The technical angle which is most of interest to me are building systems which preserve evidence. For example, how do you build a cloud sync service which prevents someone other than the owner of the phone from deleting videos without the owner’s consent (or in ways which allow them to regain access after being released) while still allowing people to delete things they might not want a hostile government to see. There are no silver bullets here but some really interesting trade offs.
None of that is present in the article, however, which essentially consists of a restatement of the headline. This post is essentially engagement bait.
This prevents them from pleading ignorance or incompetence. There’s no way to say you didn’t know that you needed to keep records when a federal judge very specifically ordered you to do so.
That’s quite the national question more broadly but I look at it this way: if the administration and the Roberts court go all-in on a coup, there’s not going to be accountability without a lot of pain. In that scenario, this doesn’t matter except as evidence for some future tribunal.
However, these guys aren’t Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, etc. on their rise to power. The guy at the top is starting as a struggling octogenarian who even in his prime had an entire professional career based not on hard work but tax evasion and barratry. Most of his top delegates were selected for their social media profiles, not competency, and even within the right a lot of people disliked them personally even if they’re willing to overlook that for power. His supporters are quite loyal but are also being hit by a lot of his policies in ways which are hard to ignore.
That makes me think there are a range of scenarios where this does matter, as we can see right now. Cops tend to support Republicans but a number of them are stepping up to say this is outside of their professional standards. A lot of “law and order” suburban voters are seeing these videos not just as something they don’t approve of–especially the “he had a legal gun so we had to execute him” defense–but also recognizing that the administration completely lied about that and we know only because of the kind of evidence at risk here.
The Roberts court has taken significant moves to empower Trump, but it seems like they’re hedging their bets in key areas: note how the shield against prosecution was conditional leaving them an easy way to find the opposite in any future case, and how much of their support has been shadow docket moves designed to delay without setting a permanent precedent. I think they’re recognizing the fragility of the current administration and leaving a backup plan for the autogolpe failing.
Things like this force the administration’s supporters to be more open about what they’re doing, in ways which risk losing their less die-hard supporters. Blowing off a court order forces SCOTUS to either rule against the administration or go on the record inventing a new way the executive branch is above the law. I think they know that’s risky at a time when a majority of the country is starting to realize exactly what’s at stake.
Does it actually prevent them from pleading those? As far as I'm aware they're still able to make those pleass, albeit it's likely to be in contempt or is considered willfull blindness. I don't think a court order can actually prevent someone from pleading a certain way, but please let us know otherwise.
I'm still so confused how the issue became "her emails" when they were basically turned over, dealt with. Where-as oops, the Bush White House "lost" literally millions of emails & allowed people to delete whatever they wanted. This is the sort of hiding in the shadows evil shit that I wish Obama had tried to bring to light, tried to prosecute some people for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...
Marimar Martinez is trying to make public the records of what ICE did after they tried to kill her & accused her of being a terrorist. That would be interesting to see. Liars liars everywhere, no respect for society. https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2026/01/26/marimar-...
It does. The judiciary has given the Executive a command that it is now part of Trump's "official duties" to ensure gets carried out. Failure to comply with that order may ultimately turn into a subordinate dismissal; but it will also be yet another time the executive failed to execute a lawful order from the judiciary.
This is all assuming Robert's plan was ultimately to give this admin enough rope to hang themselves with; and holding onto the "official duties" definition hitherto deliberately left undefined to act as the trap spring.
I wouldn't put money on that though. This SCOTUS other decisions have me thinking their a little more cushy with the Cheeto than not.
There’s a lot more nuance than might be obvious at first thought. For example, many of the people being violently deported now came here legally, followed the rules, and are now being targeted because their protected status or asylum cases were cancelled under highly suspicious circumstances, with a lot of the rush being to get them out of the country before the shady revocations are reviewed.
We also have a lot of inconsistent enforcement because some employers love having workers who can be mistreated under the threat of calling ICE. If we really wanted to lower immigration, we’d require companies to verify status for everyone they hire. You can see how this works in Texas where they’ve had a ton of bills requiring that get killed by Republican leadership on behalf of major donors:
The emergency docket is a preferred method for blatant partisanship because it lets them immediately prevent lower courts from stopping the administration but doesn’t require them to set a binding precedent or even explain the ruling. If it looks like they might be losing power, suddenly those “emergency” decisions which were subsequently back-burnered can be dropped to prevent a Democrat from using the same powers.
It all comes back to women being treated as full people. Having a child is dangerous, expensive, and a major time commitment which mean that women who have other options are going to have fewer children later in life when they have the resources to support them. We also have much less demand for unskilled workers so even women who really want children are getting educated and establishing careers first rather than getting married at 18.
That leaves really only two choices: pull a Ceaușescu and try to remove the choice, or improve all of the things which make people feel now is not the right time to have kids. Since the former choice is both immoral and self-defeating, that really flips the discussion to why the people who claim to want more children oppose universal healthcare, childcare, making housing more affordable, banning negative career impacts for mothers, addressing climate change, etc. There are many things which factor into an expensive multi-decade bet and you have to improve all of them to substantially shift the outcome.
> It all comes back to women being treated as full people.
What does this actually mean? Do you mean "get a job instead of having kids?" Working to afford life instead of having kids seem much less humanising, if anything. Being a wife and mum is being a full person, and the main thing that's bad about it is if you are a full-time mum your spouse has to work incredibly hard to compete on the housing ladder against all the two-income families bidding against them.
I meant that they get to choose whether and when they have children, and can have full careers. Think about it in terms of opportunity cost: much over a century ago, women were expected to marry and be wives with a handful of exceptions like religious service. They did not have many opportunities for education and there were limited opportunities for independent employment with entire professions off-limits. When those were your choices, even women who didn’t really want kids that much went down that path because only a few people had the drive and social clout not to, and without modern birth control that almost inevitably lead to more kids (necessary, because mortality was shockingly high in pre-vaccine times).
Now, however, there are tons of other opportunities available. Instead of kids just happening, couples can plan them and are making decisions about their finances and other life impacts such as the case you mentioned where people might realize that they can’t afford a larger home. Prospective mothers, even if they really want kids, are also being told advanced education is key or that mothers tend to have lower lifetime earnings even adjusted for field, so the questions aren’t just “can we feed them?” but “would I avoid future layoffs if I finish a masters degree before becoming a parent?”
I think that’s great, everyone should control their life trajectory, but it means that to the extent we want to reverse the trend we need to be lowering the costs so people aren’t looking at trade offs like permanently lowering their career trajectory or locking themselves into a limited, highly-competitive corner of the housing market.
I realize a conspiracy narrative gets more clicks but … you know Apple started the development of USB-C and shipped some of the first devices in 2015, right? People whined about the MacBooks requiring new hubs, etc. for a couple of years and got over it. The same thing happened with the iPad in 2018, AirPods, etc.
When they introduced Lightning in 2012, they made a commitment to all of the third-party hardware developers that iPhones would support it for a decade. I’m sure the EU pressure helped but USB-C iPhones shipping in 2023 is right on that original timing.
But why would Apple, the company that famously hates backwards compatibility, make things easier for third-party accessory manufacturers, instead of making things easier for users bought into the ecosystem who had USB-C on their iPads and Macs?
Sure, I’m not saying they’re altruists. I just think the most likely explanation is that they promised compatibility under the “Made For iPhone” program and kept that promise because they’ve been in business long enough to know that screwing people who supported your last product is a great way to ensure they don’t support your next one.
I’m not: each thing I wrote is common knowledge—read the Wikipedia pages for the Lightning and USB-C pages if you don’t believe me—and it’s a little silly to spin this as something other than large companies not making massive supply chain changes quickly. I’m glad USB-C has won but you don’t change things deployed in the hundreds of millions in a year–I saw an original iPhone connector in the wild as recently as last year!
Truth is, apple didn't want to migrate their phones due to some internal decision not relevant for us, and the fact some other devices were on it doesn't change this. Users comfort was never part of the equation, its politics, sales projection, stabs at competition and similar.
Truth is, apple fought EU hard, we saw it from inside quite well. Backstabs, some cheap tricks trying to delay and evade this, even when it was clear how things will be. Not their best days to be polite.
Why giving some heartless mega corporation free moral credits if they are not well deserved?
There are some proprietary Chrome APIs but if you’re not using those it’s been pretty rare to have major problems in recent years. I open a couple of bug reports a year against Chrome, Firefox, and Safari—mostly accessibility related—but most of the time it’s been a problem with code written specifically against Chrome rather than code which couldn’t work in the other browsers.
Think about why the administration and its backers lie so frequently: they know they’re lying, and they know that evidence will come out showing that they’re lying, but they’re gambling on a lot of people being busy and not following the story closely enough to realize how misleading the initial claims were.
They do that because their policies are unpopular and they would lose power if most people voted. That’s why these videos matter: it’s probably not going to convince the MAGA diehards to recant but they’re shocking enough that anyone more patriotic than that might realize that this is far more than normal politics.
Trump-voting but not dedicated-to-evil relatives I know (I have others who are dedicated to evil, they're beyond hope—incidentally, this is a whole thing in Republican circles, folks who haven't been around actual red-state Republicans since the '90s or so have no idea how common some really shocking views about the validity of state violence on people who annoy or politically oppose them are, they outright like this stuff and there are minimum 50 million people like that in this country) are mostly doing the "well both sides say different things and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle" thing about all of this stuff, and refusing to watch the videos that would quickly show them that no, only one side is saying anything at all connected to the truth.
The validity of state violence in the minds of a lot of rural people went through a phase change after Covid.
The folks I know who were previously sympathetic the constraints on government overreach watched state and federal governments impose policies that made no sense for their communities and were actively detrimental to their livelihoods and enforce those policies with fines and even jail time in some instances.
These people would have been against the tactics ICE is using in 2019. Today they’re ambivalent. The attitude is “what comes around goes around.”
If it's helpful the BBC have an edited video that shows the time around the shooting without the actual shooting. It makes it pretty clear that the official narrative is bullshit without having to watch someone get killed.
Yeah, I know a few people like that too. In a way it’s good that the administration went with the bold “he had a gun so we were justified in executing him” claim because that went so hard against decades of 2A claims that it got people to actually do more than skim the headline.
People are not busy; they're willfully blind to the truth. These people hang out on Facebook which will never surface the truth to them, only misinformation.
Some people are willfully blind but there are a ton of people who are comfortable enough that they can just tune out. This kind of extreme stuff, things like the tariffs, etc. are getting through to them but it has to get shockingly bad for things to penetrate.
reply