of cryptocurrencies, at least as they exist today. It'll take a while, but it will happen.

Perhaps along the way someone will come up with a cryptocurrency design that actually works as a currency, providing convenient, fast, low-cost transactions that somehow manage to be cheaper than moving numbers in an audited bank database. But unless that happens, real scrutiny and regulation of cryptocurrencies will just end them.

With very critical difference that the stuff sold by the Wall St. bros is repackaged ownership of real stuff. Real enterprises that make real products for real people, real commodities that people need, real debts that people have made legal commitments to repay, etc. The Wall Street bros.' stuff has actual value behind it, even if that value is obscured through many layers of packaging.

What the crypto bros have to sell is nothing. Nothing at all. The early promise of cryptocurrencies was that they would make transactions more flexible and cheaper, but cryptocurrency transaction fees are sky high and transactions are super slow. Then came the idea of tying them to smart contracts, but that idea is foolish for reasons that I'm happy to explain if anyone wants to know.

This is completely, totally wrong.

When you buy a share of stock, you're buying part of a real enterprise that produces and sells some sort of good or service, and has some sort of real-world assets (offices, factories, equipment, etc.), structured and managed to (hopefully) generate real profits by delivering real value to real people who want to buy it.

Cryptocurrencies are nothing at all like that. With them, you're buying some bits that have value only because people think they have value.

Some people might think that "has value only because people think it has value" is also a description of fiat currency, but that's just as wrong as equating stocks with cryptocurrencies, though that's a more complicated topic for another post.

Transaction fees, paid by the merchant.

Of course, like any cost of doing business for the merchant, the cost is passed onto the customer. In the case of credit card transaction fees and the rewards they fund, what happens is that people who don't use cards with expensive transaction fees subsidize the rewards for those who do. In most cases that means poor people and people who manage money poorly actually pay for the perks of rich people and people who manage money well.

Personally, I shamelessly maximize the benefit I get from rewards cards. I never pay any credit card interest because I pay my bills every month, so I happily free-ride on the people who use cash and debit cards, who fund the very nice perks I get. The system is what it is, so I exploit it. But I think it actually sucks and would support legislation that eliminates rewards cards or -- even better -- allows merchants to explicitly pass along the card transaction fees, called out as a line item on the receipt. Merchants should also estimate a cost-of-cash fee and add that to cash transactions (accepting cash is not free for merchants; it's actually rather expensive).

I think explicitly charging consumers for the cost of the transaction is the best option. It would enable markets to push transaction costs down, benefiting consumers and merchants alike. Banks wouldn't like it because they love taking a cut of every purchase. My guess is that we would still end up primarily using credit and debit cards because bank-based purely electronic payment will be the cheapest, but the transaction fees would drop dramatically and rewards cards would obviously disappear.

If he's doing it from the White House, it's not personal business. Actually, it's really difficult to be sure that anything a sitting president does is purely personal. Proper presidents address this by avoiding anything that even looks like it might be a conflict of interest.

Because Bondi doesn't know what the Attorney General's job is. She -- and Trump -- think it's to be his lawyer and advocate. It's not. It's to be the American people's lawyer and advocate, which would include going after the president except the DoJ has a long-standing policy that due to the complicated conflicts it will not prosecute a sitting president.

Trump and Bondi affirmatively declaring that the Trumpcoin dinner was not official business may enable prosecution after he leaves office, though the incredible breadth of the Supreme Court ruling will make that hard. SCOTUS ruled that not only can a president not be prosecuted for any official acts, nothing that even looks like an official act can be used as evidence to substantiate personal criminal behavior. This effectively means that as long as Trump is talking to a government employee, even if it's about personal business, the judiciary has to consider it an official act which makes it inadmissible in trial.

Also, at the rate he's going downhill, by the time Trump leaves office he'll be incompetent to stand trial.

Of course, what really should happen when a president abuses his power for personal gain is not that the DoJ should prosecute him, but that Congress should impeach and remove him. Of course, there's no way the GOP is going to do that, no matter what Trump does.

In theory, Congress is supposed to be the check on this sort of thing, which is why it's generally fine that the DoJ is part of the executive branch. There's significant value in ensuring that the judiciary and the cops don't report to the same boss, because there needs to be a little tension between them.

So the way it's supposed to work is If the president is abusing his control of the DoJ for personal or political purposes, Congress should impeach and convict. This is perhaps the clearest and simplest form of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (which is a phrase that doesn't refer to either crimes or misdemeanors in the usual sense). But this assumes that there is also tension between the legislative and executive branches, so they can check and balance one another. In the current situation, the GOP does whatever Trump says, no matter how corrupt, and the GOP controls both houses.

This isn't advice for slashdotters, all of you will have your own approaches, many quite sophisticated. But, if you have family or friends who use gmail and want a simple suggestion that they can easily understand and follow, and from which they'll get results that are about as good (and maybe better), tell them to click the "report spam" button instead of using the unsubscribe link. If Google believes the unsubscription flow to be legitimate, gmail will prompt with a popup that asks if they want to unsubscribe. If they click "unsubscribe", gmail will attempt to take care of the unsubscription.

If they click "report spam" on another email from that sender, gmail will consider it spam and ask if they'd also like to block the sender. They should, of course, click "yes".

Before Trump, indeed before Trump's second term, everyone understood that this would create nasty conflicts of interest which would undermine the integrity of the office. Because all previous presidents acted responsibly, trying to avoid not only actual corruption but even the appearance of corruption, it was never an issue that had to be legislated. Now we have a blatantly corrupt president who openly sells access to the White House, not for campaign contributions but for cold cash directly into his pocket. He's almost certainly selling pardons and other political favors, too. It's a very, very sad day.

Assuming we don't continue our descent into corruption and autocracy, and assuming we can get SCOTUS to eliminate the near-total immunity they've granted to presidents, I expect we will have legislation to specifically ban presidents from "doing business" while in office, requiring them to put all of their assets into a blind trust, over which they can have no control, and can't even know what investments it holds.

Oh, I don't know. They're now subject to the UCMJ. I doubt they've realized how many constitutional rights they've given up, and how much stiffer the justice system they're now subject to is.

If they knew what they were getting into, they might well have refused and insisted on working only as the aforementioned overpaid consultants. Their new commissions come with a lot of responsibilities and obligations they don't understand, and basically no real benefits. Light colonels make less money than they'd have been paid as consultants, and since no one will be in their chain of command the position doesn't come with any real authority. All they get is some meaningless military courtesies.

As for the obligations/risks... I wonder if they realize they could now be court-martialed for making public political statements that they could make with impunity as civilians. Or the fact that the UCMJ applies the death penalty in some cases where civilian law does not (e.g. sedition and child rape), and often defines crimes much more broadly. The UCMJ penalizes things like "Conduct unbecoming of an officer" which can apply to things that aren't normally crimes at all, or can be prosecuted even the officer is acquitted of a crime that provoked the charge.

Probably they'll be fine, but they've opened themselves up to significant risk, likely without realizing it. I hope they at least had a sit-down with a JAG or similar before being sworn in.

He really doesn't. He swings his arm around improperly, and puts his hand in the wrong place, and at the wrong angle. I'll grant that his "salutes" aren't as awful as some actors' are but they're definitely not good.

Saluting correctly is actually quite simple. If you're not wearing a hat, your middle finger should come to the right end of your right eyebrow. Your hand should be perfectly flat, with your thumb tight against your hand and in the same plane, which should be angled about 45 degrees to the ground, palm towards your face. If you are wearing a had, it's the same except your middle finger should be at the forward right corner of your hat brim.

How your hand should get to that position is very simple: a straight line. Generally your hand starts from a position alongside your right thigh and it should track the straightest possible line from that position to the final position, with no extraneous movement, no unnecessary elbow or shoulder movement. For example, no throwing your elbow out and then swinging your forearm up, or swinging your hand out in a big circle or anything else likely to smack the guy next to you in the ranks. Note that fancy drill presentations do alter this for effect, but that's only certain sorts of ceremonies. Outside of those, a smooth, straight, crisp line from starting position to ending position is how the US military salutes. (Officers are generally not as good at this as enlisted.)

Ending the salute is the same. A straight line from the salute position to wherever the hand is going to go, generally to a position along the seam on the outside of the right thigh. Along the way the hand transitions from the flat plane to the "holding a roll of quarters" configuration with the thumb on top and parallel to the pant seam.

Indeed. The UCMJ is considerably less gentle than the civilian judicial system, and deliberately sets aside many constitutional rights. I would find it hilarious if some of them got court-martialed for things they didn't even realize were crimes. I'm not so concerned about how they learn about the UCMJ and its implications for them. They chose to accept commissions, they spoke the oath. If they don't bother to learn what that means, that's their problem. Ignorance of the law is no defense, and this is at least as true under the UCMJ as the civilian system.

Sorry, that's just petty, and irrelevant.

OTOH, this does make them subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It's quite a bit less lenient than the civilian justice system.

Instant apps created a lot of complexity and awkwardness in the Android platform. It has consistently been painful to deal with and work around, and been especially challenging for the security team, for a feature with very little user or developer interest. Killing it is definitely the right call.

The only thing you need is money, which Meta has. Hire good researchers and give them plenty of budget for hardware.