i've read the axis precesses completing a cycle every 24,000 years, so the fraction of ocean vs land in direct sun gradually and continually changes accordingly.
Your question was valid and you didn’t deserve to get downvoted. That being said the person who responded to you is wrong. They did have the appropriate security clearance to access the records.
Some people are skeptical on the legitimacy of what some are calling “emergency” security clearances given by executive order[1] but there’s no evidence this is not within the bounds of the president’s power. An expedited clearance could have been granted in 48 hours but presumably the backlog has already lasted longer than that and would hamper plans for the first month in office.
> They did have the appropriate security clearance to access the records.
That EO says:
The White House Counsel to provide the White House Security Office and Acting Chief Security Officer with a list of personnel
Where do you see that the CSO has granted access to those specific individuals? For the record, I'm not saying they are or are not on that list, we just simply don't know. If they have not been granted security clearance then there is in fact a law that makes it illegal to access federal systems and those boys are in for some trouble.
I meant to link this tweet [1] from the former Communications Director of the Vice President and active member of DOGE, Katie Miller. There’s no evidence that the members with access had “emergency” clearance and they could very well have gone through the regular process, so I was careful not to say they were granted clearance in that way. I just wanted to mention it as something people have been grouping into this and complaining about.
> I just wanted to mention it as something people have been grouping into this and complaining about.
For sure. Fair point.
> they could very well have gone through the regular process
My understanding is that the "regular process" is pretty rigorous (background checks, calls to family members, etc). So, I would take a "former comms dir"'s tweet with a grain of salt.
It would be unfair to retroactively remove someone's citizenship for illegally overstaying their own visa... But if you're punishing the child for their parents doing it, then it's just common-sense justice! /S
He benefits from superlative play calling and a superlative supporting cast (pacheco etc) with no way to clearly establish how much that benefits his stats. Contrast him with same size Caleb Williams and it gets interesting, for example.
It's just a guess. There are 40,000,000 men worldwide in the top 1% of any metric, and I am fairly certain it's safe to assume that Mahomes can throw, lift, sprint, run long-distance, and stands tall enough to place in that top 40M every time.
I suppose some argument could be made that he's probably more in the 90s for everything rather than 99, but he's a full-time professionally trained athlete in the most dominant NFL team currently active, so I don't think calling 99% absent any formal data is too crazy.
If you asked me to bet over/under on 99th percentile for nearly all elite, world class level athletes of "normal" sports (i.e. not cornhole championships or something) I'd always take the over.
Who knows? The executive orders read like they were written by children and don't clearly define what they mean by "DEIA". But NSF's authorization is from Congress. Unless congress passes a law rescinding this as a part of what counts as broader impacts, or the Supreme Court rules that increasing participation of underrepresented groups is unconstitutional (by precedent it is certainly not!), then NSF cannot simply change the definition of broader impacts.
NSF is an independent agency, and the degree of control over it which a President can legitimately exercise is disputed, but presidents from both parties have treated the independent agencies as being subject to executive orders.
They're created by Congress but administratively part of the executive branch, as described in the first two paragraphs of the linked wiki article, and they're independent so they can be insulated from politics and regulate effectively.
I believe that Independent Agencies were created by the Progressives of the early 20th century. They were subsequently found to be constitutional, through somewhat dubious reasoning, and it seems like they’re now too big to fail.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. Exactly what I was referring to, they are extra-Constitutional at best. And now the executive is rightfully taking them back under control
I think a better approach would be to rewrite the Constitution, taking into account what has been learned over the centuries. The executive branch should become more like a bureaucracy and less like a monarchy. In particular, department heads should have a degree of independence from the President, and it should only be possible to remove them before the normal term expires by impeachment or if the President and the Senate agree.
Agree in theory that we should try to rewrite our foundational laws rather than twist or ignore them.
Disagree with your specific proposals though. I want more accountability, not less. Your proposals also rely on Congress stepping up, which it hasn't done in some time
The way I see it, the dysfunctionality of the Congress and the rule by executive orders have made the President closer to an elected king than the chief executive of a republic. The US is now closer to a monarchy than the actual monarchies in Europe.
It's one thing to have a presidential republic, because you want an independent executive branch. (Unlike in parliamentary republics, where it's subordinate to the legislative branch.) But vesting so much power in a single individual is against everything a republic stands for. It's better to have an executive branch consisting of many independent departments than everyone serving at the will of the President.
> The way I see it, the dysfunctionality of the Congress and the rule by executive orders have made the President closer to an elected king than the chief executive of a republic. The US is now closer to a monarchy than the actual monarchies in Europe.
This is not new, and not caused by “Congressional dysfunction”, it is inherent in the design of the American system. To quote an editorial in the long-defunct Knoxville Journal, published all the way back in 1896 (February 9): "Great Britain is a republic with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king"
The British historian David Cannadine argues [0] that the American Founding Fathers created an elective monarchy, instead of a republic, in part because from the other side of the Atlantic they didn’t understand that the King was already more of a figurehead than a genuine power, and that the Prime Minister and Parliament were the ones who called the shots. So they gave the President, not the very limited powers that King George III actually had in practice, nor the less limited but still quite constrained powers of the Prime Minister, but a rather large chunk of the much more expansive powers they mistakenly thought the King still had-and their “checks and balances”, despite being conceptually neater than those in the UK, in some ways turned out to be weaker. In 1776 and 1787 (writing of the US Constitution), the modern office of Prime Minister was still a relatively new development-it is generally considered to have begun with Sir Robert Walpole’s appointment as First Lord of the Treasury in 1729-prior to that, the First Lord of the Treasury was closer to a finance/economics minister than a national leader.
"independent agencies" isn't meant to be at the same level of the "Big Three", but rather agencies that are deliberately created by the Legislative branch (typically) to be as independent as the constitution allows. We don't need the president, congress, and the supreme court to vote/judge on every single decision that happens in this country. We create bodies to do that for us.
I will take the SCOTUS opinion on these laws being Constitutional over an comment on hackernews. We'll see what happens, I'm sure that Trumpy will try and get it to SCOTUS and test such institutions.
But the trail seems to go cold there. The lore seems to suggest that it originated on Reddit but it probably got lost in the purge when Reddit exiled non-official clients.
Does anyone know what kind of runes these are? I mean, I know they're norse, but are there different kinds of norse runes? I've had hard time figuring that out. Furthermore, are the runes accurate to the English translation below?
yes, the runes and the translation seem to match.
runes were not only used for norse. english also used runes before the latin alphabet arrived
reply