This is easy. Have your own standards based on your own reason and navigate any arbitrary standards LCD majority of the society cooks up from time to time.
>lawmakers can create new laws which can not be applied retroactively
Still a courtesy:
Background: Mary Anne Gehris was born in Germany and came to the United States around age 1, growing up entirely in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident (green card holder).
The Incident: In 1988, during a quarrel over a man, Gehris pulled another woman's hair. She was charged with misdemeanor battery. No witnesses appeared in court, and on the advice of a public defender, she pleaded guilty. She received a one-year suspended sentence with one year of probation.
Immigration Consequences: Years later, under the **Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 **(IIRIRA)—enacted during the Clinton administration but actively enforced during the Bush Jr. administration—her misdemeanor battery conviction was classified as an "aggravated felony" under federal immigration law. This made her deportable despite having no subsequent criminal record, being married to a U.S. citizen, and having a U.S. citizen child.
Outcome: Gehris avoided deportation when the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles granted her a pardon in March 2000, which removed the immigration ground for her removal.
Source Coverage:
The story was detailed in Anthony Lewis's New York Times columns:
"Abroad at Home: 'This Has Got Me in Some Kind of Whirlwind'" (January 8, 2000)
These columns highlighted how IIRIRA's broad definition of "aggravated felony" swept up many long-term permanent residents with minor, often decades-old convictions, separating families and deporting people who had lived nearly their entire lives in the United States.
The Gehris case became a frequently cited example in immigration advocacy and legal scholarship about the harsh consequences of mandatory deportation provisions for lawful permanent residents. If you'd like, I can search for the original NYT articles or additional reporting on her case.
This term itself is an example of what this thread is talking about. Are you aware that some people now consider this to be a racist term? It’s a reference to the disenfranchisement of black voters in America.
Same way it does with nukes. It's Mutually Assured Destruction. If there's a credible promise that attack will result in a total boardwipe, there's strong incentive not to attack, because then China's fucked too. It's crude but it mostly works.
What's interesting is that I don't hear much about China spinning up chip fabs. I haven't gone looking, and I imagine they're doing it, the way we are with the CHIPS act etc. If china could get within a few notches of SOTA (in both nm and throughput), their attack position would be much stronger, but it'd still be a generationally brutal experience for most of humanity.
Presumably he meant to respond to the comment by "Fricken" that suggested there wasn't a problem because the companies would just keep selling chips under new Chinese ownership.
The foundries aren't known to be wired to blow, but the US says they'll bomb them should they come under Chinese control:
>“The United States and its allies are never going to let those factories fall into Chinese hands,” Amb. Robert O’Brien told me during a conversation airing today at the Global Security Forum organized by the Soufan Center in Doha, Qatar.
The bulk of the world’s most advanced microchips are produced in Taiwanese facilities owned by TSMC. Gaining control of those plants would make China “like the new OPEC of silicon chips” and allow them to “control the world economy,” O’Brien said.
“Now let’s face it, that’s never going to happen,” he said.
O’Brien drew a comparison to when Britain chose to destroy France’s storied naval fleet after the country surrendered to Nazi Germany, killing over 1,000 sailors in the process . He recounted how Winston Churchill, a noted Francophile, walked into the House of Commons “with tears streaming down his face because it was the hardest decision he made in the war,” but received unanimous applause.
The correlation used to cite heavy (daily repeated administration across the day; what the kids call "the chronic.")
But now its just any degree of use.
I should add that I happen to know of more than one heavy user who subsequently progressed to Schizophrenia or bipolar disorders so I don't personally doubt the cause and effect.
But this blanket correlation seems to me to be overbroad.
Marijuana certainly doesn't cause bipolar disorder, but it definitely can affect or potentially induce a manic state. Of course bipolar people are already known to self medicate heavily and use a lot more drugs in general, and drugs are not the only way for them to self induce mania.
Add to this that more and more sites and services are hostile to VPN connections and obfuscated email address for account registration.
Worse still is that for existing accounts introducing ID req'ts, the next step in these changes is your prior anonymous activity could easily become a retro-liablit.y
Easy now, I wasn't saying they did make that claim.
I simply provided a comparatively low-cost alternative for the very expensive display for those for those for whom the display would otherwise be cost-prohibitive.
Best Buy sells 24" touchscreen displays for $339 right now. So you can spend $3000 on a display that sips current or spend 10% of that and you get $2700 to pay towards the higher electric costs.
I usually try to make it obvious what company I have the account to, it makes it easier to track down in cases where the service isn't one that sends mail often. Samsung will not let me use Samsung in my email address. Many companies don't want your email address to include their name.
After I give up and use a real address, some companies will reject my personal first@last.family address because it's still Y2K and .family is not a valid tld.
reply