It doesn't have to cook the planet to cause massive suffering. Do you think there hasn't been global warming? What amount of global warming would change your mind?
"If you mix sand into clay, the clay particles will fill in all the open spaces between the sand particles and often the clay will act as a ‘glue’ sticking all particles together, ultimately resulting in a more dense soil."
Congress provides oversight and accountability of the Fed. The GAO does audits as well. Frank-Dodd provides more windows into the Fed. Why did you think the Fed doesn't have oversight?
> Why is the independence of the Federal Reserve sacrosanct?
It's never been completely independent. It's independent from short-term (4 years) political influence. It's audited and has congressional oversight and the President nominates people to the board.
What else do you want? Interest rates set by Presidential tweets?
One can not be happy with that and understand that Trump would have found ways to lock up his son for 20 years. No one thinks this dude was going to be punished for political reasons.
Is the schema considered private information or just information not required to be released via FOIA? ie: Can't some nice employee leak this information or is it legally protected?
Once the information is released, can anyone can make FOIA requests using the schema?
Under Illinois law there are just two kinds of data: normal data and data exempt from FOIA. Up to and including the appellate review of Matt's case, schemas were in the formal, normal category. After the State Supreme Court review, they are now per se exempt from FOIA.
It's not legally protected. An employee could leak it. A public body can voluntarily reveal documents that are exempt from FOIA (absent some other Illinois law prohibiting disclosure). A public body can disclose source code, for instance, despite it being explicitly exempt in the statute. "This data is exempt" is an affirmative defense that the public body has to raise.
> They could have taken legal actions against Sectigo's CCO directly
You are only suggesting they could have handled it worse. Why would they take legal action against the CCO for statements on a bug report other than to squash transparency?
> If DigiCert is about to do something crazy like take down all your websites, courts are generally willing to put a temporary stop to it without understanding all the details. "Preserve the status quo" and "prevent irreparable harm" are the buzzwords.
So if DigiCert's irreparable harm was great would that prevent it? Like legally requiring CAs to follow their revocation policies or pay millions in damages?
You're conflating DigiCert's argument against issuance of the TRO, with the irreparable harm the complaintant (Alegeus) is alleging will occur if the TRO is not granted.
Are there actually millions in damages being caused by delaying revocation of these certificates? Courts are generally averse to “penalty clauses” where you make up a nonsense number and call it damages. (Irreparable harm means that ordering monetary compensation can’t remediate it, so a more reasonable fee would probably not count.)
A good outcome doesn't mean there was good work being done. You are conflating the two. You can make bad decisions and still have a good outcome.
I'm happy that this looks like a good outcome, but the current FDA is doing terrible work.