Yeah. It's not some magic money printer. It's got use cases and it's got abuse cases.
Lots of companies finding out expensive lessons on which is which.
LLMs aren't going to replace a workforce, isn't going to maintain your entire enterprise stack, and isn't going to be able to handle the bulk of your CSR work.
But there sure are lots of people blowing millions trying to see if they can be the "one off" from everyone else who failed.
Isn't ticket voting available there? Can't Republicans just say "Republican" and boom that locks their vote for those races?
I can't feel sorry for them giving how they're just redistricting in the middle of an election year.
True. They can't. But most of these systems have high voltage AC pumping into them, so folks should be aware that it's 415/480V AC or 800V DC bus until you get to the internal bus bar.
Definitely now play thing voltages on most of the exposed wiring.
Looked it up. He does indeed have a trademark for "Change my mind".
No doubt it has already been genericized. The court ruling anything other than that would be surprising. Pretty much anything that becomes hyper memed gets this treatment.
I had just already assumed that, but good to know it's been confirmed.
And dude was properly shutdown by El-Sayed and exposed for the hypocrisy him and his group stand for.
All this will do is give Hasan exactly what he wanted. And other terror networks will absolutely use it as free advertising. "Die for a cause, be granted the riches of the afterlife, and the US Government will ensure they sear your image not only in your kin and brotherhood, but into their own minds as well."
If they do this, they will make Hasan immortal in terror networks. And what he did killing 13 service members for one jihadist, something every terror network will use to gain fresh recruits.
because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things
Everyone understands that. That's not a question.
All this will do is provide something inside these terror networks to play over and over and over to their recent converts. A public execution of these radical attacks only serves to encourage more of the exact same thing. There's no part of it that's discouraging.
These terror networks will literally play it over and over again. They will tell their people. "Hasan killed 13 of them and he is now dead and in heaven for his actions. The US will make you all martyrs and your kin will know your acts."
Like Hegseth has literally no clue who he is dealing with. The people who he acts like this will discourage, all it will do is make happier to jump at the chance to have the same thing happen to them. He's going to make the best recruitment tool for these terror organizations.
No. Additionally, Tennessee does not have firing squad as a listed method of execution.
(b) Any person who commits an offense prior to January 1, 1999, for which the person is sentenced to the punishment of death may elect to be executed by electrocution by signing a written waiver waiving the right to be executed by lethal injection.
That's her only option, outside of the savings clause in (d) which permits any other method if all other methods listed are unconstitutional.
Also for your other question, yes. Things like espionage, high treason, aid and comfort to the enemy, large scale drug trafficking, etc... But usually if it isn't because you murder someone, it has to be that you've done something really bad. Like if you gave tactical blueprints of thermonuclear devices employed by the United States to North Korea and the blueprints for the vehicle to deliver those devices, yeah, that's getting up there.
Okay. I mean the farmers might have something to say about it, but sure thing on my end. I love beef, but I ain't married to it for the fuck it all prices it's currently going for.
As you've discovered, there's another element before a court accepts a case. Standing.
To have standing, you must show that you have a personal and direct stake in the outcome. You cannot sue just because you are angry or disagree with a law. Courts only solve real, active disputes, not hypothetical questions.
Congress has to bring the suit. Courts have routinely held that in order for "Congress" to have standing in court, they must show that "Congress" has a direct stake in the outcome. To show they do so have such a stake, they routinely vote on a Resolution to establish that Congress as a body is bringing the case.
So while individual members might try to bring a case, it really depends on what's to be litigated before the court. A President not following the law usually indicates that Congress who created the law, is the one who is to bring it. But if the President does something that affects specifically a single member, then that member by themselves would have standing.
Citizens can sue if they can show they were directly harmed and have a direct stake in some resolution to the harm.
As far as, the Senate or the House, it depends on the injury being talked about. A simple resolution from a single chamber is the most common when the injury is specific to that chamber. A joint or concurrent resolution (by both chambers) usually is to address a broad power violation. It really depends and it's up to the Judge to uses what's come before as a guide.
The House usually originates the spending, and so if that's the topic, usually just the House is enough. If the President is abusing something like war powers, then that is indicated in the Constitution as "Congress" as in the entire thing. So both chambers might be needed to have standing, unless the issue at hand is that "The President has abused their war powers and not reported to the House Oversight Committee". In that case, the argument is that the President isn't reporting their abuse to a single chamber and thus only the House is required to have standing. Same if the Senate is conducting an investigation and the President refuses the subpoena. The injury is just to the Senate in that case.
It all depends on how the entire thing is brought before the court.
Article III section 2 of the US Constitution.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Congress can say the President has done something illegal. The President can say they have not done anything illegal. You now have a controversy. The Constitution indicates that the judicial power will now handled it.
To sue someone or something means in the strictest of senses, "I wish to bring this matter before a court of law." So a controversy has arisen, the courts have the right to review it. The Constitution outlines who is allowed to do what, and nobody is allowed to step out of that. So if a controversy wasn't present, the the courts would have no jurisdiction.
Congress believes there is a controversy and thus they are suing. That means they wish to bring the controversy to the thing that's indicated in the Constitution to settle such a thing.
However, you run into the very first question, "Is it a TRUE controversy? Or is it just a disagreement?" This is the no political questions doctrine. Congress and the President routinely disagree on things. The Courts aren't there to settle a disagreement. It has to be a genuine controversy. That means "The law objectively says XYZ. The President specifically did not do XYZ. Ergo, this is not a disagreement but a President who is not following the letter of the law which is a controversy."
So like anything Congress brings up, the President is allowed to say it's not a controversy. What the ruling on that question, the President or Congress can appeal it. If the appeal isn't good enough, the Supreme Court gets to make a final ruling. Once a controversy has been established, THEN, there's the actual case. The the final decision of the case can be appealed and then brought before the Supreme Court.
Rarely do we actually get that far with things because you can't get all that stuff done within a single President's term. And the real reason a Controversy is attempted is to get discovery and things the President has been doing on the public record. Depends on what Congress is looking for. Perhaps they want to ensure Musk stays out of politics forever, a deep and heavy discovery process into him may just do that.
But Congress can bring a suit to the Courts so long as it's within the powers of the Constitution for Congress to do so.
