Bills have gotten introduced to keep it at 9, but are generally shot down by democrats. Most recent one (I think, this isn't the easiest to research) is here. See all the sponsors are Rs[1]
Part of the problem is it requires an amendment so you need a super majority.
Imo democrats are waiting until they have enough of a majority to tank the reputation hit court packing would bring, but then lock it to 15 after they do so.
No, that's what case law is for. Modelling the zillion little details. One party claims something breaks a law another claims it doesn't, and then we decide which is true. The only alternative is an infinitely detailed law.
Case law, also known as common law, is a British legal tradition. Most of the EU does not follow the common law tradition. There may be supreme courts, but the notion of binding precedent, or stare decisis as in the US legal system does not exist. Appeal and Supreme court decisions may be referenced in future cases, but don't establish precedent.
The equivalent doctrine under a civil legal system (most of mainland Europe) is jurisprudence constante, in which "if a court has adjudicated a consistent line of cases that arrive at the same holdings using sound reasoning, then the previous decisions are highly persuasive but not controlling on issues of law" (from above Wikipedia link). See:
Interestingly, neither the principle of Judicial Review (in which laws may be voided by US courts) or stare decisis are grounded in either the US Constitution or specific legislation. The first emerged from Marbury v. Madison (1803), heard by the US Supreme Court (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison>), and the second is simply grounded in legal tradition, though dating to the British legal system. Both could be voided, possibly through legislation, definitely by Constitutional amendment. Or through further legal decisions by the courts themselves.
Yeah I'm really glad we don't have common law where I live. It makes the law way too complicated by having all these precedents play a role. If the law is not specific enough we just fix it.
Also it breaks the trias politica in my opinion. Case in point: the way the Supreme Court plays politics in the US. It shouldn't really matter what judge you pick, their job is to apply the law. But it matters one hell of a lot in the US and they've basically become legislators.
>Case in point: the way the Supreme Court plays politics in the US.
Ah yes, since controversy over how judges decide only exists in the US.
In any case, you're confusing cause and effect.
The US system of having legislators approve/reject nominated judges is not the norm elsewhere. The only restrictions on choices for the Canadian Supreme Court are a) being a member of the bar for 10 years, and b) having three judges being from Quebec; otherwise, whoever the PM chooses becomes one of the nine sitting judges on the court. End of story.
If the Canadian Parliament had to give an up/down vote for a nominee, there would absolutely be far more attention paid to each nominee's opinions and qualifications ... and far more attention paid to that nominee's subsequent decisions.
> Ah yes, since controversy over how judges decide only exists in the US.
Well, pretty much, yes. I've not lived in a country where judges really differ that much. And usually we don't even know their political affiliation. Because it really doesn't matter. This goes even for our supreme court (we call it the high council). Which isn't really that important to our daily lives anyway. They are just a last resort when people can't stop appealing.
In Holland they also don't rule on big things like this. They're not allowed to play politics. Just to apply the law in specific cases only. Something like the supreme court deciding to overturn abortion legalisation is really unthinkable. Besides, if they rule on one case it has zero effect on anyone else, because we don't have precedent-based common law. This is exactly the kind of issue I have with common law.
> The US system of having legislators approve/reject nominated judges is not the norm elsewhere. The only restrictions on choices for the Canadian Supreme Court are a) being a member of the bar for 10 years, and b) having three judges being from Quebec; otherwise, whoever the PM chooses becomes one of the nine sitting judges on the court. End of story.
Isn't that a similar process to the US? Basically the currently ruling party gets to pick the supreme court judges. There's congress validation but they rarely would take the pick of the non-majority party.
Though in our case we don't really have a 'ruling party'. We have many parties and one is never enough to gain a majority so there's always a complicated coalition. It is a bit of a stumbling block forming a government but I abhor the first-past-the-post system like in the US because it makes politics a zero-sum game: A loss for one party is a win for the other. That stimulates dirty politics, smearing, and of course there's the risk of a bunch of nutcases coming to power and nothing being able to be done about that. Most of our governments collapse before their 4 years are up and in most cases this was not a bad thing (especially our last one that was full of populists, they were definitely a ton of nutcases and they didn't manage to stick it out a year before they collapsed in infighting lol).
>Isn't that a similar process to the US? Basically the currently ruling party gets to pick the supreme court judges.
The US Senate must approve all federal judges (among many federal posts, including the cabinet). If the president's party does not have a majority in the Senate, that means the president must nominate someone that at least some Senators from another party will vote for.
In Canada, UK, etc., whoever the PM says will be a judge becomes a judge; Parliament has absolutely no control over the process.
>Something like the supreme court deciding to overturn abortion legalisation is really unthinkable.
You seem to think—likely based on Reddit and Dutch reporters that just copy whatever the New York Times and Washington Post say—that abortion is "illegal in the US". The Dobbs decision in 2022 reversed the Supreme Court's own 1973 decision in Roe that abruptly voided all state laws banning abortion of any kind. In Dobbs, the court ruled that it had exceeded its remit, and returned the ability to legislate on abortion to the individual states.
I think blanket tariffs are dumb don't get me wrong.
But tariffs have been used in the car industry for decades. If you got rid of them completely within 5 years the American car companies would be closing plants.
The whole reason Japanese auto manufacturers build plants in the US was to avoid tariffs. Shipping costs are actually incredibly minimal for a vehicle.
So in my opinion, we've seen where they can work. If you value American jobs anyways. It does get hard to math out when you have to weigh the money the average consumer would save over the 10 million auto jobs in the US.
What if, instead of all of us paying in order to have a car industry, we take that tax money and pay to an ecological restoration industry or functioning healthcare industry or whatever. Have you seen the map of superfund sites? Statistically speaking, you are almost certainly living within 10 miles of a superfund
Japan, India, Germany, Mexico, etc all have massive auto manufacturing industries. If we're at war with all of those countries at the same time then maybe we deserve what's coming
China only became an auto industry power house in the 00s.
I wonder if the argument turns on Michigan being a helpful state in presidential elections - many other parts of the Midwest have lost their former industry and fallen on hard times.
That sounds to me like spending money to fix broken windows, rather than building our own windows (and not buying the old windows that were always breaking)
> It does get hard to math out when you have to weigh the money the average consumer would save over the 10 million auto jobs in the US.
Not that hard to math out, the deadweight loss of tariffs is always non-zero. IIRC there was a pretty good paper that mathed out the impact of Obamas tire tariffs and concluded that it cost the economy significantly more jobs than it saved.
That's pretty much impossible. If it costs a company 1% less to make a widget that takes 1000 hours of labor to make it overseas instead, the company is incentivized to move overseas.
The thousand of hours labor, the material to source the widget, the real estate for the factory, the transportation now all occurs overseas.
At the very least, you can't spew something like that then not even bother to link a source.
The problem is that it's all connected. Sure, the widget company may have local jobs saved, but what about the downstream companies that buy the widget to make something else? They can't hire as much because they are paying the higher price. Look at the steel tariffs. Sure they saved some steel jobs, but were a much larger net loss for jobs impacted by the higher prices.
Don't American cars have some of the lowest levels of reliability?
I'm not super educated on all the happenings in the car industry globally, but I've seen a few videos of Chinese EVs that put anything Ford, GM or other US brands have put out to absolute shame.
The purpose of the US auto industry is primarily a jobs program and secondarily a way to ensure the existence of supply chains for national security. The fact that it produces cars is tertiary at best and explains the quality of vehicles it produces.
I think American car companies are orthogonal to the question. The larger point is that _Japanese and German_ cars for the American market are largely themselves American by many important metrics.
Protectionism in the auto industry led to american auto makers being the laughing stock of the world. Acting like it is a good thing is absolutely insane
> I think blanket tariffs are dumb don't get me wrong.
Then add a conjunction and use a single example to just make a point opposite to what you started with.
> So in my opinion, we've seen where they can work.
I can't help but think that you don't believe blanket tariffs are dumb because it worked for one industry and helps American jobs. Just start with that please.
I mean no shit though? People calmly said this in Trump's first term where he (unsuccessfully) first tried to go tariff crazy. What does it add though? Nobody is freaking out saying "all tariffs are bad", they're saying "blanket tariffs for no/the stupidest reasons possible are bad".
The problem with these is always who pays for fraud.
With credit cards, they actually claw that money back from the merchant, and then if the merchant can't pay they just eat it themselves.
So the merchant has to work in fraud rates into their pricing, and the credit card company has to work in fraud rates that the merchant can't cover into their rates.
It always seemed toxic it to me that the merchants are the one's responsible, despite the fact that they easily have the least power to do anything about it. But the ease of payment processing, and the number of people who just won't buy it if they can't use a card, outweighs dealing with fraud I guess.
In theory merchants can notice some fraud signs so shifting fraud losses onto them gives an incentive to take action on those signs. In practice banks have a better overall view of fraud and this is just externalizing bank fraud losses onto stores.
India’s UPI is national service so fraud is “relatively easy” to combat but it depends on banks’ responsiveness.
However, i heard from my Indian friends is that UPI fraud is on the raise and becoming a big challenge.
Edit: UPI fraud rate is similar to CC fraud rate but only about ~6 % of the money lost to UPI fraud has been recovered. If this trend continues (fraud pct continues to grow and recovery rate does not improve) UPI system might get into trouble.
Btw, the stats say that the UPI fraud rate is doubling every year for past few years.
I do think it's addictive, but also the very idea of media in general is to keep you around. Television channels try to display content their viewers enjoy, but they can only target broadly. The web allows sites to have way more personal recommendations, but banning it is essentially banning sites because people enjoy it too much.
I think short form content especially is basically brain rot, but I also don't know how you ban something simply because it's too good at providing content people enjoy. The result would just be a worse experience across the board, is that a win?
I guess a forced 5s video saying take a break after 20 minutes of doom scrolling wouldn't be the end of the world, but truely making it illegal doesn't make sense.
Reddit once told me to take a break (i was on the sick for a foot injury).
So I did.
I now check in once a week, for one hour, max.
Ahhh, creatures of habit, that we are.
How did you find factories, and trustworthy ones at that, at all? I know you mentioned just being happy that the factory existed at all, but I'm doubting you just found someones email and then wired them cash?
Previous experience? Or you know someone? To me that always seems like 90% of the battle with manufacturing.
I stopped reading when I realized it wasn't a deep dive into the most interesting question I had, which is the technical hardware design process and finding a factory to actually take your design and manufacture it.
I was surprised hitting one of these limits once, but it wasn't as if they were 100% out of servers, just had to pick a different node type. I don't think they would ever post their numbers, but some of the more exotic types definitely have less in the pool.
If you work at AWS in a technical role you can check the capacity of each pool in each AZ using an internal tool. Previously the main reason for pool exhaustion was automated jobs at the start of each working day as well as instance slotting issues (releasing a 4xl but only re-allocating a l means you now cannot slot another 4xl).
Yea I had to Google their total headcount when I saw the headline since the number does sound high, but in reality is only 5%.
When you factor in low performers and how most people here would view middle management in any other topic thread, it's not that insane. If in a pool of 20 workers around you, you can't find 1 worker you don't think is a step below the others, your hiring pipeline is better than most.
This is the flight where one pilot tried to pull up to recover from the stall, and the warning for dual input (which Airbus just averages together) was snoozed by the system yelling about the other errors and was reduced to a light they didn't notice. The captain commented towards the end"no don't climb". The stall alarm was the one the system chose to display over all others and was mishandled (by the pilot who didn't know how to recover from a stall).
Boeing there's physical feed back, when one control moves so does the other.
This was not the first time pilots were having conflicting input without noticing.
IMO that’s the wrong take about that crash. The stall warning stopped once the attitude was above a certain amount, which was an insane decision on airbus’s part.
You can see in the CVR that the stall indicator stopped many times despite them being in a stall the entire time. The pilot (like every other pilot) knew how to recover from a stall on paper. But he had the plane telling him his airspeed was good (frozen tube) and that bringing the pitch down was causing a stall.
The stall voice alarm sounded 75 times, during this time the stick Shaker also was triggering (if both pilots had let go, or just the one who was ignoring the stall warning, the plane rights itself).
It's in the last column in the transcript I linked.
Imo the whole average input issue would have been it's own Boeing MCAS level issue if it happened a decade later, that's more of the root here imo, since one pilot making a mistake is hardly unheard of.
It doesn’t matter how many times it sounded. It matters that it stopped while still in a stall and began again during the process of recovering the stall.
When you’re panicking and the airplane is telling you what you’re doing is starting to cause a stall again, you tend to listen.
Part of the problem is it requires an amendment so you need a super majority.
Imo democrats are waiting until they have enough of a majority to tank the reputation hit court packing would bring, but then lock it to 15 after they do so.
[1] https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley...
reply