No, it isn't. To be fraud, the lie has to be material. Would him saying that he fought in the military have disqualified him? No. Because being in the military of a communist country doesn't automatically make you communist. It might have caused a deeper investigation, and that investigation might have concluded that he was, but given that the regime had already fallen and any records would probably have been nonexistent at that point, that's a pretty unlikely outcome — doubly so decades later.

Second, the lie has to be deliberate. In U.S. law, there's not a presumption that an error is deliberate; the government has to have some evidence to support such a claim. And given that he has been dead for a long time, there's no way to get him to admit that it was deliberate, so in the absence of some sort of documentation, this one isn't provable anymore, either.

Third, even if you could prove both of the first two, the fraud was still committed by her father, not her, which makes it moot after the fact.

Continuing to spew this same nonsense over and over doesn't make it true. First, he was a citizen. Until such time as you get a court to agree that his citizenship should not have been granted (years after his death), all of this is purely academic.

Second, even if you did so, although removal of citizenship is considered retroactive to the time of the original grant of citizenship, you still run into the presumption of regularity when trying to extend that retroactive removal to a retroactive nullification of the citizenship of an additional person who relied on a presumption of the regularity of the prior immigration decision. That just won't fly, because as far as was known to her at the time, he was a citizen, and as far as was known to the immigration people processing the paperwork at the time, he was a citizen. And none of that changes even if his citizenship were removed retroactively, which means *she* did not commit fraud.

Further, his citizenship was likely not material to her being approved for citizenship. She didn't become a citizen because he was a citizen. She became a citizen *when* he became a citizen. Had she applied independently, even if we take the most outlandish interpretation of the law and assume that his military service would be disqualifying, it would not be disqualifying *for* *her*. And at that point, the courts would be effectively punishing her for not waiting a few extra months and filing a form independent of her parents. No court is going to do that, both because doing so would be a gross miscarriage of justice and because the specific form that she filed is almost certainly not material to whether a young adult would qualify for citizenship.

Plus there's that pesky little problem of you not having any actual evidence to support your absurd theory in the first place, which means that while you might get a lot of idiots on your side in the court of public opinion, you'd be laughed out of any actual courtroom.

Bzzt. Reading comprehension fail.

I didn't say you have to be high up in the military of a totalitarian regime to be a member of the party. I said you aren't guaranteed to be a member unless you're a military officer who took control of the country in a coup or someone who is very close to that person. That's what "does not constitute" means.

In a lot of foreign countries, military service isn't optional. And that was actually true in Somalia for many years, though I suppose that was after her father served. Regardless, there are many reasons for fighting in a military, including financial reasons, as an alternative to jail time, etc., which is why you cannot automatically assume that a member of a country's military supports their government's actions or is a member of their ruling party.

Moreover, that law was written with a very specific purpose in mind, and its purpose was not ensuring that no male over 18 from that country could ever become a U.S. citizen. Its purpose was preventing those who posed a high risk of spying on our country from becoming entrenched in our society and manipulating it from the inside. Those who did not support the ideology or were fleeing it presumptively are the polar opposite of that group. So claiming that they are party members is borderline nonsensical in the absence of actual hard evidence... which you do not have, or else you would have provided it.

Again, your claim has absolutely no legal merit, because it relies on a fundamentally absurd interpretation of the law in question.

If that claim is false, then I'm the President of the United States.

Her dad applied and was granted citizenship. Therefore that claim is not false. And even if his citizenship was obtained under false pretense, he still had it at the time when she applied, so that claim was not false at the time that she applied. Absent any evidence of her knowing that he lied to become a citizen, your argument has zero merit from a legal perspective.

You see, in the United States (and any other country whose law is based on English Common Law), there is an automatic presumption that government actions have been handled properly, and that you can rely on that presumption for all other purposes. The legal term is "presumption of regularity". Reliance on that presumption prima facie cannot be fraudulent in the absence of direct knowledge to the contrary.

So unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she *knew* her father got citizenship through fraud, once again, your argument has no legal merit whatsoever.

Please learn a bit about how U.S. law actually works before spouting such utter nonsense.

Here's the flaw in your logic. Her dad did have it. If someone had documented proof that he should not have been granted that citizenship because of fraud on his part, then it could be revoked. But that still would not change the fact that at the time she filed it, he had been granted citizenship, which means the form was filed legitimately.

So unless you can prove your age theory (which, without valid birth records, would be impossible), you have nothing.

+1 to literally everything you just said except the last part.

I do want a foldable phone so I can have enough screen real estate to blow up the font size and still have usable apps. But that would require supporting different accessibility text size settings on the different screens to be useful.

But I also critically want a home button. In every way, gestures are inferior to a physical home button. It's harder to swipe to kill an app, harder to switch apps, etc. And add a case around the phone, and usability goes downhill even more.

That said, the return of Touch ID goes a long way towards making iPhone usable again, so that's definitely a big plus for this design. (Face ID sucks. It can't be used while wearing Vision Pro. It can't be used while wearing a mask. It can't be used easily without having it in front of your face, which means you can't start unlocking until it is out of your pocket, which wastes precious time. It just randomly fails for no obvious reason at a much higher rate than Touch ID did. In every way, it is an inferior experience. So when I say this is a big plus for me, I mean a BIG plus, assuming this new tiny Touch ID sensor actually works. I'll be eagerly watching the reviews.)

But more critically than that, I want a phone I can operate with one hand. I physically am incapable of meaningfully operating the current phones without using both hands. They are too tall and too wide, and my thumb isn't that long.

So what I really want is an iPhone Duo Mini. Make the outer display be the size of an iPhone 5s. Add four action buttons on the side or top that we can configure individually. For me, one would be a home button, one would be a "take a photo right now" button (hold to start video recording), one would be a Siri button, and the fourth would be a normal power button. And add back the ringer switch.

Also, bring back the physical mute switch. The on-screen silence features are enough of a hassle that I just leave my phone on silent mode continuously, which isn't great, but I don't want to waste my one action button on it, and also you can't look at a button and see whether the feature is enabled, so it just wouldn't work very well with a button even if I did.

But most critically, it should be all of these things without sacrificing performance, camera quality, or other features. Every time Apple has made a small phone, they've made it trash. They've given it a low-end camera, saddled it with an outdated CPU, and tried to make it a cheap phone. So nobody buys them, and they say, "See, we told you nobody wanted this." Except we did. We just didn't want a low-end small phone, and we didn't want a huge phone that's small only because the newer ones have become even more ridiculously large.

That said, this does look like a step in the right general direction, with the exception of the missing action button.

Being a member of the military of a country does not constitute being a member of a communist party/regime unless you're high up in a military junta. So no, that law does not apply. And regardless, him being ineligible does not make his daughter ineligible, which means it is still not a material omission in the context of *her* immigration — only his. *She* was a kid.

No, there is not compelling evidence, or else it would have been presented by now. Years later, still no actual evidence has materialized — only a bunch of conspiracy theory nutters making unsubstantiated claims. But I'm sure you "did your own research" to come up with those "facts".

You're assuming it was a lie. He was known to be on active duty from 1977 to 1978. It's unclear whether he was on active duty after that period. That was before she was even *born*. And even if he was actively in the military in some capacity, that doesn't mean he wasn't also a teacher. Most militaries have those.

She was a kid. Even if he had been a high-level government official who ordered troops to butcher small children, she wouldn't have known anything about it.

And again, you and everyone else making those claims offer zero proof. Zero evidence. Just more baseless claims from the party of compulsive liars. If the claims were true, surely *someone* would have provided some sort of actual evidence by now.

And again, even if there were documented proof, that still wouldn't be adequate to vacate *her* claim to citizenship — only her father's. They didn't lie about who *she* was. She was a kid.

That may be how it works in some fascist hellholes, but that's not how it works in the United States. What I described are the legal requirements for denaturalization.

Even if those claims are true — and given that similar allegations were made years ago and DHS concluded that they were without merit, so that's a pretty big stretch — the misrepresentation would have been by her father, not her. She was not a member of the Somali military. So why do you think that would make a material difference in whether she, as a legal adult if the claims are to be believed, would be granted citizenship?

Answer: It wouldn't. The claims are not credible, and even if they were, they would not rise to the legal threshold required to remove someone's citizenship.

None of which is legally an adequate reason to remove someone's citizenship two decades or more later. Filing the wrong form would be considered a minor clerical error. It should have been rejected at the time, and she should have had to file the correct form at the time, but once citizenship is granted, that's moot.

There is a general presumption in the law that citizenship cannot be revoked unless all of the following criteria are true:

• That person misrepresented or concealed something
• The misrepresentation or concealment was willful
• The misrepresentation or concealment was material to the decision to grant citizenship

None of those apply, much less all of them. Omar did not misrepresent anything; her father did. The misrepresentation was probably not willful. See also the comments above about birth records in Somalia. And being born a year earlier is not material to the decision to grant citizenship. It is only material to whether that specific form would have been accepted or a different form would have been needed.

So absent some significant evidence that something else was omitted as a side effect of using the wrong form (which is incredibly unlikely), this would be a clerical error, subject to possible civil penalties against the father, were he still alive, and that's about it.

This isn't just a little bit short of the threshold required for removing citizenship. This is so far from reaching the threshold that even the most conservative immigration judge in the country would laugh in their faces for even making the attempt, and probably hit them with contempt charges for wasting the court's time.

It's a game company. Odds are, they never valued programmers or artists.

It all depends on who you are optimizing for.

• Parents with kids would do better on standard time, because they have to take their kids to school before work.
• Everyone else with a 9-to-5 job may do better on DST, assuming a short commute distance, because sunrise at 7:20 instead of 8:20 just adds useless time before the morning commute, while sundown at 5:53 means driving home before dark.

There is no one correct answer, because which one fits your circadian rhythms better depends entirely on what time you wake up.

I believe you misspelled "slower than molasses in February".

If they break into a car and the police look at the footage on the dashcam and see that they've kept their license plate out of view, but they are able to cross-correlate it with other cameras and figure out the plate number, then figure out where they drove that car, where it ended up parked, who got out, where they went, etc., then it can make arrests possible where it was not possible previously, making it *massively* more likely to be able to solve the crime.

The problem becomes when it turns into "show us all the plates that were near that spot within a few minutes of that time", and thus a fishing expedition.

You're interpreting it in the context of typing "sudo" on the command-line granting a one-time permission. And the original statement from Apple (after correcting the "every -> very" error in the summary) makes it clear that this is *not* what is being proposed, so if that was the original poster's intent, then it was incorrect.

The way I interpreted the original sentence — "They're going to make it like sudo where when you give permission to a program to write protected files once it has it forever after" — is that they're going to make it like the sudoers file, where you edit it to grant permission to a program to do something, and it permanently has the right to do that... which is exactly what happens when you grant full disk permission, just with a dialog box instead of editing a file.

That said, I'm not sure if that's how the original statement was intended to be interpreted. It was a bit confusing. :-)

Nope. And this is why I object to the phrase "censorship is bad". *Unreasonable* censorship is bad. But not all restraint on speech is bad.

No, you're confusing the definition of censorship with what restraints on free speech are constitutional. You're defining the term based on legality in a specific jurisdiction. If you applied the same standard with a different jurisdiction — say what can legally be spoken in Iran — you would get a very different definition. This is why you cannot define censorship based on a specific legal standard. It must be defined in the abstract.

The general definition is that censorship is the suppression of expression by an authority. That expression could be a constitutionally protected idea, or it could be an advertisement for Taco Bell. It's still expression, and blocking it is still censorship.

And again, you're using the U.S. definition of free speech to define censorship. These things are not synonymous. Nobody is talking about whether someone should have to listen to you. The fact that someone shut you up is still censorship. It may be *constitutionally allowable* censorship. It may even be *entirely* *reasonable* censorship. But it is still censorship.

Not all censorship is bad. Restraints on speech based on time, place, and manner restrictions can be entirely reasonable. They are still, at least in a purely abstract way, a form of censorship. Restraints on speech where your speech costs someone else money can also be entirely reasonable (e.g. spam, robodialers, etc.). But those decisions still represent censorship in the abstract. We simply choose to say that those types of restraints on speech are reasonable and necessary for a functioning society.

It's all about balancing rights — your right to swing your fist ends when it meets my nose, and all that. Censorship is generally justifiable when exercising your right to speech has the effect of violating someone else's rights. For example, if you call for violence and that violence happens, you can get thrown in jail, and your rights to free speech can be massively curtailed. This is, however, still censorship in a purely abstract sense.

Oh, also, each agent runner should have:

• read-write access to a per-agent temporary directory
• read-write access to a cross-agent-shared temporary directory
• read-only access to other agents' private temporary directories

But this is the trivial part.