whoknew1122 (u/whoknew1122)

whoknew1122 commented on Open office is giving you secondhand ADHD floustate.com/blog/open-o... · Posted by u/skrid

This isn't what ADHD is, and I don't think it's helpful to promote the misuse of medical terms.

Just say "distraction."

whoknew1122 · 11 days ago

ADHD and ADD have been rolled into one diagnosis: ADHD. There's Predominately Inattentive (PI) [which you might see as ADD] and Predominately Hyperactive-Impulsive (HI).

This is my experience with ADHD - PI

whoknew1122 commented on · Posted by u/Tomte

whoknew1122 · 3 months ago

How they describe themselves, posted without comment:

"The Middle East Forum, a think tank founded in 1994 by Daniel Pipes, promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats. In the Middle East, we focus on ways to defeat radical Islam; work for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; develop strategies to contain Iran; and deal with advancing anarchy. Domestically, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, and activists; and works to improve Middle East studies."

whoknew1122 commented on Corporation for Public Broadcasting Statement Regarding Executive Order cpb.org/pressroom/Corpora... · Posted by u/coloneltcb

mathgeek · 4 months ago

> You have a President who is ordering the defunding of tons of groups (universities, media, aid, institutes) while not clearly having that authority and often doing so for what he views as ideological crimes.

It’s important to remember that while the President issues the orders, there are other actors behind the scenes writing them for him. They have goals that go beyond a single man considering ideological crimes.

whoknew1122 · 4 months ago

I'm not sure how important that is to remember. The president is issuing the orders. The president is chief executive of the country.

The president can't pawn off responsibility to some White House staffer or think tank. An executive order is the president's order.

Is it useful to look at the people who wrote or lobbied for the order? Perhaps if you want to want to understand the context of an order. But none of that context mitigates the president's responsibility for any order. At the end of the day, it is a single person exercising their sole authority to issue executive orders.

whoknew1122 commented on What's OAuth2, anyway? romaglushko.com/blog/what... · Posted by u/roma_glushko

whoknew1122 · 7 months ago

The best thing I can say about OAuth is that--as an identity dude--it keeps me gainfully employed. If only because people often implement it incorrectly.

whoknew1122 commented on Ask HN: How to sell a script that will save companies $100k a month? · Posted by u/Intriguing

_tom_ · 7 months ago

There are tons of products that do this. Are you familiar with the market you are trying to enter?

Look at what they are doing.

whoknew1122 · 7 months ago

I concur. I work in architecture for a large public cloud provider. I'd definitely double-check that something like this isn't already in the market (or open-source).

It would be interesting to see a novel script though.

whoknew1122 commented on Judge orders hearing to review Onion's purchase of Alex Jones's InfoWars theguardian.com/us-news/2... · Posted by u/SamWhited

whoknew1122 · 9 months ago

Civil asset forfeiture is when law enforcement seizes property of someone suspected of a crime.

Jones was sued and lost. Now his assets are being liquidated to pay off (a small part of) the judgment against him.

Two entirely different concepts.

whoknew1122 commented on Trump wins presidency for second time thehill.com/homenews/camp... · Posted by u/koolba

ComplexSystems · 10 months ago

The failure is in this very common exchange

Average voter: I can't afford groceries at the store. Inflation sucks.

Response: Actually, here is the correct definition of "inflation." As you can see from the correct definition, inflation rates are now good! Hopefully this helps you understand why things will never get better.

What the average voter hears: I can't afford groceries. Your solution to this problem is to reframe the current situation as "good." I still can't afford groceries.

whoknew1122 · 10 months ago

But what is the response that works?

Average: I can't afford groceries at the store. Inflation sucks.

Response: Well, inflation plays a part, but grocery stores are still recording record profits despite inflation.

Average: Are you suggesting grocery stores shouldn't make as much money as they can? Free market hater! Communist!

whoknew1122 commented on Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf] ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/deci... · Posted by u/coloneltcb

thinkingtoilet · 10 months ago

Just another way cops can be terrible at their job and get away with it. If only citizens could use the Chappelle defense, "I'm sorry officer, I didn't know I couldn't do that".

whoknew1122 · 10 months ago

Let's be clear. This guy had CSAM and was caught using digital forensics. The cops would've been able to secure the search warrant at the time had they been required to do so.

This isn't some innocent person who is spending time in prison because of a legal technicality.

whoknew1122 commented on Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf] ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/deci... · Posted by u/coloneltcb

Izkata · 10 months ago

It wasn't illegal (unconstitutional) at the time they did it, which is different from not knowing. They would have had to see the future to know.

Also keep in mind "illegal" and "unconstitutional" are different levels - "illegal" deals with specific laws, "unconstitutional" deals with violating a person's rights. Laws can be declared unconstitutional and repealed.

whoknew1122 · 10 months ago

Laws can also be unconstitutional and remain a law--the law just can't be enforced. For example, in the state of Texas sodomy is still technically illegal, just the law is unenforceable. But if the Supreme Court overrules previous court decisions and says anti-sodomy laws are constitutional, the Texas law immediately becomes enforceable again.

The law is super complicated.

whoknew1122 commented on Google’s TOS doesn’t eliminate a user’s Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf] ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/deci... · Posted by u/coloneltcb

krageon · 10 months ago

As someone not from the US the fact that "uwu we didn't know" is an adequate defense for the police to do something illegal is really weird. Is there some crucial context I'm missing?

whoknew1122 · 10 months ago

It dates back to the constitutional ban on "ex post facto" laws. Meaning, the government can't retroactively make something illegal. Which is a good thing, IMO.

So, for example, it's illegal at the federal level to manufacture machine guns (and I'm not going to get into a gun debate or nuances as to what defines a machine gun--it's just an example). But a machine gun is legal as long as it was manufactured before the ban went into place. Because the government can't say "hey, destroy that thing that was legal to manufacture, purchase, and own when it was manufactured."

This concept is extrapolated here to say "The cops didn't do anything illegal at the time. We have determined this is illegal behavior now, but we can't use that to overturn police decisions that were made when the behavior wasn't illegal. In the future, cops won't be able to do this."