Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitution would call it mixing church and state.
But, conservative justices clearly had a bone to pick there, despite obvious conflict with the words of the constitution. For some reason.
There's a long and storied history of things being in conflict with the constitution and justices simply not caring. Slavery and Dred Scott come to mind, and although I'm sure there's plenty examples peppered in from other parts of the grand political spectrum, it's never been a well kept secret that the conservative M.O. is noticeably bolder and shameless in almost all regards, its major strength actually being in its willingness to use every tool at its disposal with minimal concern for blowback or legitimacy.
The recent state law strike down coming across as highly ironic (but probably not to conservatives since it achieves the actual goal not of ethics or consistency, but of simple victory) because so much of what conservatives got away with for decades directly defying the constitutional rights was based heavily on the concept of state's rights. Like informal slavery/servitude after the war, or keeping your elections nice and extremely predictable until that awful civil rights movement.
"Textbook" has nothing to do with this, or any of the wild departure of rulings being made in recent times. It's all very, VERY simple strategy: use what you have; dismantle what you can; build defenses where you can; you're in this for the Party.
It's interesting you say these things because it's exactly how the right views the left, and it's exactly what they say about them! Just an observation, and an interesting one.
> Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitution would call it mixing church and state.
This is not at all true. Yes, there are lots of Christians that don't support abortion. Yet, there are many Jews that do and specifically cite their religion.
While religion may influence worldview, the fundamental abortion question comes down to the fact that the Constitution does not define when a person becomes a Person. I think the recent legal ruling was proper because of the specific omission of abortion in the enumeration of federal powers.
This EPA decision, however, I think is wrong, because the major question doctrine cannot be consistently applied and is constitutionally baseless so far as I can tell.
Edit: forgot to write:
> There's a long and storied history of things being in conflict with the constitution and justices simply not caring.
I imagine everyone thinks this about some things. I agree with your assessments of bad precedents above, but conservatives aren't the only ones that do this. FDR threatened to pack the court to get his way with the New Deal and the Wager Act, which included things I believe are unconstitutional such as Social Security, Minimum Wage, Medicare, etc.
>It's interesting you say these things because it's exactly how the right views the left, and it's exactly what they say about them! Just an observation, and an interesting one.
This is not an interesting observation but a disingenuously naive hot take straight from right wing reactionaries that conveniently or ignorantly ignores reality and the history of radical theological propaganda that’s being crafted by conservative think tanks and disseminated by their media orgs in a campaign to manufacture consent and shift public opinion. This particular tactic is called projection.
>>projection:
>>Psychological projection is the process of misinterpreting what is "inside" as coming from "outside". It forms the basis of empathy by the projection of personal experiences to understand someone else's subjective world.
>I think the recent legal ruling was proper because of the specific omission of abortion in the enumeration of federal powers.
Then abortion is plainly protected by the ninth, tenth, thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. One must use their ideological or theological beliefs as renegade dogma in order to reject the protection afforded by these amendments.
You cannot realistically expect 21st century America to agree with you.
If the constitution DID oppose a minimum wage, and it doesn’t, I would say ditch the constitution. Common sense.
Thing is, all this legalese mumbo-jumbo is a racket and a scam. The constitution is written in plain English in a rather common vernacular.
So-called “conservatives” have hijacked a silly notion of knowing the original intentions of the founding fathers and delivering an unbiased truthful channeling of that into a winning strategy.
To the rest of us it’s rather obviously a scam.
>So-called “conservatives” have hijacked a silly notion of knowing the original intentions of the founding fathers and delivering an unbiased truthful channeling of that into a winning strategy. To the rest of us it’s rather obviously a scam.
These same justices will toss contradictory evidence whenever it is at odds with their goals.
> Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitution would call it mixing church and state.
I'm not sure why you would say that. The late Justice Ginsberg was a frequent critic of Roe as case law (despite being an ardent advocate of abortion) and thought the fundamental reasoning used in Roe was defective. [0] Roe was roundly criticized from jurists from both the left and the right on a number of fronts. It was bad law that ruled broadly on a highly divisive topic. Some folks strongly agreed with the outcome, so it became a third rail. Overturning precedents like Roe, while controversial, is healthy and gives us the opportunity to replace it with something on more firm legal footing.
"I think we need truly open hardware and someone with money willing to stand against "status quo" of industry, like Elon Musk did with cars."
I- huh? Open hardware? Elon Musk?
I can only find a vague legalese pledge that doesn't seem to be very attractive for real world use according to many, and I know that Tesla is starting to really enjoy being an Apple-like company with such hits like proprietary chargers.
I'm also seeing no Teslas are listed on the supported page for projects like openpilot.
What we need is general opinion to be against such closed ecosystems run by industrialists with world records for wealth concentration. Not dreams of Captain Save A Pleb.
Well, the only thing i meant is that Elon stood against industry with elecrtic car idea. If not him I think not a single major car manufacturer would go for electric by now. And to be clear - agree with everything you've said, or almost everything - not dreaming of cpt. save anyone :)
I'd feel bad if advertising law wasn't a joke, and ads weren't basically an aggressive waste of time/money as a result.
Like man, I always hear "so many people make their living on this" but uh, maybe if false advertising law is practically unenforced and most ads are practically usually lies pushed by the already established winners in their industry...
Which it certainly seems to be, then. I find it hard to feel too bad, especially when people in the advertising business are probably not going to end up street beggars if things suddenly changed.
edit: although that "makes a living" argument may go wayside a little with the inevitable AI-generated, focus-group tested future we'll be living in. Hmm.
I have set and forgotten it for a few things here and there, like making sure the photos I take on my phone are backed up and available on my laptop as soon as they're on the same network.
Unfortunately this is the confusing way of the world.
IIRC, Netflix is able to run a logo credit for themselves in Star Trek Discovery despite only having licensing rights, but it gives the impression that it's a Netflix show (that being said, their buying the rights to stream it is de facto a large swath of their production budget)
I really wish that "American Animals" had become some sort of indie darling, just so the world will remember that MoviePass co-distributed a really good film. Maybe "Gotti" will become a midnight showing cult classic.
Kind of creeps me out that Apple gets to just slide in and immediately become oscar winning film/tv production company darling, as well.
I'm sure someone at Netflix is cheesed with how quickly and easily Apple can just start drinking their milkshake, though. I remember there being a lot of pushing of ROMA and felt like it was a major nail biter for Netflix to get that to take home anything. But if we're being honest...Netflix doesn't actually try to make a lot of very good things to begin with. Though The Power of the Dog was quite notable, still a bit...sterile.
All that being said, at least HBO has another "quality, not quantity" competitor in the ring, at long last.
> Kind of creeps me out that Apple gets to just slide in and immediately become oscar winning film/tv production company darling, as well.
If you get some magical “street cred” in the industry for simply being the party to win the bidding war over a film after it was already produced, shown at a film festivals, and critically acclaimed, then yeah, that seems at least silly if not creepy. Surely there’s a big different between a company funding the creation of a film, and a company just buying the rights to stream a completed film.
Which poses another question I was wondering, if netflix had acquired this, would it have still won? They've been famously treated as a bit less "prestigious" than legacy competitors.
Or does Apple get extra goodwill from the logo almost assuredly in many of the pockets and homes of people in the industry?
Eh, no one is giving Apple credit for this win other than Apple themselves. They bought distribution rights to the film well after production was finished and it was already making waves in the festival circuit. Apple's own studio had zero creative input.
This is very important to note. Apple Studios didn't develop the movie. Apple was just good at selecting a potentially well-performing candidate for their streaming service and for winning awards at different competitions. They did heavily promote the movie though. Who knows, without Apple's support and promotion, CODA may not have gotten to this point
> Apple was just good at selecting a potentially well-performing candidate for their streaming service and for winning awards at different competitions.
I mean, there was reportedly a fierce bidding war to acquire the film, between (at least) Amazon and Apple. I don’t even think you can credit Apple for some unique insight into the potential of the film.
Amazon and Apple were the final bidders. Either they were willing to outspend the traditional studios or both somehow determined the movie would have success and help produce profits down the line more so than the traditional studios thought it could
Still, if Apple had a unique insight, it wasn’t “this movie is a strong contender for a best picture Oscar.” It was more like “it’s worth $25m to us to buy this movie,” which from my perspective remains to be shown.
Yeah, it remains to be shown. They definitely had some criteria to believe it'd be successful though. The criteria they were aiming for could have been any or all of the following: getting more Apple TV+ subscribers, sustaining existing subscribers, having that specific movie get more views, and/or building up a good library of content
Who knows, without Apple's support and promotion, CODA may not have gotten to this point
Having worked on a movie that had a (short, failed) Oscar push, you cannot underestimate who important (and expensive) promotion is to even just getting a nomination. Had CODA remained an indie darling on the festival circuit it almost certainly would not have won.
I get the feeling people here think that the Apple Film/TV crew is somehow related to the actual Cupertino company we know as "Apple". Not really. Not to pretend I'm in the know, but it's clear from every press release that Apple (and Netflix) hire creatives and production executives in LA. Apple provides the budget and some direction (like, put a sexy iphone into every episode of Ted Lasso), and then the Hollywood pros make the creative decisions that actually result in an awesome or mediocre production.
So maybe Apple is spending more money on better talent. Or maybe they're just funneling it better (big productions like Foundations instead of a bunch of cooking shows).
Or maybe they're just funneling it better (big productions like Foundations instead of a bunch of cooking shows)
Is that really funnelling it 'better' though. I bet a lot more people watched that "bunch of cooking shows" that watched Foundation. Squid Games was one of the most talked about shows on TV since Game of Thrones when it came out and had a total budget that was probably less than the catering budget for 1 season of GoT.
Netflix seems to be betting big on the fact that that 50 weird quirky 1 million dollar shows of varying quality will bring in more total viewers than a single 50 million dollar prestige show.
If you’ve watched anything on Netflix and Apple Tv recently I’m sure you’ve noticed the insane quality difference.
90% of what Netflix is producing feels like “film for tv” in the 90s at best.
Roma? The Irishman? The Two Popes? Marriage Story? Mank? Beasts of No Nation? Power of the Dog? Tick Tick Boom?
Can't really take a comment seriously that puts Apple's film output over this. Besides Coda has Apple produced or even just distributed anything of comparable quality?
Netflix's biggest problem is their extremely poor AI. They might have some excellent shows and series but if its hard to find no one ever sees it.
Instead they end up getting rated on drivel like "The Woman in the House Across the Street from the Girl in the Window" because that's what ends up getting pushed to subscribers to see.
This. I just said 90 PERCENT.
The Netflix output is gigantic, so all that AMAZING 10% drowns into a 90% that shapes the platform with cheap flix with very low production value.
It's more reflective of HN I think, it isn't a worthy HN submission - even by the loathsome fanboyism that's rampant here - and this particular post is pretty low quality.
This is exactly the Apple model. "Quality not quantity".
ATV+ doesn't have the glut of content that Netflix has, but pretty much all of their stuff is 8/10 or over on most rating sites. They might not be to your exact tastes, but they're still damn good.
When the first trailers for Foundation came out I decided to re-read the books, I liked them as a kid. So I did. I re-read all of Foundation and Robots of the Dawn.
AppleTV+'s take on Foundation is the best thing that could possibly happen to the books.
Asimov was a bad writer, and the product of his era. His ideas about Seldon crises were rather good, but everything around was just bad. People don't have dialogs, they proselytise and have monologues at each other. Women are non-existent, or serve as furniture (except maybe two characters in both series combined). There's a huge disconnect between what technology is imagined to do (FTL, detailed holographic maps of the Galaxy) and how it's used (calculations done with pen-and-paper, newspapers and communications printed out even on FTL ships). And so on.
Foundation series took the premise and ran away with it. And good for them.
The Foundation books are just people with zero personality talking about their plans in an office or a starship bridge. Usually congratulating themselves on how well their plans went.
Then we jump in time, the previous people are mostly dead and a new group of people talk in a room.
Imo, Foundation has so far been well done and produced and I enjoyed it. Their version of the books just isn't that representative of the source material it was based of off
This is nonsense. ATV is struggling to build a library worthy of a subscription.
Over the last 2-3 years, I sign up when a season of a show I hear good things about is completely out (Ted Lasso, Severance, etc) and then watch another show or movie or two for the month it takes me to finish that season.
I have never bumped into another show that made it worth renewing for a consecutive month, despite the show that I came for being totally worth the one month, and there being other shows that are strongly "related".
I will admit the production quality of the shows is very high on average, but that's not the same thing as the shows being very good.
The shows are objectively good, they are just made for very specific niches.
Take Schmigadoon! for example. It's specifically aimed at people who love musicals and can spot all of the homages in it. Without that knowledge it's just a slightly above average comedy with singing bits.
The Morning Show is about women struggling in a workplace, not exactly something that would hook a random midwest dudebro, but still a damn good show for those who it's directed towards.
In all fairness, Rocket League may be the only "free to play" game that warrants the term "amazing". I'm glad it keeps something like RL around, but let's be real: this game model tends to rake in the cash even with the most generic games.
Frankly I'm torn: people can buy digital stickerbomb skins if they want, but it's obviously a bit of a "cheat code" to a profitable game and probably takes a lot of developers/money away from more interesting parts of the industry.
It'd also be more forgivable if it didn't seem popularity creates nearly immortal games that too often become stagnant and overrun with toxic players despite still being profitable enough to "keep alive", i.e. payday 2, planetside 2
I know this article and the comments are pretty light about this, but I really do wonder what they eat and what we're eventually going to hear about being muscled out of the local ecosystems as a result of their success. At least their introduction wasn't intentional, which tbh is kind of scary in itself.
All I could find is that we know they eat brown marmorated stink bugs[0].
"Joro spiders also appear to be able to capture and feed on at least one insect that other local spiders are not: adult brown marmorated stink bugs, an invasive pest that can infest houses and damage crops."
> In June 1935, 102 cane toads were imported to Gordonvale from Hawaii
> Since their release, toads have rapidly multiplied in population and now number over 200 million (...) but also no evidence indicates that they have affected the cane beetles for which they were introduced to prey upon.
Just like the salmon brought into the Great Lakes to take on the alewives. Which were brought in to take on the zebra muscles[0]. Which came in [bilges from ships?].
I remember visiting the Lake Michigan dunes in Indiana in the 70s, only to encounter what appeared to the small me to be mountains of dead alewife. Ten years later, my grandfather took me salmon fishing there. I'd imagine that by now, the ecosystems of the Great Lakes bear little resemblance to what they contained 200 years ago. Sad in a way, but the whole of Earth seems destined to becoming a single, climate-based ecosystem. Island ecologies may survive for a few centuries, but the main continents are going to become very consistent, with all the world-champion species holding sway.
There is some good news there. From an article posted in a different comment: "Joros don’t appear to have much of an effect on local food webs or ecosystems, said Andy Davis, corresponding author of the study and a research scientist in the Odum School of Ecology. They may even serve as an additional food source for native predators like birds." [0]
Here in GA, there are already multiple types of orb weaver and these are in the same niche with one exception: they will also eat stink bugs. There are also many birds who eat the orb weavers and will also eat the Joros. They basically slide right in without too much serious impact.
But, conservative justices clearly had a bone to pick there, despite obvious conflict with the words of the constitution. For some reason.
There's a long and storied history of things being in conflict with the constitution and justices simply not caring. Slavery and Dred Scott come to mind, and although I'm sure there's plenty examples peppered in from other parts of the grand political spectrum, it's never been a well kept secret that the conservative M.O. is noticeably bolder and shameless in almost all regards, its major strength actually being in its willingness to use every tool at its disposal with minimal concern for blowback or legitimacy.
The recent state law strike down coming across as highly ironic (but probably not to conservatives since it achieves the actual goal not of ethics or consistency, but of simple victory) because so much of what conservatives got away with for decades directly defying the constitutional rights was based heavily on the concept of state's rights. Like informal slavery/servitude after the war, or keeping your elections nice and extremely predictable until that awful civil rights movement.
"Textbook" has nothing to do with this, or any of the wild departure of rulings being made in recent times. It's all very, VERY simple strategy: use what you have; dismantle what you can; build defenses where you can; you're in this for the Party.