bumby

53 ms·

871.
by bumby 2y ago
How different is this when the "marbles" are compressible?
872.
by bumby 2y ago
This doesn't really explain why those velocity variations occur in the first place, or am I missing something? It sounds like "We observe velocity variations on the wing and these correspond to pressure variations that create lift
873.
by bumby 2y ago
The court previously provided those guardrails. With Chevron deference, the agencies could clear up ambiguities, but the court could reel them back if they were found to be unreasonable. Now, there is no check-and-balance; the entire power
874.
by bumby 2y ago
I misinterpreted your saying Congress uses specific verbiage to mean that wording is sufficient to avoid ambiguity. You keep repeating the same thing but not really addressing the core point. I fully acknowledge the difference in opinion he
875.
by bumby 2y ago
My understanding is that it wasn’t power-to-drag but power -to-weight. Although the Wright brothers deservedly get a lot of credit, I think they made progress once they enlisted the help of Curtis due to his knowledge of lightweight interna
876.
by bumby 2y ago
> I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion at all, though I would argue that is the central claim. Something can be law and ambiguous. The role of the court previously was to ensure the first part: that the law is Cons
877.
by bumby 2y ago
If you’re claiming the courts have more non-law domain expertise than agencies, you’ll need some evidence of that for this point to land. If you look to Chevron for a concrete example, the issue was about the ambiguity of the scope of a “so
878.
by bumby 2y ago
> So are regulators, politicians and especially journalists Yes. The important distinction that I drew was that the power is now vested in a very small group of nine people. IMO that measures it much easier for biases to continue unabat
879.
by bumby 2y ago
I’m not misunderstanding then. Chevron still deferred interpreting ambiguity to the agency, but the courts could still check that based on a reasonableness standard. Now the court gets both aspects. Our difference is that I think that is a
880.
by bumby 2y ago
I don’t know that I agree. It’s exactly the understanding I was given from an engineering law course, for example. Prior to this ruling, the regulatory agencies were given latitude to interpret ambiguous law as long as they were determined
881.
by bumby 2y ago
How does this ruling fix that issue when the court admits it’s impossible to avoid ambiguous laws? Now it’s just unelected justices deciding instead of unelected agency bureaucrats. I think there’s an argument that could be worse, given the
882.
by bumby 2y ago
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but what you’re describing sounds like what I thought the case was before this ruling. The courts were deciding on the reasonableness of the agency interpretation. Now it sounds like the court is interpreting dir
883.
by bumby 2y ago
It becomes a somewhat circular argument. Through their ruling of Marbury v. Madison , the court declared the Constitution as law. Article 3 of the Constitution gives the court judicial power to interpret law. Therefore, by their own ruling
884.
by bumby 2y ago
> Because ambiguous rules would have to be decided on anyway I think the implication by the OP was that they would now have to be decide by the court instead of by the executive branch agencies . Previously, those agency decisions co
885.
by bumby 2y ago
> i think the purpose of the us supreme court is to determine if a law is constitutional or not. Interestingly, the ability to declare a law un/constitutional is not an enumerated power given to the court by the Constitution. The S
886.
by bumby 2y ago
> The only matter being decided on is who gets to resolve ambiguities - is it the agencies or is it the courts. I think we are agreeing here. I think the distinction is that I'm claiming the courts would need (yet don't have)
887.
by bumby 2y ago
I don't disagree with any of this. That's the main reason why I said I think we'll have to wait and see if this ultimately leads to better outcomes. However, I think it's been shown that the very human idea of "fair
888.
by bumby 2y ago
It reads like it creates a deliberate impasse. The opinion states that ambiguities in law no longer implicitly give agencies discretion. That means Congress has to write unambiguous laws. But my original post acknowledges they cannot. Based
889.
by bumby 2y ago
This feels like one of those topics that may sound ok in theory, but breaks down in practice. The implication is that the judges must be well-versed enough in any domain brought before them to interpret the laws effectively. This seems like
890.
by bumby 2y ago
At least initially, I'm glad to see this verdict if it means such behavior can't hide behind the corporate veil. However, it's important to acknowledge it's not necessarily a win-win-win. By reading Justice Kavanaugh&#x2
891.
by bumby 2y ago
I’m not saying that’s wrong, and that discussion happens elsewhere too. My main issue (also brought up by other commenters) is that this strategy can only work when there are relative disparities in wealth. When you say "expansion in p
892.
by bumby 2y ago
You may be right and I may be guilty of hindsight bias, but I would probably put this in the realm of BS. It’s not like opioids were unknown to cause addiction, and when physicians witness the company continuing to up the dosage and wordsmi
893.
by bumby 2y ago
Some local municipalities are moving to ranked choice (I live in one, and I think it's a better system, too). Despite what many people intuitively think, there is no right to vote for the president guaranteed by the Constituion. There&
894.
by bumby 2y ago
You're right, that's a better example. But wouldn't you expect the mechanic to have a more discerning eye in that case as well? The more contextual knowledge you have, the better you should be able to tell legitimate claims f
895.
by bumby 2y ago
> Carmel borrowed money to buy amenities that attract a higher socioeconomic class of people. Yes, that's what I was saying. I took your previous statement "Expecting a city or state to go bankrupt trying to solve a national p
896.
by bumby 2y ago
I read the OP as "professionals should be less easily manipulated than the general public because of their background knowledge on the subject". Consider whether most would think a mechanic is more or less easily manipulated into
897.
by bumby 2y ago
Except I don't think we can consider the city's debt load to be related to trying to solve the poverty problem at all. It seems quite the opposite based on the discussion in this thread. I haven't read anything about any of t
898.
by bumby 2y ago
> Is 132K USD middle class? From what I could find online, it's at about the 77th percentile for the U.S., so bordering on upper class (usually defined as the top quintile). Since the median household income for Indiana is slightly
899.
by bumby 2y ago
> long-term economic growth is positive Searching "infinite growth model" can help understand some of the problems with that assumption.
900.
by bumby 2y ago
What you seem to be advocating is treating the symptom rather than the root problem. It can feel myopically effective, but it isn't great governance. I think there is also a case that segregating populations on socio-economic lines cre

More ›