Trump lost 41 seats in the house in his first term and the administration wasn't anywhere near as polarizing. The voting bloc for mid-terms is very different from presidential elections.
People commonly use the word "Ethernet" to mean "Ethernet cable", as in a copper cable with an RJ45 on it, not just "Ethernet protocol", which is used over both copper and fiber alike.
It's interesting how long twisted-pair cabling has stuck around, to the point that it's associated as being the physical medium for Ethernet. Ethernet started with coaxial cables, but soon lost its association with those as twisted-pair was cheaper & easier to work with. And it's stayed that way for so long that a CAT-5 cable with RJ-45 (really RJ-38 but that's excessively pedantic) connectors is an "Ethernet cable", and a perfectly usable fiber optic cable is something else!
RJ-38 is a 8P4C (eight pin, four conductor) modular connector with shorting bars used to allow an alarm system or similar to seize a phone line when plugged in but for the line to still operate normally with the plug removed.
You might be thinking of RJ-48 which is used in T1 service and thus often has "RJ45" cables plugged in to it, but technically that's 8P4C as well, also with (differently configured) shorting bars that will physically loop the T1 if disconnected.
Ethernet uses an 8P8C modular connector but it's not any of the Registered Jack standards
I've been in software for decades, and it was only right now that I realized that what I'm calling "ethernet cable" is maybe something else. Not that I understand the finer details of what you're saying.
> RJ-45 (really RJ-38 but that's excessively pedantic) connectors
If we're being overly pedantic:
- the RJ numbers refer to not just the connector but the pinout and such
- the RJ (registered jack) numbers refer to just the "jack" side, not the "plug" side
So even though an "Ethernet" cable has plugs on it that fit into an RJ38X jack, its wrong as well to call it an RJ38 plug:
- different pinout
- the plug is the mechanically the same, but pedantically it isn't correct to call any plug a registered jack, because it's a plug not a jack
- the jack is mechanically different; an RJ38X jack shorts pin 1 to pin 4 and pin 5 to pin 8 when there's not a cable plugged in to it (this makes it a "series jack" instead of a regular "jack").
Name | Mechanical jack | Mechanical plug
47 CFR part 68 (registered jacks)
RJ45S | miniature 8-position keyed jack | miniature 8-position keyed plug
RJ38X | miniature 8-position series jack | miniature 8-position plug
ANSI/TIA-568 (Ethernet)
T568A | miniature 8-position jack | miniature 8-position plug
T568B | miniature 8-position jack | miniature 8-position plug
I don't believe any registered jack uses a miniature 8-position unkeyed jack (but scanning through 150 pages is a pain and for some reason Ctrl-F isn't working reliably in this PDF).
(ANSI/TIA/IEC calls them "modular" jacks/plugs, while the FCC calls them "miniature" jacks/plugs, but same thing. Well, same thing the way that CAT-5 and CAT-5e are the same; same, but with different specified tolerances. And just saying "Ethernet" or "568" isn't specific enough here; CAT-6 requires an IEC 60603-7-4 connector, while CAT-5e only requires an IEC 60603-7-2 connector; even though most people would call those the same, they have different tolerances. I don't care to compare the FCC's 47 CFR part 68 requirements with the IEC 60603-7-{2,4} requirements.)
The nuance here, based on the EO, is rank file and employees of these agencies must now rely on the sole interpretation of the law by either the president or the AG instead of themselves. These _were_ independent agencies who handled their own interpretation of the law.
If you combine this EO with the Supreme Court immunity decision, there may very well be a situation where a rank and file employee acts illegally based on the president's interpretation of the law. This would create a situation where there is a legal challenge about whether a member of the executive branch should be granted the same immunity privileges as the president since they are an extension of the president. You can imagine where things will head if we end up on the wrong side of this decision.
> rank file and employees of these agencies must now rely on the sole interpretation of the law by either the president or the AG instead of themselves. These _were_ independent agencies who handled their own interpretation of the law
At first glance, it seems like it's a positive thing for all members of the executive branch adhere to the same interpretation of the law. It's the definition of "arbitrary and capricious" if one executive agency interprets the same law differently than another. As others have commented, the president or AG's interpretation is still open to judicial review.
Judicial review won't automatically change the president's mind. And according to this order, executive branch employees must only look at the president's decisions, not at what other branches of government say. Even if a judge issues an injunction against some decision by the president, federal employees acting on that judicial order will be fired for not performing their duty to the president.
The fact that the President was granted that immunity in the first place by a so-called "conservative" Supreme Court should make it abundantly clear that the "conservative" movement fully intends to take it as far in the wrong direction as they feel they need to. The goal? to secure absolute power and therefore a future in which the ultra-wealthy rule America with an iron fist, and dissent can be crushed easily. The techniques are all fascist, but the film Metropolis is the end game, not another Holocaust -- but if a good old genocide helps rally the voter base, then so be it.
Seems like an enormous organizational challenge to even get through the queue of other US gov agency attorneys wanting to know the presidents opinion on just how many ppm of this particulate is allowed per the statute. Such that the new status quo will be no enforcement at all. And maybe that's just fine w this administration.
> This isn't true at all.
>
> The main way the President is stopped is through the courts, which is already underway, but Trump has actually prevailed in several decisions (e.g. right to cancel government contracts, right to fire probationary employees) while blocked other (e.g. birthright citizenship).
It is absolutely true. The judiciary has no mechanism to _enforce_ laws. Enforcement belongs to the executive branch. Therefore, if the judiciary makes a decision, and the president chooses to not follow the court's order, there is little the courts can do. It can certainly threaten fines and contempt of court to executive officials and even the president, but the president has control over both the DOJ/law enforcement to carry out the ruling as well as having blanket pardon powers.
> Impeachment is a very high bar which is usually reserved for serious violations of the law or process. We aren't anywhere close to that.
The current sitting president lead an insurrection against the United States and was not convicted in Congress. We've already crossed the threshold and gone well past the point of Congress acting to hold the executive branch accountable. Now given Musk's threats of financially backing primary candidates against dissenters, there is no incentive to act.
> It is absolutely true. The judiciary has no mechanism to _enforce_ laws. Enforcement belongs to the executive branch.
A few issues with that statement.
First, law enforcement can defy the President in order to follow the law or court orders (which they are required to do).
Second, enforcement isn't always through law enforcement. If the courts decide that an agency can do X, then they can go ahead and do X. No FBI involvement needed. Same if the issue ends up being something the state execute on.
> The current sitting president lead an insurrection against the United States and was not convicted in Congress.
That's because he was never charged. Why was he never charged? It's kind of hard to claim insurrection when nobody was armed and didn't actually have the ability to commit insurrection.
A person trying to break down a door was shot and killed and that ended things pretty quickly.
He wasn’t charged because SCOTUS ruled that acts committed while president were immune from prosecution and because the senate didn’t have the guts to impeach him and by the time he won the presidency he fired those working on the case against him.
If you’re actually defending the events of Jan 6 as not an insurrection then you are part of the problem and we have nothing more to debate.
> He wasn’t charged because SCOTUS ruled that acts committed while president were immune from prosecution and because the senate didn’t have the guts to impeach him and by the time he won the presidency he fired those working on the case against him.
You're getting mixed up.
SCOTUS didn't rule on that until years after Jan 6th. And the SCOTUS ruling doesn't cover crimes committed outside the scope of the President, which an insurrection would most certainly fall under.
And "by the time he became president"? You mean "four years later". You're saying the insurrection case was so solid they couldn't bring him to trial within 4 years?
No.
The truth is that the prosecution knew they didn't have evidence to support convicting Trump of insurrection. As for impeachment, they tried and failed.
> First, law enforcement can defy the President in order to follow the law or court orders (which they are required to do).
Any law enforcement officer defying the president or attempting to enforce a court order against the executive branch can and will be removed by the president. You say "which they are required to do" but again, the executive branch is the enforcement mechanism when they don't which is at the discretion of the president.
> Second, enforcement isn't always through law enforcement. If the courts decide that an agency can do X, then they can go ahead and do X. No FBI involvement needed. Same if the issue ends up being something the state execute on.
I have no idea what this means. The courts can certainly decide whether or not the executive branch has broken the law. But again, there is no enforcement mechanism in the judiciary branch.
> That's because he was never charged. Why was he never charged? It's kind of hard to claim insurrection when nobody was armed and didn't actually have the ability to commit insurrection.
He was impeached, for a second time, in the House for "incitement of an insurrection" and acquitted in the Senate. Are you conveniently forgetting this?
Someone certainly can "Facebook clone" OpenAI. Google, Meta and Apple all are more well capitalized than OpenAI, operate at a larger scale and are actively training and publishing their own models.
It solves a class of hijacks, where an autonomous system announces a prefix it is not authorized to announce. This is typically the operator error use case or uneducated bad actor use case. What it does not cover is if an autonomous system crafts an announcement containing the valid origin autonomous system in which case you would need a mechanism to validate the entire AS_PATH itself. ROA is only concerned about the origin in the AS_PATH.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election...
Trump lost 41 seats in the house in his first term and the administration wasn't anywhere near as polarizing. The voting bloc for mid-terms is very different from presidential elections.
reply