I think the existing domain-based verification system is a better way of doing that. Something like Mastodon’s verified links might be a nice addition. This more centralized system is… not what I hoped for.

Anyone doing a poll would be negligent not to include the previous nominee and former vice president. That’s not to imply she’s a good choice, only that she’s an obvious choice.

The actions of a lunatic cult leader who promptly killed the entire cult including himself afterward aren’t really comparable to the actions of governments attempting to retain the appearance of legitimacy.

They really are stupid when it comes to undermining their own case, aren’t they?

No, they are not. It’s a mistake to think of them as stupid, as that leads to underestimating the threat they pose.

They don’t care about winning this case in the conventional sense. Trump and his allies couldn’t care less what happens to Kilmar Abrego Garcia; what they’re after is the power to exile or imprison people without due process of law.

And is he seriously asking the Trump administration to self-identify who should be punished for all of this? Does he honestly think that the DOJ is going to hand over a list of names to be sanctioned? Because if so, I want a lifetime supply of whatever he’s smoking.

He’s asking, and he almost certainly believes he’s legally entitled to an answer. He almost certainly believes the DOJ will not cooperate, but potential noncompliance by defendants shouldn’t influence rulings.

The only thing for the judge to do is issue rulings and orders as if things are normal.

I’ve read that it’s because fairphone has to pay a fee for each unlocked device, but it sounds a little weird so no idea if that’s real.

The posts seem to suggest that Google is charging them a fee in that case, but that would be a little surprising given Pixels have a no-fuss unlock, and Google permits third parties to redistribute its proprietary add-ons to Android free of charge for installation by end users.

In any case, you’ve convinced me this probably isn’t Fairphone being evil, though some sort of public explanation would be nice.

I don’t understand why this requires a code rather than a toggle in developer settings like a Pixel. That doesn’t seem like openness and a commitment to treating users fairly since they could change their policy at any time.

These are just weird little guys. Sure, they’re dangerous individually; sometimes they kill people, but the idea that they’re a threat to the stability of society is laughable.

This specific person in this specific case sounds like an asshole, but people who aren’t assholes do sometimes lose court cases, and should have the ability to appeal without risking financial ruin.

it’s light on AI

Good. I have yet to see a preloaded AI feature on a phone that I want to use. The one I actually want is correctly deciding of I want to be disturbed with a given notification.

They’re extreme relative to the average person’s disposable income.

Extreme costs make it too risky to appeal against injustice.

Charging him $110 for not showing up to his hearing seems fair. Charging him thousands for losing his appeals does not.

That’s one I used to hold until I went looking for studies on how smaller doses of alcohol impact a person’s driving ability. What I found was a linear, dose-dependent response with no real hard cutoffs. Driving is dangerous enough; there’s little benefit to making that worse by drinking beforehand.

I might be OK with a reduced penalty at .08, but I’d like to add a slap on the wrist at an even lower level.

Maybe. The bad actor here seems to be the government of China, and the linked page says:

The individuals most at risk include anyone connected to: Taiwanese independence; Tibetan rights; Uyghur Muslims and other ethnic minorities in or from China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region; democracy advocacy, including Hong Kong, and the Falun Gong spiritual movement.

I can imagine them casting a wide net.

A temporary stay by one justice does not create a legal precedent. Whatever the full supreme court rules in this case will create a legal precedent.

Each participant is sent a separate copy of each message encrypted with their own key.

A problem is that some sites that don’t need cookie banners use them anyway due to a poor understanding of the law and excess of caution.

Well… sort of.

Batteries perform differently under load. A battery that delivers 10Wh under a 1W load will probably deliver less (and get warmer) under a 10W load. Power supplies also perform differently under load, and DC-DC switching power supplies perform differently based on the output voltage. Generally, a larger voltage conversion and/or a higher load is less efficient. There’s also going to be some base power consumption in the circuit, so the most output power is probably achieved at some sort of medium load.

To make things more fun, batteries are usually tested under constant current, not constant power. The increasing current as the battery drains of a constant power load will result in less total power, and constant output power often means increasing input power as the battery drains.

In short, the real world is complicated. Giving best and worst case Watt-hours could be a reasonable approach.

I’d be a little concerned about safety. A manufacturer or distributor that’s willing to lie so blatantly about capacity might also be willing to sell cells that failed QC.