OH! Well, then that makes sense.

(hah!)

Why? Has bureaucracy borne such great fruit?

In this case it absolutely does mean unaccountable, as the people writing regulations are not elected as intended. Congress is supposed to be writing the regulations, not bureaucrats. The President is supposed to run the government, which means being able to fire anyone who works for it. That is how accountability is maintained in a Constitutional Republic.

Then Congress should have established it as a Congressional Committee. They never had the authority to give their power to the Executive branch by playing a shell game with Constitutional powers.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't intended to be independent, I'm saying that Congress never had the power to do it. They wanted to avoid the hassle and electoral ramifications of making these regulatory decisions, so they tried to pass it off to the Executive. They need to get back to doing their job.

I know what it means, I just don't see how it can possibly be Constitutional.

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Uhm, no. That third quote there means the President can say, "I need a Chief of Staff, so I'll create the position and hire someone to fill it.", that the Judiciary can say, "we need clerks, let's hire some", and the heads of agencies (who work for the President) can decide they need deputies to help run things, and hire them. And, as they are Executive staff, fire them.

Anyone who works for the President but needed to be confirmed by the Senate, can be fired by the President. Ambassadors, Cabinet officials, etc., all serve at the pleasure of the President. The Judiciary is a separate branch of government.

Most importantly though is Article II of the Constitution - "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That pretty clearly means what it clearly means.

According to the Constitution there is an explicit hierarchy in the Executive branch. Article II begins: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

It does not say, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America, or whatever agencies Congress sees fit to create".

When did you think Congress handed its regulatory authority over to the Executive branch? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't anytime after 2000.

What? Is that satire?

US Constitution, Article II Section 1 begins: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

That's the civil service.

It has also restricted those powers and rejected delegations. "Humphrey's Executor", the decision underpinning independent agencies, has always been controversial.

I can't see a way to call Constitutional a quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial, agency ostensively under the executive branch but not under the control of the person in whom all executive power is vested. How can that not violate the separation of powers? It is very nearly the creation of a 4th branch of government.

That's the idea, but in practice they just become shackled to the political whims of the bureaucrats.

What policies to implement is a political question. What makes for good policy is a political question. Political questions need to be answered by those the People elect to answer them, not bureaucrats accountable to no one.

Regulations are supposed to come from Congress, not the Executive branch. The executive branch enforces them, under the direction of the President. That's what the Constitution says.

Does that actually bypass the content detection? There's no reason (that I'm aware of) to assume that only lives in the TV's OS, it could be baked into all image processing.

Nah, it's a scheme to complete it in a gold-leaf Rococo style. You know, gaudy.

How? That's not something I have any experience with at all, but isn't it a process of trying to optimize the length of each conductor so the signals arrive at the best time? Like I said, I don't know, so please tell me how that's wrong. You have piqued my curiosity.

In the photos, I see two boards. In the headline, it says two boards. The article says 2 boards. The summary says "complex Linux single-board computer".

Someone goofed, right? It's not some esoteric engineering convention where you can call a 2-board computer single-board?