A few minutes of spitballing what implementations might look like create a number of problems that appear to make the idea a nonstarter. You should have a real proposal that explores the possibility space, say what the key requirements are, and assuage (or confirm) people's objections. That way more people might be willing to engage with the idea seriously.
For that to work, a website has to push a mirror into that alternate system, and the scraper has to know the associated mirror exists.
That's two big "ifs" for something I'm not aware of a standardized way of announcing. And the entire thing crumbles as soon as someone who wants every drop of data possible says "crawl their sites anyway to make sure they didn't forget to publish anything into the 2nd system."
I've always been sus of the autopen. It's just authorized forgery.
The times I've heard about it has been the president traveling, but in the age of printers and scanners, the autopen seems strictly worse. Coming home with the original wet-ink signature a week after sending a digital copy seems preferable to the "just trust me bro" method of delegating a signature there is no legal will to legislate a real delegation process for.
Until they exercise the 25th amendment, the president can authorize things. That’s why Trump has been careful to select devout loyalists he can rely on not to question his actions.
That’s supposition on your part, and while I’m sure that the people who tell you what you believe sound confident that Biden is senile, wishing really hard isn’t a diagnosis and we have no evidence that this is contrary to his desires. Presidents are allowed to delegate, just as we’re seeing with Trump signing EOs written by a team of Heritage Foundation lawyers: nothing says he has to do more than approve of the goal.
What’s ridiculous is believing the cover story. This isn’t just some random joke about the previous guy, it’s a trial balloon to see if they can ignore the Constitution by pretending Biden didn’t really sign something. This is at the level of the “sovereign citizen” nuts who claim that they don’t need to pay child support because the courtroom had the wrong color flag, except that it’s in service of prosecuting political opponents.
This is an extremely dangerous road to go down. If you accept Trump's argument here, then Trump can overturn any law passed in the last 4 years. This would not stop with Trump - future presidents will start revoking everything that happened under their predecessors, using similarly scurrilous arguments.
> But what she discussed doesn’t feel like it’s very substantive beyond what could already be deduced or observed.
There is still value in having a primary source for it. Even if it's not news to you.
Even on HN when you see an industry open-secret discussed, you'll occasionally have one sub-thread saying "you must be a paranoid conspiracy theorist to even suggest that" while another is the "everyone be knowing that already" sub-thread.
When I visited in the 90's I remember conversations mentioning seeing the signs and trying to delay the inevitable end. Whether someone sees that as dooming or prescient is probably a matter of if they moved in before or after 2005.
