I feel like all fresh out of school employees are productivity drains. But the profession doesn’t get experienced employees without hiring inexperienced people and training them, so it’s worth doing a little on-the-job training to make them useful, otherwise you end up in the state you’re describing where you want experienced devs and there aren’t any.

Ah, one of those “principles” that needs to be updated whenever one of your allies violates them.

He should team up with Mitch McConnell to investigate how the Republican party could have gotten like this.

Someone at the FBI should tell Kash.

International law itself doesn’t mean anything. There are no international cops and no international consequences. Whether two senators say “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide” has zero actual difference in how the United States must or even will act. This legalistic critique of the extreme minority in the debate who are on the right side of the issue is sus as hell.

I do, but it you’re asking why I think they didn’t, I already answered that in the comment you just replied to.

If a majority of politicians say “it’s ethnic cleansing”, things will happen that are not meaningfully different than a majority saying “it’s genocide”. That’s the hurdle, not whether two senators who are on the right side of the issue (albeit after far too long) are using specific terminology.

I don’t think legality has anything to do with the choice. There’s no obligation from a handful of senators saying something. It’s not like Warren calling it a genocide obligated the Senate to adopt that position.

In reality, it just feels like a serious charge that doesn’t have to explain that genocide can exist without full Nazi death camps. None of their voters are going to think “it’s only ethnic cleansing, they don’t have to do anything about that”.

A couple politicians calling it genocide doesn’t have any legal implications. Warren did it already and nothing changed in the legal implications, nor would they kick in if 3 (4 now) were doing it instead.

He’s not the first.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/08/israel-gaza-war-elizabeth-warren-00151120

And Van Hollen and Merkley called it ethnic cleansing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/democratic-senators-gaza-ethnic-cleansing

The direct proactive statement proclaiming it a “genocide” rather than answering a question or using “ethnic cleansing” is significant step though.

What kind of a dumb vote is that? Were Democrats boycotting? Why? Who stayed? Which Republicans didn’t support the fake nominee?

Maybe someone at the Guardian could do a tiny bit of journalism to answer the obvious questions for a weird vote total.

Landau also told Park that the two allies should try to use the incident as an opportunity to further strengthen their bilateral ties and improve relevant systems where necessary, according to the ministry.

We should take this time we fucked your citizens over to strengthen our ties. We’re so sorry that we took a week to do anything about it and you now get an apology from an underling.

It’s what Charlie would have wanted, don’t focus on his death, carry on his life of racist hate.

Unlike the effect of electing a disgraced wealthy sexual sleeze or a disgraced corrupt cop. Yeah, the Muslim guy trying to make too many things free is really the outcome the Democrats should worry about being associated with.

If centrists had a Bland McBlanderson neoliberal in the race they could make this argument, but by some coincidence both of their avatars are toxic and since they worship pre-existing power structures they were unable to challenge them. I’m starting to think maybe it’s not progressives who are causing the image problem for the Democrats.

They put out a statement saying they don’t support taking away guns. That’s not doing something.

Why? We’ve seen their anemic responses to minority gun issues before (Philando Castile). There’s no reason to assume good faith from an organization that’s been a thinly veiled Republican PAC for decades now.

Yeah, are they lobbying Congress to oppose it? Will their NRA rating decrease if they support the ban? Are they threatening to fund primary challengers? Will there be a trans speaker at the next convention saying “from my cold dead hands”?

There’s a difference between a strongly worded letter responding to an immediate question of the day and actual action.

Getting the information in the first place is a targeted search. Unless Apple goes full collaborator they will require a court order. They have already made the decision (for whatever reason) to target you.

It’s still a targeted search, which may be bullshit but isn’t a trawling operation. If they’re targeting you, a demerit for simply having ICEBlock installed is the least of your worries. And if Apple goes full collaboration, then any “improper” app install is going to be a danger regardless of whether it’s pushing.

The standard for a grand jury is probable cause, not more likely than not. Civil court is preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), and criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt.